art and money
bobig
rather about its price?
what is most important?
does the price made the work of art or work of art made the price?
as an artist I made my choice.my art is free. I do not sell I give...
--
BOBIG
"l'art C n'importe quoi et C tant mieux"
Etienne CHOUBARD 1984
http://perso.infonie.fr/bobig/
oeuvres en ligne
bobig's webzone 1 "faîtes un collage de bobig sur votre moniteur"
http://perso.infonie.fr/bobig/webzone1.htm
bobig's webzone 2 'tuez l'art / kill art"
http://perso.infonie.fr/bobig/webzone2.htm
John Haber
>work of art but rather about its price?
>what is most important?
>does the price made the work of art or work of art made the price?
>as an artist I made my choice.my art is free. I do not sell I give...
Whenever I hear about the anonymous "people," I cringe. Straw men are
waving again. No one's quoted a price to date in this news group, if
I recollect right. Mostly, they're defending art they like -- or
criticizing others for talking too much and too obscurely about art
they don't like.
By those standards, no doubt they'd LOVE to hear it reduced to dollars
or the euro. At least we all understand those. <Yes, that's just a
joke. Of course, they wouldn't>
I really and truly respect your caring enough for your art,
paradoxically, to want to share it with anyone who loves it. Yet I'd
never condemn an artist who charges for the work. In fact, bloody
good for them, in spades. It means they value their work, too, and
the alternative is to give up the hope of making art full time.
Besides, it doesn't seem logically germane to your concern of a
shallow public response to art, money, and celebrity. If putting a
price on art somehow dictated that that's all that's important to the
work, then making it free would logically make it worthless. Your
idealism runs the risk of being trapped in what you fear.
John
bobig
when an artist sells his art ,i think he must catch the fancy of his public
to be able to live.
I do not want to depend on my art... if it's a trap i think it's a nice
trap..
if you want a bobig's work (print, painting, video..etc..) send me your real
address on earth and i'll send you the work for nothing
Amicalement BOBIG
John Haber <jh...@columbia.edu> a écrit dans le message :
37373a13...@news.cc.columbia.edu...
Kay Kane
>I like the idea of an art without value
>when an artist sells his art ,i think he must catch the fancy of his
public
>to be able to live.
>I do not want to depend on my art... if it's a trap i think it's a nice
>trap..
>
>if you want a bobig's work (print, painting, video..etc..) send me your
real
>address on earth and i'll send you the work for nothing
>
>Amicalement BOBIG
You mean we have Earthlings on this newsgroup???
Kay
To reach me remove 'rcd' from my e-mail address
Brother Alphabet
On Mon, 10 May 1999, bobig wrote:
> do you have you noticed that people do not speak about work of art but
> rather about its price?
I only speak of a work's price if it is way out of proportion to the
quality of the work.
> what is most important?
Quality of the work.
> does the price made the work of art or work of art made the price?
Im my little reality, two things should influence the price of a work:
Quality of the work, name of the artist.
> as an artist I made my choice.my art is free. I do not sell I give...
It's a bad trend to start. If you are independently wealthy, you are
blessed. You should still sell your work though. If you dont want the
money, donate it all to a charitable institution. People already don't
think art is worth money...We should all refuse to give work away for
free. Of course, that's just my opinion. I don't even give work away to
family.
Hutto.
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Visit Brother Alphabet's Evergrowing List of Bad Ads
w w w . b a d - a d s - l i s t . c o m
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
May Flowers
says...
>You mean we have Earthlings on this newsgroup???
Mostly with their heads in the clouds!!!
John Haber
it convenient for you to show your work through a Web site of yours?
I'd love to see it.
You're too nice to us.
John
bobig
Brother Alphabet <ja...@isis.msstate.edu> a écrit dans le message :
Pine.SOL.4.10.99051...@ra.msstate.edu...
>
> On Mon, 10 May 1999, bobig wrote:
>
> > do you have you noticed that people do not speak about work of art but
> > rather about its price?
>
> I only speak of a work's price if it is way out of proportion to the
> quality of the work.
i saw the sale by auction of cezanne's painting. medias (radio, television)
talk about the price not the painting...
>
> > what is most important?
>
> Quality of the work.
not only before the work ,there is the idea of the work.
personnally, i think the idea is most important than the result.
i love the idea of an artist without works.
the best artist could be an artist without works
>
> > does the price made the work of art or work of art made the price?
>
> Im my little reality, two things should influence the price of a work:
> Quality of the work, name of the artist.
i think the first thing is the recognition by the art system (galleries,
critics) after the artist become fashionable...and after the price
increase...
>
> > as an artist I made my choice.my art is free. I do not sell I give...
>
> It's a bad trend to start. If you are independently wealthy, you are
> blessed. You should still sell your work though. If you dont want the
> money, donate it all to a charitable institution. People already don't
> think art is worth money...We should all refuse to give work away for
> free. Of course, that's just my opinion. I don't even give work away to
> family.
free art = free artist
BOBIG
Ariane
> i saw the sale by auction of cezanne's painting. medias (radio, television)
> talk about the price not the painting...
=== The audience for mass media is predominantly the bourgeoisie. Amongst
this lifestyle milieu, price matters more than such intangibles like
"artistic quality" etc. Also, price means social status.....very
important to some.
(...)
> not only before the work ,there is the idea of the work.
> personnally, i think the idea is most important than the result.
> i love the idea of an artist without works.
> the best artist could be an artist without works
=== Philosophers and writers have more interesting ideas than do most
visual artists in my opinion. If it is ideas that I want, I read a piece
of literature or philosophy, visual artists' works matter more to me than
do their ideas per se. Most visual artists do not seem to excel in the
sphere of ideas as do their artistic counterparts in poetry, literature,
philosophy, etc....
> free art = free artist
>
> BOBIG
a la prochaine,
A.
May Flowers
ja...@isis.msstate.edu says...
>I don't even give work away to family.
Hey! I never have either. It's all ON LOAN to them.
Brother Alphabet
On Tue, 11 May 1999, Ariane wrote:
> === The audience for mass media is predominantly the bourgeoisie.
Bourgeoisie?
What an archaic concept.
> === Philosophers and writers have more interesting ideas than do most
> visual artists in my opinion.
All of them?
> If it is ideas that I want, I read a piece
> of literature or philosophy,
Why cannot a visual image be also literature or philosophy? Good
writing is visual, and philosophical, correct?
> visual artists' works matter more to me than
> do their ideas per se. Most visual artists do not seem to excel in the
> sphere of ideas as do their artistic counterparts in poetry, literature,
> philosophy, etc....
It is a poor artist whose ideas do not measure up to or supercede his/her
physical creations.
Hutto
Ariane
On Tue, 11 May 1999, Brother Alphabet wrote:
>
> On Tue, 11 May 1999, Ariane wrote:
>
> > === The audience for mass media is predominantly the bourgeoisie.
>
> Bourgeoisie?
>
> What an archaic concept.
=== Sorry, conformist lemmings.....victims of their culture.....etc. In
french, where the word originates, it refers to merchants, shop-keepers,
and the like, not to Marxist theory.
> > === Philosophers and writers have more interesting ideas than do most
> > visual artists in my opinion.
>
> All of them?
=== No, most. They specialize in ideas and language for their art.
Visual artists have more interesting ways of using line, colour,
materials, and other media peculiar to their art form....
> > If it is ideas that I want, I read a piece
> > of literature or philosophy,
>
> Why cannot a visual image be also literature or philosophy? Good
> writing is visual, and philosophical, correct?
=== Less visual than intellectual and not always philosophical, at least
in the sense that philosophy is philosophical. In any case, a visual
image is not literate the way literature is and is not philosophical the
way philosophy is. At the same time, a visual image could be `literate'
or `philosophical' I agree.
> > > visual artists' works matter more to me than
> > do their ideas per se. Most visual artists do not seem to excel in the
> > sphere of ideas as do their artistic counterparts in poetry, literature,
> > philosophy, etc....
>
> It is a poor artist whose ideas do not measure up to or supercede his/her
> physical creations.
>
> Hutto
=== No, I disagree. It is a poor artist whose creations do not measure up
to or supercede his/her ideas. Ideas only matter if they can be
translated or incorporated into the creative process of an artist. In the
end, philosophers will be judged on the quality of their ideas,
writers, on the quality of their writing, visual artists, on the quality
of their creations.......At least these are my opinions.
a bientot,
A.
Kay Kane
--
bobig wrote in message <926450771.966715@news2>...
:
:Brother Alphabet <ja...@isis.msstate.edu> a écrit dans le message :
:Pine.SOL.4.10.99051...@ra.msstate.edu...
:
: On Mon, 10 May 1999, bobig wrote:
:
: do you have you noticed that people do not speak about work of art but
: rather about its price?
(snipperooski)
Brother Alphabet said:
:not only before the work ,there is the idea of the work.
:personnally, i think the idea is most important than the result.
:i love the idea of an artist without works.
:the best artist could be an artist without works
I think we call these performance artists.
Bobig said:
:as an artist I made my choice.my art is free. I do not sell I give...
Bro. Alphabet said:
:It's a bad trend to start. If you are independently wealthy, you are
:blessed. You should still sell your work though. If you dont want the
:money, donate it all to a charitable institution. People already don't
:think art is worth money...We should all refuse to give work away for
:free. Of course, that's just my opinion. I don't even give work away to
:family.
I agree with the Brother here, Bobig. I'll give my work away for free when
doctors treat their vocation as a *calling* or *talent* and guit charging
for their gifts to woman/man-kind. Ditto all dentists, health care
professionals. Ditto teachers (including higher education which should be
free and in some countries is). Such high callings should be for the common
good. How can one put a price on these services when it is such an honor to
have this gift and to use it. Well, we might apply this further; how about
trash collectors? Why should they get paid when, like artists, their jobs
beautify the cities & towns? Etc. etc. etc. Speaking for myself and many of
my friends who are artists, we donate art to several charitable causes
yearly. When the art supply stores *donate* free supplies to me, I'll think
about it. The only truly *free* art I've ever seen is graffitti art.
:free art = free artist
: BOBIG
Yes, Bobig, I agree that free art makes the artist free but, to me, that
means I do the kind of art that is closest to my heart, not what will sell
to the masses which is why we are not all doing commissioned portraits on
this n.g.
Brother Alphabet
On Tue, 11 May 1999, Ariane wrote:
> > > === Philosophers and writers have more interesting ideas than do most
> > > visual artists in my opinion.
> >
> > All of them?
>
> === No, most. They specialize in ideas and language for their art.
> Visual artists have more interesting ways of using line, colour,
> materials, and other media peculiar to their art form....
I write and I compose images.
The two intellectual separates often blend into a singular thing.
I most often do not keep the two things separate, but use both to offset
or enhance one another. I consider the process of making an image to be
literary, in that it is not telling a story, but is relating a dialogue
between myself and the surface. It is philosophical in that it is evidence
of active thought, at least I hope it is, and in the end it is a visual
entity, being the by-product of the above creative processes.
> > Why cannot a visual image be also literature or philosophy? Good
> > writing is visual, and philosophical, correct?
> === Less visual than intellectual and not always philosophical, at least
> in the sense that philosophy is philosophical. In any case, a visual
> image is not literate the way literature is and is not philosophical the
> way philosophy is.
Right, but a written word is not the only word. Thoughts can be
transmitted through word or through symbols or through scenes.
"Philosophy" would be unknown without words. It can also transliterate
into pure image. Image is less overt, especially abstracted image or
symbolic image. Language can be also obvious or abstracted.
> > > > visual artists' works matter more to me than
> > > do their ideas per se. Most visual artists do not seem to excel in the
> > > sphere of ideas as do their artistic counterparts in poetry, literature,
> > > philosophy, etc....
> >
> > It is a poor artist whose ideas do not measure up to or supercede his/her
> > physical creations.
>
> === No, I disagree. It is a poor artist whose creations do not measure up
> to or supercede his/her ideas.
An artist who can manage to surpass the images in his or her mind is less
likely to have highly developed ideas than he/she is to have mundane and
useless ones.
If I can ever paint better than my mind's eye I will give up and jump off
a cliff.
> Ideas only matter if they can be
> translated or incorporated into the creative process of an artist. In the
> end, philosophers will be judged on the quality of their ideas,
> writers, on the quality of their writing, visual artists, on the quality
> of their creations.
This still doesnt negate the possibility of the Visual Artist as
philosopher, poet, AND painter all in one. Why do you wish to place such
unrealistic limitations on creators? I, the artist, have my own
philosophy. I live my life accordingly. It reflects in my images and my
words. How is this impossible or impractical?
I think, I write, I paint. I am all three things at once.
Brother Alphabet
On Tue, 11 May 1999, Kay Kane wrote:
> Brother Alphabet said:
> :not only before the work ,there is the idea of the work.
> :personnally, i think the idea is most important than the result.
> :i love the idea of an artist without works.
> :the best artist could be an artist without works
Ahoy! I didn't say that nonsense!
Kay Kane
I apologize for my error!
Kay
To reach me remove 'rcd' from my e-mail address
Brother Alphabet wrote in message ...
:
:
:
Ariane
On Tue, 11 May 1999, Brother Alphabet wrote:
>
> On Tue, 11 May 1999, Ariane wrote:
>
> > > > === Philosophers and writers have more interesting ideas than do most
> > > > visual artists in my opinion.
> > >
> > > All of them?
> >
> > === No, most. They specialize in ideas and language for their art.
> > Visual artists have more interesting ways of using line, colour,
> > materials, and other media peculiar to their art form....
>
> I write and I compose images.
=== Sure, not at the same time tho'!
> The two intellectual separates often blend into a singular thing.
=== Yes, but the practice of them differ. And both writing and painting
are a craft as well.....(so is philosophy...)
> I most often do not keep the two things separate, but use both to offset
> or enhance one another. I consider the process of making an image to be
> literary, in that it is not telling a story, but is relating a dialogue
> between myself and the surface. It is philosophical in that it is evidence
> of active thought, at least I hope it is, and in the end it is a visual
> entity, being the by-product of the above creative processes.
=== Fair enough. But, still I would turn to philosophy or literature for
ideas in and of themselves before I would turn to visual artists. Now the
art work is another matter altogether, a painting may indeed inspire
epiphanies of insight.....But I don't mean to classify writers, artists,
painters/sculptors from one another. Its just that the philosopher
*specializes* in ideas, the writer, in language. The visual artist is
less a specialist in ideas than are her or his literary & philosophical
counter-parts. That's my only point really.
> > > Why cannot a visual image be also literature or philosophy? Good
> > > writing is visual, and philosophical, correct?
> > === Less visual than intellectual and not always philosophical, at least
> > in the sense that philosophy is philosophical. In any case, a visual
> > image is not literate the way literature is and is not philosophical the
> > way philosophy is.
>
> Right, but a written word is not the only word. Thoughts can be
> transmitted through word or through symbols or through scenes.
=== Less precisely than through language. But yes.....
> "Philosophy" would be unknown without words. It can also transliterate
> into pure image.
=== Sometimes like with Mandalas or Native Medicine Wheels. But good
luck doing that with say, Hegel.
> Image is less overt, especially abstracted image or
> symbolic image. Language can be also obvious or abstracted.
=== Absolutely. But visual artists are less ideologues than their
philosophical and literary counter-parts.
> > > > > visual artists' works matter more to me than
> > > > do their ideas per se. Most visual artists do not seem to excel in the
> > > > sphere of ideas as do their artistic counterparts in poetry, literature,
> > > > philosophy, etc....
> > >
> > > It is a poor artist whose ideas do not measure up to or supercede his/her
> > > physical creations.
> >
> > === No, I disagree. It is a poor artist whose creations do not measure up
> > to or supercede his/her ideas.
>
> An artist who can manage to surpass the images in his or her mind is less
> likely to have highly developed ideas than he/she is to have mundane and
> useless ones.
=== And an artist who can't paint what is in her mind's eye (or at least
work on trying) is no artist at all!
>
> If I can ever paint better than my mind's eye I will give up and jump off
> a cliff.
=== If I can't paint my mind's eye, I'll take up writing.....
> > Ideas only matter if they can be
> > translated or incorporated into the creative process of an artist. In the
> > end, philosophers will be judged on the quality of their ideas,
> > writers, on the quality of their writing, visual artists, on the quality
> > of their creations.
>
> This still doesnt negate the possibility of the Visual Artist as
> philosopher, poet, AND painter all in one.
=== Sure, but to expect a mastery of all three is really too much. Sure,
there are geniuses out there. But amongst us ordinary folk, philosophers
specialize in ideas, writers in language, artists in visual media. Any
extra skills only add to your overall ability in your main sphere of
activity.
> Why do you wish to place such
> unrealistic limitations on creators? I, the artist, have my own
> philosophy.
=== Which is less developed and articulated than Plato, Spinoza, Hegel,
or Schopenhauer, etc...
> I live my life accordingly. It reflects in my images and my
> words. How is this impossible or impractical?
>
> I think, I write, I paint. I am all three things at once.
=== No doubt, but better to turn to literary artists, or philosophers, as
a rule, for interesting ideas, than to visual artists. But there are
exceptions to the rule and an open mind is the best policy....
a bientot,
A.
Brother Alphabet
On Tue, 11 May 1999, Ariane wrote:
> > The two intellectual separates often blend into a singular thing.
>
> === Yes, but the practice of them differ. And both writing and painting
> are a craft as well.....(so is philosophy...)
Call it mixed media.
> === Fair enough. But, still I would turn to philosophy or literature for
> ideas in and of themselves before I would turn to visual artists.
As if to say that all artists lack the ability to think.
> Now the art work is another matter altogether, a painting may indeed
> inspire epiphanies of insight.....But I don't mean to classify writers,
> artists, painters/sculptors from one another. Its just that the
> philosopher *specializes* in ideas, the writer, in language. The visual
> artist is less a specialist in ideas than are her or his literary &
> philosophical counter-parts. That's my only point really.
It isn't an accurate or even realistic point. I am a visual artist who
does not "specialize" an any creative endeavor in particular. I
work in various media including written words and philosophical thought.
Just because I do not place myself in a box that is labeled "Philosopher"
does not mean that I have no claim to the scope of the philosopher.
Likewise, my profession is not "writer" yet I write frequently on many
subjects - I write essays, poems, short stories...Should I cease all such
things because I call myself a Visual Artist?
> > Right, but a written word is not the only word. Thoughts can be
> > transmitted through word or through symbols or through scenes.
>
> === Less precisely than through language. But yes.....
What is language?
Language is sounds we make and commonly recognize in order to communicate
with one another. When I say "cat" most people (who speak the same
language as I speak) hear that and visualize either a feline or a jazz
musician, depending upon the context. Likewise, written language is a
series of little images we all have commonly agreed to recognize as
meaning certain things. "Griknafoolapoof" is not a word. Why? How do we
know this? Because the little symbols (called 'letters') arranged to form
that non-word do not make sense to us. Modern language is just a complex
and evolved form of pictography. We are more concerned with images than we
think we are. More things relate back to visual perception than we
realize. We could go through all the cultural color symbolisms
(you know, red = stop, etc) and the rest of the symbolist hoopla, but I
don't really feel like it :)
> > "Philosophy" would be unknown without words. It can also transliterate
> > into pure image.
>
> === Sometimes like with Mandalas or Native Medicine Wheels. But good
> luck doing that with say, Hegel.
Who was talking about Hegel or any of the other philosophical "greats"?
Why would I WANT to paint what someone ELSE thought?
> > Image is less overt, especially abstracted image or
> > symbolic image. Language can be also obvious or abstracted.
>
> === Absolutely. But visual artists are less ideologues than their
> philosophical and literary counter-parts.
What makes you say that?
> > > === No, I disagree. It is a poor artist whose creations do not measure up
> > > to or supercede his/her ideas.
> >
> > An artist who can manage to surpass the images in his or her mind is less
> > likely to have highly developed ideas than he/she is to have mundane and
> > useless ones.
>
> === And an artist who can't paint what is in her mind's eye (or at least
> work on trying) is no artist at all!
See, there is the difference. "Working on trying" is all we can hope to
accomplish. A GOOD artist's mind's eye will always create better images
than the artist is capable of. That's the driving force - the carrot - to
one day be able to create that elusive mental image. Heaven is where our
images and our imaginings are the same.
> === If I can't paint my mind's eye, I'll take up writing.....
Not to be insulting, but if you can't see past your own abilities you
probably should take up writing now.
> > This still doesnt negate the possibility of the Visual Artist as
> > philosopher, poet, AND painter all in one.
>
> === Sure, but to expect a mastery of all three is really too much. Sure,
> there are geniuses out there. But amongst us ordinary folk, philosophers
> specialize in ideas, writers in language, artists in visual media.
>
> Any
> extra skills only add to your overall ability in your main sphere of
> activity.
This last statement almost negates your entire argument. Just because my
main sphere of activity is painting doesn't mean I can't take decent
photographs. Likewise, just because my main sphere of activity is painting
doesn't mean I can't write well, or formulate useful ideas.
> > I, the artist, have my own
> > philosophy.
>
> === Which is less developed and articulated than Plato, Spinoza, Hegel,
> or Schopenhauer, etc...
I know quite well that what I think NOW is more relevant to reality than
what Plato thought in an ancient civilization. It's like that Dennis Leary
song (to completely trivialize philosophy) "I think better than Plato,
'cause Plato's Dead."
You really have no basis for saying that my thoughts are not well
developed and articulated. I have not given you my writings to scrutinize,
so how would you know?
> > I think, I write, I paint. I am all three things at once.
>
> === No doubt, but better to turn to literary artists, or philosophers, as
> a rule, for interesting ideas, than to visual artists. But there are
> exceptions to the rule and an open mind is the best policy....
If an open mind is the best policy, why don't you have one?
It's really bizarre that you'd think that visual artists don't have
"interesting" ideas. Your work must be flat boring. Don't assume such
inabilities on others' behalf (behalves? :)), though. It might just be
YOU who have no ideas, who cannot write, and whose paintings are drab
and lifeless.
John Haber
>talk about the price not the painting...
You've a real point there, and I can't wish it entirely away by saying
it was, after all, auction news. That is, it was the sale that was
news; the painting had been there before. But I realize it does
reflect the public's need for certification of art before they take to
it, plus the role money plays in certifying things in our world.
On the other hand, I am not sure one can expect the media to discuss
art. Given that, I am glad Cezanne made the news, and the article in
the New york Times kept insisting on the importance of the collection
up for sale.
Also, at least the public has become loyal indeed to, say, Jasper
Johns or Jackson Pollock once money had convinced them to look. The
outcry recently over the proposed sale of a Johns white flag from a
public place, Lincoln Center, reflected that.
And finally, as I say, I won't let my dismay at capitalism or the art
world stop me from praising artists who keep trying to earn a living.
>Personnally, i think the idea is most important than the result.
>i love the idea of an artist without works.
>the best artist could be an artist without works
A very Duchamp or Cage attitude. Est-ce que vous jouez aux echec? :)
Creators always have that dual within. It's mine, one wants to say,
something out of me that can only be mistranslated by halfway plastic
media of paint or words or equations -- and by the public gaze. And
yet the pride of creation and looking is always so wrapped up in the
thing itself; the painting or the phrase found from, well, somewhere
mysterious always seems so much more beautiful than anything I could
have imagined .
A quality of modern art is to make that duality part of its content.
No ideas but in things, as the poem goes. And so one gets not just
Duchamp (and that hauntingly real toilet turned 90 degrees), but also
the achingly gorgeous work of someone as close to him as Man Ray. One
gets the idealism of Greenberg, but an idealism wrapped up in making
paint the end in itself. One gets the debate between philosophers
like Danto and Goodman: Can there ever be objects indiscernible from
other things (a Brillo box, a red square) in the world of art, or does
their very resemblance only focus on one the fineness of perceiving
the world?
Maybe the duality is the content, and that's the lesson?
John (www.haberarts.com)
John Haber
>translated or incorporated into the creative process of an artist. In the
>end, philosophers will be judged on the quality of their ideas,
>writers, on the quality of their writing, visual artists, on the quality
That's gorgeous. My only quibble would be that, as Derrida puts it,
philosophy is a kind of writing: its ideas are so powerful because
they didn't remain in someone's head. That is, I'm using ideas a
little differently than you are, not just as the thing superceded, but
as a result.
One struggles for words, and one feels it as a struggle to understand,
to grasp, to cope. That's ordinary life, and it's not all that far, I
think, from what creative people do with greater gift, instinct,
passion, and knowledge of their craft. As a creative artist and
writer (with a thesis at hand), you have different ideas and craft
from philsophers or scientists, but perhaps in the end those two
differences can't be separated.
John
John Haber
>their vocation as a *calling* or *talent* and guit charging
>for their gifts to woman/man-kind.
Maybe we can get an AMO, art maintenance organization. You all can be
on the list of certified artists, so I can get your work for a
co-payment of only $5. No, $10: it's not "generic."
John
Ariane
(...)
> > > The two intellectual separates often blend into a singular thing.
> >
> > === Yes, but the practice of them differ. And both writing and painting
> > are a craft as well.....(so is philosophy...)
>
> Call it mixed media.
=== Yeah right, you paint like Picasso, write like Hemingway, and think
like Aristotle. Each craft has its own guild of masters I'm afraid.
Visual artists play with ideas, but, in general, I value their works more
than their ideas I'm afraid.
> > === Fair enough. But, still I would turn to philosophy or literature for
> > ideas in and of themselves before I would turn to visual artists.
>
> As if to say that all artists lack the ability to think.
=== Not at all. Its just that what the artist creates matters more than
what the artist thinks, which was my original point. This is because
philosophers & writers specialize in thinking and writing and therefore
have *more to offer* those in search of brilliant ideas than do visual
artists for the most part.
Of course, there are some brilliant painters and sculptors out there,
but on the whole, we don't look to Heidegger and Sartre for their
brilliant paintings. Nor do we look to Modigliani and Ann Hamilton
for their brilliant ideas. To each their own. It's a matter of
proficiency at the craft.
Most of the time artists take interesting ideas and create things from
this inspiration. Its the creation which signifies them as *visual*
artists, not the ideas which are usually someone else's or, often, turn
out to be not really that brilliant when examined solely as an idea. At
least not the way Nietzsche, Foucault, or Plotinus had briliant ideas
because you see, philosophers are artists whose media are their ideas
themselves. This gives them a bit of an edge over visual artists who take
up too much time fussing with brushes, canvas, charcoal, and other such
`distractions'. Likewise, Picasso had brilliant paintings.
> > Now the art work is another matter altogether, a painting may indeed
> > inspire epiphanies of insight.....But I don't mean to classify writers,
> > artists, painters/sculptors from one another. Its just that the
> > philosopher *specializes* in ideas, the writer, in language. The visual
> > artist is less a specialist in ideas than are her or his literary &
> > philosophical counter-parts. That's my only point really.
>
> It isn't an accurate or even realistic point. I am a visual artist who
> does not "specialize" an any creative endeavor in particular. I
> work in various media including written words and philosophical thought.
=== Sure whatever. Dabbling in this or that doesn't make one necessarily
proficient at anything. To think is mundane, to think deeply, creatively,
and profoundly is something else entirely. I don't find much profound and
deep insights amongst the ideas of most contemporary artists. Lots of
formulaic PoMo stuff, gotten from other writers and thinkers and from
*their* artistic works for the most part, anyway, what the artist creates
matters way more to me than what he/she thinks.....unless that artist is a
poet, philosopher, or writer where the thoughts are the artistic work.
And then, like with all art, it's a matter of quality, sophistication,
pofundity, etc. I don't care about the average Joe/Jane and his or her
freaky incoherent mutterings being passed off as `art' because it's simply
eccentric.
> Just because I do not place myself in a box that is labeled "Philosopher"
> does not mean that I have no claim to the scope of the philosopher.
=== Regardless of `boxes', mastery of an art form is a little different
than dabbling in it. I paint, but not like Picasso. I play bass, but not
like Jaco Pastorius. I philosophize, but not like Plato. Most bassists
can't paint as well as painters, and most painters' ideas aren't as
sophisticated as those of writers and philosophers...SO to me, visual
artist's visual works matter more to me than do their ideas which, in
general, are not as profound nor as sophisticated as are the ideas of
artists who specialize in ideas, like poets, writers, philosophers, etc.
> Likewise, my profession is not "writer" yet I write frequently on many
> subjects - I write essays, poems, short stories...Should I cease all such
> things because I call myself a Visual Artist?
=== No, just recognize that there are levels of proficiency to thinking
painting and writing. Write to your heart's content. Just don't expect
anyone to care about your writing unless your use of language gets really
really good. And that's precisely why I don't agree with `bobig' when she
says that the artist's ideas are more important thant the artist's works.
Most ideas behind the visual work aren't very enlightening and then,
you're left with only the work, and if that sucks too.......then who
cares.
> What is language?
>
> Language is sounds we make and commonly recognize in order to communicate
> with one another. When I say "cat" most people (who speak the same
> language as I speak) hear that and visualize either a feline or a jazz
> musician, depending upon the context.
!!
> Likewise, written language is a
> series of little images we all have commonly agreed to recognize as
> meaning certain things. "Griknafoolapoof" is not a word. Why? How do we
> know this? Because the little symbols (called 'letters') arranged to form
> that non-word do not make sense to us. Modern language is just a complex
> and evolved form of pictography. We are more concerned with images than we
> think we are. More things relate back to visual perception than we
> realize. We could go through all the cultural color symbolisms
> (you know, red = stop, etc) and the rest of the symbolist hoopla, but I
> don't really feel like it :)
=== Yeah, this is great and all. But language is less a `visual system'
than a series of personal responses and re-articulations made with
reference to the system. It's the difference between `langue' (language)
and `parole' (what is actually spoken). We imply the langue when we utter
a select group of sounds to signify our immediate intentions, but, this
system is only really ever implied. We press language into the service of
our sensibilities while it helps to create some of our sensibilities (but
we can always learn new languages thus expanding beyond any one
`visual system' of language and representation) DeSaussure, the founder
of structuralism is a good read on this topic. His life's work were
devoted to these ideas and they're quite interesting and sophisticated.
> > > "Philosophy" would be unknown without words. It can also transliterate
> > > into pure image.
> >
> > === Sometimes like with Mandalas or Native Medicine Wheels. But good
> > luck doing that with say, Hegel.
>
> Who was talking about Hegel or any of the other philosophical "greats"?
> Why would I WANT to paint what someone ELSE thought?
=== Why would anyone else care about what YOU thought, wrote, or painted?
unless it was `great'. These `greats' are there to show us what kind of
work and sophistication it takes for us to become one of them. That's
their value to me anyway. Anyone can philosophize after a spliff, but who
can write another `phenomenology of spirit'?
(...)
> > > An artist who can manage to surpass the images in his or her mind is less
> > > likely to have highly developed ideas than he/she is to have mundane and
> > > useless ones.
> >
> > === And an artist who can't paint what is in her mind's eye (or at least
> > work on trying) is no artist at all!
>
> See, there is the difference. "Working on trying" is all we can hope to
> accomplish. A GOOD artist's mind's eye will always create better images
> than the artist is capable of.
=== Right. I agree. But it doesn't amount to a thing if we can't create
WORKS. All that matters in the end are the works, the traces of our
existence which we leave behind. Think, write, by all means. But the
artist is measured by his or her works, not by his or her mind.
> That's the driving force - the carrot - to
> one day be able to create that elusive mental image. Heaven is where our
> images and our imaginings are the same.
=== No doubt. So we keep creating works because earth is where our dreams
become flesh.
> > === If I can't paint my mind's eye, I'll take up writing.....
>
> Not to be insulting, but if you can't see past your own abilities you
> probably should take up writing now.
=== Yeah well, I'll do both instead. Anyway, unless you paint for
yourself, tucked away in a studio somewhere, not caring about your
results, going after some elusive mental image, then you're forced to pay
attention to materials, canvas, oils, brushes, medium, etc. and these
mediate our mental images. Artists don't work only with ideas. Their
ideas are partly shaped by the tools of the craft as well. But I suspect
that we're just disagreeing on working methods at this point....
> > > This still doesnt negate the possibility of the Visual Artist as
> > > philosopher, poet, AND painter all in one.
> >
> > === Sure, but to expect a mastery of all three is really too much. Sure,
> > there are geniuses out there. But amongst us ordinary folk, philosophers
> > specialize in ideas, writers in language, artists in visual media.
> >
> > Any
> > extra skills only add to your overall ability in your main sphere of
> > activity.
=== Yup. Without question. But I wouldn't turn to Camus for great
painting, and I wouldn't turn to Contemporary artists for earth-shattering
ideas.
> This last statement almost negates your entire argument. Just because my
> main sphere of activity is painting doesn't mean I can't take decent
> photographs. Likewise, just because my main sphere of activity is painting
> doesn't mean I can't write well, or formulate useful ideas.
=== It's not a matter of `decent' `well' or `useful'. Its a matter of
excellence. Visual artists, for the most part, excel at visual art. Not
at creating wonderful ideas. At least from what I've experienced.
> > > I, the artist, have my own
> > > philosophy.
> >
> > === Which is less developed and articulated than Plato, Spinoza, Hegel,
> > or Schopenhauer, etc...
>
> I know quite well that what I think NOW is more relevant to reality than
> what Plato thought in an ancient civilization.
=== Well you're wrong. What Plato thought and wrote then is more
sophisticated and relevant than what the vast majority of people now think
and write, or are even capable of thinking and writing. Check out his
Republic, or his Apology, and you'll see what I mean.
> It's like that Dennis Leary
> song (to completely trivialize philosophy) "I think better than Plato,
> 'cause Plato's Dead."
=== Yeah but when you're dead, who will the next generation remember for
his ideas, you, or Plato?
> You really have no basis for saying that my thoughts are not well
> developed and articulated. I have not given you my writings to scrutinize,
> so how would you know?
=== Didn't say that. I said that they weren't AS well developed &
articulated as those of Plato, Hegel, Shopenhauer, Nietzsche, Foucault,
etc. And neither are the ideas of most if not all other visual artists.
But then again, there are still the paintings to consider......
> > > I think, I write, I paint. I am all three things at once.
> >
> > === No doubt, but better to turn to literary artists, or philosophers, as
> > a rule, for interesting ideas, than to visual artists. But there are
> > exceptions to the rule and an open mind is the best policy....
>
> If an open mind is the best policy, why don't you have one?
=== ha ha ha. Whatever, some people's ideas are more sophisticated and
intelligent than others, and like with everything else, the more time one
spends on their ideas, writing, painting, sculpting, the BETTER one gets.
> > It's really bizarre that you'd think that visual artists don't have
> "interesting" ideas.
=== Not what I said. I said that the artist's works are more important
than her or his ideas.
> Your work must be flat boring.
=== You wouldn't know.
> Don't assume such
> inabilities on others' behalf (behalves? :)), though. It might just be
> YOU who have no ideas, who cannot write, and whose paintings are drab
> and lifeless.
=== Well, you're doing well in proving my point amigo.
>
> Hutto
a bientot,
A.
Ariane
On Wed, 12 May 1999, John Haber wrote:
> >It is a poor artist whose creations do not measure up
> >to or supercede his/her ideas. Ideas only matter if they can be
> >translated or incorporated into the creative process of an artist. In the
> >end, philosophers will be judged on the quality of their ideas,
> >writers, on the quality of their writing, visual artists, on the quality
> >of their creations.......At least these are my opinions.
>
> That's gorgeous. My only quibble would be that, as Derrida puts it,
> philosophy is a kind of writing: its ideas are so powerful because
> they didn't remain in someone's head. That is, I'm using ideas a
> little differently than you are, not just as the thing superceded, but
> as a result.
=== Indeed, but the result must be lingustically, artistically,
musically, poetically, communicated right? Or else all artists are mere
daydreamers. And philosophers, schizophrenics.....? Derrida is right in
his claim, it applies to his work. His work. That's the thing.
>
> One struggles for words, and one feels it as a struggle to understand,
> to grasp, to cope. That's ordinary life, and it's not all that far, I
> think, from what creative people do with greater gift, instinct,
> passion, and knowledge of their craft. As a creative artist and
> writer (with a thesis at hand),
=== Ahhhh don't remind me, I'm on the ng procrastinating!
> you have different ideas and craft
> from philsophers or scientists, but perhaps in the end those two
> differences can't be separated.
>
> John
=== Perhaps not, the struggle to create, is that not what its all about?
Ideas come easy, would that artistic works came on the winds of a mere
daydream. We'd all be greater than Picasso right now.
adieu,
A.
bean...@my-dejanews.com
most
> > > > visual artists in my opinion.
> > >
> > > All of them?
> >
> > === No, most. They specialize in ideas and language for their art.
> > Visual artists have more interesting ways of using line, colour,
> > materials, and other media peculiar to their art form....
>
> I write and I compose images.
offset
> or enhance one another. I consider the process of making an image to
be
> literary, in that it is not telling a story, but is relating a
dialogue
> between myself and the surface. It is philosophical in that it is
evidence
> of active thought, at least I hope it is, and in the end it is a
visual
> entity, being the by-product of the above creative processes.
>
> > > writing is visual, and philosophical, correct?
> > === Less visual than intellectual and not always philosophical, at
least
> > in the sense that philosophy is philosophical. In any case, a
visual
> > image is not literate the way literature is and is not philosophical
the
> > way philosophy is.
>
> transmitted through word or through symbols or through scenes.
> symbolic image. Language can be also obvious or abstracted.
Indeed, read any Dylan Thomas lately? :-)
>
> > > > > visual artists' works matter more to me than
> > > > do their ideas per se. Most visual artists do not seem to excel
in the
> > > > sphere of ideas as do their artistic counterparts in poetry,
literature,
> > > > philosophy, etc....
> > >
> > > It is a poor artist whose ideas do not measure up to or supercede
his/her
> > > physical creations.
> >
> > === No, I disagree. It is a poor artist whose creations do not
measure up
> > to or supercede his/her ideas.
>
> An artist who can manage to surpass the images in his or her mind is
less
> likely to have highly developed ideas than he/she is to have mundane
and
> useless ones.
>
> If I can ever paint better than my mind's eye I will give up and jump
off
> a cliff.
Or hit nirvana, one or t'other...
>
> > Ideas only matter if they can be
> > translated or incorporated into the creative process of an artist.
In the
> > end, philosophers will be judged on the quality of their ideas,
> > writers, on the quality of their writing, visual artists, on the
quality
> > of their creations.
But here we go again with the argument about the artist's role vs. the
observer's role in giving meaning (quality, etc., whatever label you
want to put on it) to a piece of art. Is my work to be judged by
whether you the observer believe me to be successful or whether I was
successful by my own standards?
>
> This still doesnt negate the possibility of the Visual Artist as
> philosopher, poet, AND painter all in one. Why do you wish to place
such
> unrealistic limitations on creators? I, the artist, have my own
> philosophy. I live my life accordingly. It reflects in my images and
my
> words. How is this impossible or impractical?
>
> I think, I write, I paint. I am all three things at once.
>
> Hutto
>
> ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
> Visit Brother Alphabet's Evergrowing List of Bad Ads
> w w w . b a d - a d s - l i s t . c o m
> ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
>
>
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
lauri_le...@my-dejanews.com
they do not talk about money all the time
like artists do"
Jean Sibelius
(the thread history snipped)
What a wonderful conversation! Why do you hide it
behind a trivial subject line.
I am one of those underpriviledged, who can't afford
reading all that is posted in this ng. In additon
to selective reading, I have to rely on statistical
sampling, and only by luck find gems like this thread.
Would it be nice and polite
to modify the subject line when discussion
diverts to something more important
- lauri
--
lauri....@nokia.com //www.netti.fi/~laurleva/
The fact that I abuse my office address does not
imply that my employer agrees with or is aware of
my opinions expressed here
A.A. Raimes
dejanews.com writes
>"I rather dine among businessmen,
>they do not talk about money all the time
>like artists do"
> Jean Sibelius
Jean Sibelius obviously never owned a restaurant ........
lauri_le...@my-dejanews.com
> > > === Yes, but the practice of them differ. And both writing and
painting
> > > are a craft as well.....(so is philosophy...)
> >
My comments here refer to layers of quotes quotes, of which I am
no longer aware who said what.
> Visual artists play with ideas, but, in general, I value their works
more
> than their ideas I'm afraid.
>
> > > === Fair enough. But, still I would turn to philosophy or
literature for
> > > ideas in and of themselves before I would turn to visual artists.
Is it really so? In spite of the fact that much of AbEx seem to rely
more on emotions than thinking.
.
> === Not at all. Its just that what the artist creates matters more
than
> what the artist thinks, which was my original point.
I could agree with that, if I refine "what the artist creates,
matters more than what the artist says".
Skill and fluency with words is an asset for the song writer,
but a bass player or trumpetist can have as deep and profound
musical ideas.
> philosophers & writers specialize in thinking and writing and
therefore
> have *more to offer* those in search of brilliant ideas
brilliant statements -for me.
> than do visual
> artists for the most part.
Brancusi, Henry Moore has offered me brilliant ideas that no textbook
can rephrase.
> but on the whole, we don't look to Heidegger and Sartre for their
> brilliant paintings.
Brilliant ideas from heidegger, anyone? Brilliant prose maybe :-)
> Most of the time artists take interesting ideas and create things from
> this inspiration.
As if you denote them to mere illustrators.
> Its the creation which signifies them as *visual*
> artists, not the ideas which are usually someone else's or, often,
turn
> out to be not really that brilliant when examined solely as an idea.
Whose idea was the David of Michelangelo, Calder's mobile, Munch's
scream. For me they are brilliant ideas, when examined solely as ideas,
without paraphrasing them in words.
Why should I believe that thinking happens only with
words. This very thread is evidence of well placed words. While
choosing your words, you must do thinking (or call it metathinking)
on a deeper, nonverbal level. Not unlike a painter selects the hues.
I am not very conviced of the left/right hemisphere theory, but sure
it illustrates two different kinds of mental process. If they reside
on different hemispheres, it is only a democratic coincidence,
Visual, mathematical and musical thinking is a fact. But also much of
moral and philosophical thinking is rooted beyond the words. While
writing this, I am not translating Finnish ideas, nor have I English
ideas. It takes effort to render the ideas in words (in both languages),
like it takes
effort to render dance in clay. What I aim to, my idea,
my intention is nonverbal in both cases.
> > It isn't an accurate or even realistic point. I am a visual artist
who
> > does not "specialize" an any creative endeavor in particular. I
> > work in various media including written words and philosophical
thought.
> I don't find much profound and
> deep insights amongst the ideas of most contemporary artists. Lots of
> formulaic PoMo stuff, gotten from other writers and thinkers and from
> *their* artistic works for the most part,
Just like classisim turned rendering to a shallow, formulaic manier
followers of modern schools churn out shallow lookalikes.
> > Modern language is just a complex
> > and evolved form of pictography. We are more concerned with images
> > than we think we are. More things relate back to visual perception >
> than we realize.
> Think, write, by all means. But the
> artist is measured by his or her works, not by his or her mind.
Anyway, unless you paint for
> yourself, tucked away in a studio somewhere, not caring about your
> results, going after some elusive mental image, then you're forced to
pay
> attention to materials, canvas, oils, brushes, medium, etc. and these
> mediate our mental images. Artists don't work only with ideas. Their
> ideas are partly shaped by the tools of the craft as well.
As if, the philosopher could work on ideas,without paying attention to
his/her basic tools, words, paradigms, footnotes.
- lauri
--
lauri....@nokia.com //www.netti.fi/~laurleva/
Seek the truth my son, and beware of those who have found it.
Marilyn
>
> === Not at all. Its just that what the artist creates matters more than
> what the artist thinks, which was my original point. This is because
> philosophers & writers specialize in thinking and writing and therefore
> have *more to offer* those in search of brilliant ideas than do visual
> artists for the most part.
Ariane:
Since it goes without saying that philosophers write philosophy,
(have brillant ideas) why say it?
The undercurrent to the statement seems to be the old collegiate cliche
that visual artists can't be great thinkers because they work with
their hands. This view may be what has spurred so many conceptual artists
to stress the IDEA behind the visual work. A visual artist can have
great ideas, but chooses not to express them in text books.
Other than that, I seem to interpret what you are saying as a kind
of strict categorization, with an emphasis on specializing. But things
are not as black and white as you portray them. Poems are written
about paintings, paintings are inspired by poems. To substantiate
your statement, you might want to prove why a poem cannot be a
visual art.
I'm not disagreeing with you, because I would go to the philosophy
section of the library if I wanted to read great ideas. On the other
hand I do prefer to have philosophy distilled for me by
literature,
poetry
art
because then it becomes a pleasure and a joy for me.
If this makes me a less 'profound thinker' that's fine,
life's short and I've got a lot to do.
On the other hand some do find great pleasure and joy in reading
philosophy first hand as you do.
And you have interpreted philosophical ideas here brilliantly.
>
> Most of the time artists take interesting ideas and create things from
> this inspiration. Its the creation which signifies them as *visual*
> artists, not the ideas which are usually someone else's or, often, turn
> out to be not really that brilliant when examined solely as an idea. At
> least not the way Nietzsche, Foucault, or Plotinus had briliant ideas
> because you see, philosophers are artists whose media are their ideas
> themselves. This gives them a bit of an edge over visual artists who take
> up too much time fussing with brushes, canvas, charcoal, and other such
> `distractions'. Likewise, Picasso had brilliant paintings.
And writers take up time fussing over typewriters, computers, publishers
etc.
I find that your categories are too strict.
It's not that visual artists don't have brilliant original ideas,
it's that they express them in a different format.
They are visual philosophers.
And will any of those great philosophers or artists you mention,
living or dead be able to save us now from a world war?
HOPE SO!
M.
Marilyn
John Haber
>daydream.
Yes, and I've been dawdling over what sound to me like grand ideas for
weeks now. Aaagh!
BTW, I don't mean to deny differences between philosophy and art.
Derrida's slight of hand can get awfully slippery. Every field and
medium has to have its own particular achievements, or it wouldn't
allow him to play so much with the reduction of ideas to the
particularity of words.
We've all often looked to novelists to learn how to live and been
disappointed. At least most of us know A LITTLE better and don't
follow our Werthers into the ocean. :)
Best,
John
Ariane
On Thu, 13 May 1999 bean...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
(...)
> But here we go again with the argument about the artist's role vs. the
> observer's role in giving meaning (quality, etc., whatever label you
> want to put on it) to a piece of art. Is my work to be judged by
> whether you the observer believe me to be successful or whether I was
> successful by my own standards?
=== Yes, you're absolutely right. In my opinion, your work will be judged
by others regardless of your standards. Once painted, a work exists
independently of the artist and is open to the rest of the world. The
painting `has its own life' as it were.
Of course the artist, to be happy with her or his life, needs to feel up
to her or his own standards, but unless this artist is anti-social and
paints only to decorate her or his apartment to which he or she invites
no-one, what's in the artist's mind is only fodder for the canvas. It's
at the canvas where we practice our art and are painters, and furthermore
that's where it ends.
Once the painting is done, everyone else but ourselves will decide what
kind of artist we are and whether or not our art is worth paying attention
to. Such is the nature of a plural world. And such are my opinions on
the subject.
a bientot,
A.
Ariane
> >Ideas come easy, would that artistic works came on the winds of a mere
> >daydream. [Ariane]
On Thu, 13 May 1999, John Haber wrote:
> Yes, and I've been dawdling over what sound to me like grand ideas for
> weeks now. Aaagh!
>
> BTW, I don't mean to deny differences between philosophy and art.
> Derrida's slight of hand can get awfully slippery.
=== Yes, Derrida's work is, by his own admission, play. Creative
juxtapositioning of concepts and then, the words to communicate his
thoughts, that is, his work per se. I've always thought that philosophy
was a kind of an art form, moreso on the continent than in the
anglo-American tradition where a science-like concern for truth at the
expense of paradox distinctively colours their philosophical meanderings.
Anyway, I'm digressing.....
> Every field and
> medium has to have its own particular achievements, or it wouldn't
> allow him to play so much with the reduction of ideas to the
> particularity of words.
=== The particularity of media.....the translation of ideas into concrete
structures of communication....paint, words, sound, body movement etc.
> We've all often looked to novelists to learn how to live and been
> disappointed. At least most of us know A LITTLE better and don't
> follow our Werthers into the ocean. :)
>
> Best,
> John
=== Or Hemingway to an early grave.....
a bientot,
A.
Ariane
On Thu, 13 May 1999, Marilyn wrote:
> Ariane wrote:
>
> >
> > === Not at all. Its just that what the artist creates matters more than
> > what the artist thinks, which was my original point. This is because
> > philosophers & writers specialize in thinking and writing and therefore
> > have *more to offer* those in search of brilliant ideas than do visual
> > artists for the most part.
>
> Ariane:
>
> Since it goes without saying that philosophers write philosophy,
> (have brillant ideas) why say it?
=== Because someone wanted to debate this (what I took to be an obvious)
point.....
> The undercurrent to the statement seems to be the old collegiate cliche
> that visual artists can't be great thinkers because they work with
> their hands.
=== Not exactly, but somewhat. What I was pointing out was that there are
people who make the invention, manipulation, and communication of concepts
their personal art form. Writers do this with language and concepts.
What matters most to me are the works created by visual artists, and not
their concepts which, more often than not, are derivative anyway given the
fact that many artists are busy creating installations, are at the canvas,
or what have you.
> This view may be what has spurred so many conceptual artists
> to stress the IDEA behind the visual work. A visual artist can have
> great ideas, but chooses not to express them in text books.
=== Absolutely, but today art is over-run by `ideas' at the expense of the
work itself. And more often than not, the ideas come from textbooks
anyway.....
> Other than that, I seem to interpret what you are saying as a kind
> of strict categorization, with an emphasis on specializing. But things
> are not as black and white as you portray them. Poems are written
> about paintings, paintings are inspired by poems. To substantiate
> your statement, you might want to prove why a poem cannot be a
> visual art.
=== Very true. There's a lot of cross-fertilization between the arts,
philosophy included, and I think it's a good thing. What I was objecting
to was the claim that "It's not the work which matters, but the idea
behind the work". My point was, a poem cannot be a poem unless the idea
is translated into verse. The ideas and sensibilities give rise to the
employment of the craft as you've mentioned to me on another occasion.
> > I'm not disagreeing with you, because I would go to the philosophy
> section of the library if I wanted to read great ideas. On the other
> hand I do prefer to have philosophy distilled for me by
> literature,
> poetry
> art
> because then it becomes a pleasure and a joy for me.
> If this makes me a less 'profound thinker' that's fine,
> life's short and I've got a lot to do.
=== I don't think that this would make you a less `profound' thinker in
any sense. It would make you more amenable to art than to only ideas per
se. And forgive me if I assume that you don't feel an affinity for art due
to its ideational content.
To make my point, lets look at it this way, if writers, poets, and artists
all valued ideas more than making their respective works, then not much
`philosophical distillation' would occur and we'd have a lot more dry, and
boring philosophical texts to contend with!
Further, art would be a lot less diverse since it would be based only on
ideas rather than also on sensuality, passion, emotion, aesthetics, etc.
like the actual diversity of art which we enjoy today.
> > On the other hand some do find great pleasure and joy in reading
> philosophy first hand as you do.
> And you have interpreted philosophical ideas here brilliantly.
=== Philosophy to me is like an intellectual excursion, a voyage into
uncharted ideational territory. I also very much enjoy the historical
dimension of philosophy.
> > Most of the time artists take interesting ideas and create things from
> > this inspiration. Its the creation which signifies them as *visual*
> > artists, not the ideas which are usually someone else's or, often, turn
> > out to be not really that brilliant when examined solely as an idea. At
> > least not the way Nietzsche, Foucault, or Plotinus had briliant ideas
> > because you see, philosophers are artists whose media are their ideas
> > themselves. This gives them a bit of an edge over visual artists who take
> > up too much time fussing with brushes, canvas, charcoal, and other such
> > `distractions'. Likewise, Picasso had brilliant paintings.
> And writers take up time fussing over typewriters, computers, publishers
> etc.
>
> I find that your categories are too strict.
=== Fair enough, in life things are much more fluid than discourse paints
them....
> It's not that visual artists don't have brilliant original ideas,
> it's that they express them in a different format.
> They are visual philosophers.
=== Perhaps this is true. A visual philosopher. Yet are the `visual
philosophers' ideas as sophisticated or as developed as the
traditional philosopher's are? Further, both philosphers and visual
philosophers need to create works to exist as such. Surely neither the
artist nor the philosopher can merely daydream ideas and not actually
create works wherein lies the essence of their respective artforms as
such......
> And will any of those great philosophers or artists you mention,
> living or dead be able to save us now from a world war?
>
> HOPE SO!
>
> M.
>
> Marilyn
=== Not if they don't create more works to which people who make these
decisions actually pay attention!!
a bientot,
A.
Brother Alphabet
On Wed, 12 May 1999, Ariane wrote:
> === Yeah right, you paint like Picasso, write like Hemingway, and think
> like Aristotle.
Who is to say that I do not? You don't know me at all, so how do you know
what I paint, write or think?
People like you overpopulate this culture. You spend too much time with
your nose in books, or with your head up your arse. You assume that the
only greatness lies among the dead and buried, in the past. The past is as
useless as your point of view. If you cannot believe that greatness exists
now or that greatness will exist in the future then what use are you?
If I want to know what some dead greek thought I will always have his
writings to read. I would much rather seek out contemporary ideas, for
those are what shape TODAY's universe. We cannot function on the
idea that the dusty past has the only answers for us. What did any of your
old greats know about living in an age of electricity, computers, etc?
They have SOME answers, but not ALL of them. We must be aware of what they
teach, but we must also be aware of what modern thinkers think.
Your generalizations are completely absurd. ALL contemporary painters are
not the same. I "excel" at a number of things, as well as do a great many
people I know. Perhaps you keep the company of idiots and THAT is why you
cannot find an artist with a worthwhile thought.
> Each craft has its own guild of masters I'm afraid.
> Visual artists play with ideas, but, in general, I value their works more
> than their ideas I'm afraid.
Who cares? That is your loss to live with. Each craft has its "guild of
masters" and each "guild" still accepts NEW MEMBERS.
> ...what the artist creates matters more than
> what the artist thinks, which was my original point.
Your point makes no sense.
> This is because
> philosophers & writers specialize in thinking and writing and therefore
> have *more to offer* those in search of brilliant ideas than do visual
> artists for the most part.
For the most part. At least your ridiculous worldview is open-ended.
> Of course, there are some brilliant painters and sculptors out there,
> but on the whole, we don't look to Heidegger and Sartre for their
> brilliant paintings. Nor do we look to Modigliani and Ann Hamilton
> for their brilliant ideas. To each their own. It's a matter of
> proficiency at the craft.
Your reality must be such a sad place to live, considering all the
limitations you place upon people. How do you know no one looks to
Modigliani for brilliant ideas? What makes you think that these greats
were so limited in ability? Perhaps Sartre was good at drawing and
singing, but was most known to history for his ideology. You
can not expect a person of accelerated intelligence to just sit around and
do ONE THING for his or her entire life. You also can not make a rule
based upon what a person can "excel" at over the course of his or her
lifetime. To do so is not only ridiculous, but it is borderline despotic.
The communists AND the fascists believed in forcing young children into
tracking programs so that they would, for their lifetimes, do that at
which they tested most apt to "excel". In the real world, people can be
proficient at more than one "craft".
> Most of the time artists take interesting ideas and create things from
> this inspiration. Its the creation which signifies them as *visual*
> artists, not the ideas which are usually someone else's or, often, turn
> out to be not really that brilliant when examined solely as an idea.
Again, please speak for yourself. Do not make blanket remarks about EVERY
artist. Your work must be really pitiful. You must be ashamed of it to
have such a low opinion of yourself.
> At least not the way Nietzsche, Foucault, or Plotinus had briliant ideas
> because you see, philosophers are artists whose media are their ideas
> themselves. This gives them a bit of an edge over visual artists who take
> up too much time fussing with brushes, canvas, charcoal, and other such
> `distractions'. Likewise, Picasso had brilliant paintings.
Picasso, who said "I paint what I think..." Hmm.
> === Sure whatever. Dabbling in this or that doesn't make one necessarily
> proficient at anything.
Where did I say I "dabbled" in anything?
> To think is mundane, to think deeply, creatively,
> and profoundly is something else entirely.
Whew. It's a good thing.
> I don't find much profound and
> deep insights amongst the ideas of most contemporary artists.
Maybe you need to hang out with other people.
> Lots of
> formulaic PoMo stuff...
Right there - That's not art, that's idiots trying to see if they can get
away with calling themselves artists.
>, gotten from other writers and thinkers and from
> *their* artistic works for the most part, anyway, what the artist creates
> matters way more to me than what he/she thinks.....
You must associate with some heavy-duty frauds.
Besides, getting ideas from books seems to be your cup of tea.
> unless that artist is a
> poet, philosopher, or writer where the thoughts are the artistic work.
Another clarification:
A poet is a POET and not an artist.
A philosopher is a PHILOSOPHER and not an artist.
Neither of the two make ART. They write and think.
(This is, of course, directly in line with your worldview...)
> I don't care about the average Joe/Jane and his or her
> freaky incoherent mutterings being passed off as `art' because it's simply
> eccentric.
Here we have a looking-glass anomaly. Who can REALLY say that the
philosopher-kings we recognize TODAY were not regarded similarly by their
contemporary snots?
You are a useless individual. Be ashamed.
> === Regardless of `boxes', mastery of an art form is a little different
> than dabbling in it. I paint, but not like Picasso. I play bass, but not
> like Jaco Pastorius. I philosophize, but not like Plato.
So, you dabble and you suck wind. What does that have to do with me? What
does that have to do with anything. Your lack of talent does not transfer
onto me or others who HAVE talent. All of this sounds like personal
problems on your part.
> === No, just recognize that there are levels of proficiency to thinking
> painting and writing. Write to your heart's content. Just don't expect
> anyone to care about your writing unless your use of language gets really
> really good.
Really really good?
Gee, I hope my use of language isn't very very bad...If I really really
try, maybe I will one day earn a super duper living, make lots and lots of
money and meet many many horny horny women.
People ALREADY care about my writing, as well as about my artwork. It's
kind of hard to be a dead great, but I'm working really really hard at it.
> And that's precisely why I don't agree with `bobig' when she
> says that the artist's ideas are more important thant the artist's works.
Bobig's statement was as ludicrous as yours.
> Most ideas behind the visual work aren't very enlightening and then,
> you're left with only the work, and if that sucks too.......then who
> cares.
I'm really really sorry your work sucks, but don't take it out on those of
us who know what we're doing.
> === Why would anyone else care about what YOU thought, wrote, or painted?
> unless it was `great'.
Thank goodness I'm great.
> These `greats' are there to show us what kind of
> work and sophistication it takes for us to become one of them.
What a hypocrisy. You refuse to even consider the possibility that a
contemporary has greatness while at the same time pretending the
greatness of the past is a scale of comparison. How would you even know if
greatness was before you? You would shuffle it off as someone's
QUOTE freaky incoherent mutterings END QUOTE. You do not have the capacity
to acknowledge greatness, unless of course it was written before you were
born by some dead guy.
> That's their value to me anyway. Anyone can philosophize after a
> spliff, but who can write another `phenomenology of spirit'?
A spliff?
Here's another flaw in deifying the dead. "Who can write another..." - Do
we NEED another one? Wouldn't it be better if someone WROTE or THOUGHT
something NEW?
> === Right. I agree. But it doesn't amount to a thing if we can't create
> WORKS. All that matters in the end are the works, the traces of our
> existence which we leave behind.
The traces of my existence are more than paintings alone.
> Think, write, by all means. But the
> artist is measured by his or her works, not by his or her mind.
Yeah. Leonardo. Yeah.
> === Yeah well, I'll do both instead. Anyway, unless you paint for
> yourself, tucked away in a studio somewhere, not caring about your
> results, going after some elusive mental image, then you're forced to pay
> attention to materials, canvas, oils, brushes, medium, etc. and these
> mediate our mental images.
They do? Funny. Usually I wake up from some alarming dream and have to
then go and sketch it out so that I can return to sleep. I never once
consider what surface I'll paint the image on, what media I'll
use...Maybe, yet again, it's JUST YOU.
> === It's not a matter of `decent' `well' or `useful'. Its a matter of
> excellence. Visual artists, for the most part, excel at visual art. Not
> at creating wonderful ideas. At least from what I've experienced.
What you have experienced seems to be an endless series of wannabe artists
all posing and smoking spliffs.
> What Plato thought and wrote then is more
> sophisticated and relevant than what the vast majority of people now think
> and write, or are even capable of thinking and writing. Check out his
> Republic, or his Apology, and you'll see what I mean.
Yeah, you're right. That must be why Plato's Republic was required reading
in HIGH SCHOOL. Plato had no idea what today's world would be like. His
words and thoughts are VALUABLE, yes, but not at all sophisticated by
modern standards.
> === Yeah but when you're dead, who will the next generation remember for
> his ideas, you, or Plato?
Plato AND I. *BOW*
> I said that they weren't AS well developed &
> articulated as those of Plato, Hegel, Shopenhauer, Nietzsche, Foucault,
> etc. And neither are the ideas of most if not all other visual artists.
> But then again, there are still the paintings to consider......
How do you know how well developed my thoughts and writings are?
Certainly not via this forum...this is from-the-hip remark and rebuttal.
If I spent a year crafting a statement of reply I might prove my literary
skill, but no one would know what I was talking about by then.
Your points of view MIGHT be valid, but only in a limited frame of
reality. YOUR worldview does not always equal the state of the world.
There are plenty of working artisans who exist in complete defiance to
your point of view. If you refuse to acknowledge the greats among you then
it is your own problem.
Ariane
On Thu, 13 May 1999 lauri_le...@my-dejanews.com wrote:
(...)
> My comments here refer to layers of quotes quotes, of which I am
> no longer aware who said what.
> > > > === Fair enough. But, still I would turn to philosophy or
> literature for
> > > > ideas in and of themselves before I would turn to visual artists.
> Is it really so? In spite of the fact that much of AbEx seem to rely
> more on emotions than thinking.
> > === Not at all. Its just that what the artist creates matters more
> than
> > what the artist thinks, which was my original point.
> I could agree with that, if I refine "what the artist creates,
> matters more than what the artist says".
> Skill and fluency with words is an asset for the song writer,
> but a bass player or trumpetist can have as deep and profound
> musical ideas.
=== Musical ideas, exactly. That's the starting point, you need to hear
good bass lines in your head before you can improvise them but, more
importantly, what you PLAY is what kind of bassist you, in fact, are.
The goal is to play what you hear, not to run around claiming that how you
play is irrelevant because your IDEAS behind your playing are what matter
most. You won't pass too many band auditions with that kind of
attitude.....
And that's the initial point which started all this, and I'm curious to
know what you think, was the claim that `it is the idea behind the work
which matters more than the work itself'. Made by a European who was
objecting to the market taking over art works themselves and thereby
obscuring their `artistic value'.
> > philosophers & writers specialize in thinking and writing and
> therefore > have *more to offer* those in search of brilliant ideas
> brilliant statements -for me. > than do visual > artists for the most
> part.
>Brancusi, Henry Moore has offered me brilliant ideas that no
> textbook can rephrase.
>
> > but on the whole, we don't look to Heidegger and Sartre for their
> > brilliant paintings.
> Brilliant ideas from heidegger, anyone? Brilliant prose maybe :-)
!
> > Most of the time artists take interesting ideas and create things from
> > this inspiration.
> As if you denote them to mere illustrators.
=== Yes, they take interesting ideas and create.....that's my point.
That's what makes them artists....
> > Its the creation which signifies them as *visual*
> > artists, not the ideas which are usually someone else's or, often,
> turn
> > out to be not really that brilliant when examined solely as an idea.
> Whose idea was the David of Michelangelo, Calder's mobile, Munch's
> scream. For me they are brilliant ideas, when examined solely as ideas,
> without paraphrasing them in words.
=== Really? Brilliant ideas or brilliant works? Can we even separate the
idea from the work in the case of Much's `Scream'? For ideas on
alienation in society, only ideas, would it not be better to read
l'Etranger by Camus, or La Nausee by Sartre or, the even more
idea-oriented `Being and Nothingness'. For me, `David', `Scream,'
`Guernica' are brilliant WORKS which were based on important and
inspirational ideas. Then again, perhaps different artists have different
ways of working and this is at the heart of the differences of opinion on
this matter.
> Why should I believe that thinking happens only with
> words. This very thread is evidence of well placed words. While
> choosing your words, you must do thinking (or call it metathinking)
> on a deeper, nonverbal level. Not unlike a painter selects the hues.
=== That's a good point, thinking, ideas, words, hues. Thinking in hues
can be a good idea. This is what Marilyn said. That painters were visual
philosophers. But for me, I'm talking about concepts, images, not
the words used to define and describe them.
> I am not very conviced of the left/right hemisphere theory,
=== I believe that these hemispheres exist, but I don't believe that
anyone has the slightest clue as to why or as to what this means.
> but sure
> it illustrates two different kinds of mental process. If they reside
> on different hemispheres, it is only a democratic coincidence,
=== Well, I'm left-handed so maybe that's where we differ!!!!
> Visual, mathematical and musical thinking is a fact. But also much of
> moral and philosophical thinking is rooted beyond the words.
=== Right. I fully agree with that. Most philosophical thinking occurs
in images to which words are used to capture. At least this has been my
experience.
> While
> writing this, I am not translating Finnish ideas, nor have I English
> ideas. It takes effort to render the ideas in words (in both languages),
> like it takes
> effort to render dance in clay. What I aim to, my idea,
> my intention is nonverbal in both cases.
=== I agree with you here.
(...)
> > I don't find much profound and
> > deep insights amongst the ideas of most contemporary artists. Lots of
> > formulaic PoMo stuff, gotten from other writers and thinkers and from
> > *their* artistic works for the most part,
>
> Just like classisim turned rendering to a shallow, formulaic manier
> followers of modern schools churn out shallow lookalikes.
> > Think, write, by all means. But the
> > artist is measured by his or her works, not by his or her mind.
> Anyway, unless you paint for
> > yourself, tucked away in a studio somewhere, not caring about your
> > results, going after some elusive mental image, then you're forced to
> pay
> > attention to materials, canvas, oils, brushes, medium, etc. and these
> > mediate our mental images. Artists don't work only with ideas. Their
> > ideas are partly shaped by the tools of the craft as well.
>
> As if, the philosopher could work on ideas,without paying attention to
> his/her basic tools, words, paradigms, footnotes.
> - lauri
> --
> lauri....@nokia.com //www.netti.fi/~laurleva/
>
> Seek the truth my son, and beware of those who have found it.
=== Yes but I'm of the opinion that the philosopher's tools are geared
toward the formulation of sophisticated ideas. A painter can paint
beautifully without having ideas *behind* the work, but a philosopher's
paint is his or her ideas. In any case, there are musical, or visual
ideas, or literary ideas which, for the sake of debate I'd like to call
CRAFT ideas. Ideas associated with the making of the art works themselves.
In this sense, all ideas may or may not be brilliant and are on equal
footing. But to me it is the work that counts, and the employment of
these craft ideas, and not the concepts behind the work.
a la prochaine,
A.
A.A. Raimes
Brother Alphabet <ja...@isis.msstate.edu> writes
>Your generalizations are completely absurd. ALL contemporary painters are
>not the same.
Written by the same person that posted this:
"Half the major "artists" in the UK seem to thrive on feces and vaginas.
Cacapeepeeheehee, get a life".
Probably the most absurd generalisation I ever heard - considering that
there are at least 15,000 artists working in the UK, then according to
*Huggo* 7,500 are *thriving* on faeces and vaginas. Maybe he knows more
about art in the UK than artists in the UK do. His doesn't seem to be a
very intelligent or worthwhile comment does it ? Sounds more like a
blanket thought. Originally I put his ignorance down to his geographical
situation but having read him for the last few days I now realise it is
just pure ignorance. Maybe this guy is Mani's son ? or maybe it IS Mani.
There's a thought.
John Haber
There's the historical dimension of even the disciplines we call
philosophy and art. By the time Plato practically invented a
discipline called philosophy, his compatriots had been treating Homer
as their ethical model as well as their literature. The novel has a
history, too, out of fable.
There's the seriousness of art and literature in reaching us very much
through making us think about who we are, how we live, and how we
perceive the world. Conversely, there's that wonderful side of
philosphy you describe, as EXPLORATION. We return to the great
philosophers, even when we think they're full of it, which is no doubt
most of the time.
There's that dimension we've both already raised common to all -- the
sense that an idea isn't really much of anything till you deliver.
There's that search for the precision of a medium -- words, images --
with the knowledge that the medium then gains its precision by having
a life of its own so as to exceed any precise understanding we thought
we had.
I guess all one can do is remember to take one's work seriously and
not to take oneself seriously, with the hope that conversely the work
will bring surprising joys and oneself will attain a quiet in relation
to the world.
Have you ever read one of my favorite essays of all time, Eric
Auerbach's opening essay in Mimesis? It's on how Homer and the
"author" of the sacrifice of Isaac create their mirror of the world.
Someone by looking at "religious" words with the careful scrutiny of a
philosophy and literary critic, all the different ways of thinking
about writing -- as a craft, as art, as meaning -- come into focus at
once.
John
Brother Alphabet
On Thu, 13 May 1999, A.A. Raimes wrote:
> "Half the major "artists" in the UK seem to thrive on feces and vaginas.
Rephrase: Half the UK artists who get mass-media exposure...
> Probably the most absurd generalisation I ever heard - considering that
> there are at least 15,000 artists working in the UK
Probably only about 7,000 of them paint with actual feces. The rest only
fail to boot the prime minister out on his ear for letting the minister of
culture hype Gilbert and George on worldwide television. The UK sucks.
>, then according to
> *Huggo* 7,500 are *thriving* on faeces and vaginas.
Er, that's Hutto, Q.Q.
> Maybe he knows more about art in the UK than artists in the UK do.
Well, I know what I read in your national art magazines, and what your
elected/appointed officials say on world television. Basically I know
enough to say that your art scene is as afflicted as ours and that your
idiot government is as useless as ours.
> His doesn't seem to be a very intelligent or worthwhile comment does it?
Here's a quote from Tracey Emin, famous UK artist:
"The first cigarette of the day always makes me have to shit..."
This highly intelligent remark is scribbled across the face of a wall
sized so-called painting. Also included in the work is a huge outlined
head with a cigarrette in its mouth.
Emin also has created a little box full of panties which apparently is all
the underwear she's worn while in the service of a long line of men. It
features the superliterate phrases:
"All the fucking...All the shagging...etc etc"
Emin, a grade-school dropout at the age of 13, now is a teacher of
printmaking at a well-known UK art school. I don't know if they have
actually granted her a professorship or not, but I wouldn't be surprised.
Famed artists Gilbert and George's works feature mostly images of anuses
and feces. One favorite title of mine is "Spit on Shit", which is a huge
picture of poop with spittle on top of it.
I could go on and on but I hate describing these works.
I will continue to say that the UK minister of culture, a poofy goof, said
on national/world TV that Gilbert and George were the best artists in the
UK....The Prime Minister claims that the UK has the best artists in the
world. So, in view of the whole of your government, Gilbert and George are
the best artists IN THE WORLD. So A.A., you should be peeved at your idiot
government and not me. It isn't MY fault you guys dont know when to flush.
> Sounds more like a
> blanket thought.
Hope it keeps you warm and cozy.
> Originally I put his ignorance down to his geographical
> situation but having read him for the last few days I now realise it is
> just pure ignorance.
I don't think you can dispute the above. I will even post quotes from
Modern Painters and Contemporary Visual Arts if you wish.
> Maybe this guy is Mani's son ? or maybe it IS Mani.
> There's a thought.
What blasphemy! Take not my name in vain, limey feeb!
You don't know me, for you are a newbie, so you are forgiven this time.
Marilyn Welch
Hi Ariane,
That was very interesting, thank you. I'll have to read it
over to respond properly although, I really think you
have got the last word.
Conceptual Art:
I lived with it for four years at Emily Carr College.
In some cases artists who showed at the Charles Scott Gallery
would have assistants do the work, the painting etc. and then
the artist would sign it and get the credit because it was
his/her IDEA.
This is not my genre of art work, but I accept it and find
it can be thought provoking, both the ideas and the methods.
Like any art form, it can be overdone or used as an easy
way out of craft/effort/work/skill. {skill in the real
sense not the md sense.)
a bientot,
Marilyn
Ariane
On Thu, 13 May 1999, Brother Alphabet wrote:
> On Wed, 12 May 1999, Ariane wrote:
>
> > === Yeah right, you paint like Picasso, write like Hemingway, and think
> > like Aristotle.
>
> Who is to say that I do not? You don't know me at all, so how do you know
> what I paint, write or think?
=== Well unless you're role-playing here, it's pretty evident that
Hemingway and Aristotle could teach you a thing or two. As to your
painting, better luck with that....
> People like you overpopulate this culture. You spend too much time with
> your nose in books, or with your head up your arse. You assume that the
> only greatness lies among the dead and buried, in the past.
=== You don't know what I assume. And the past has a role to play in the
present, a didactic role if nothing else....
> The past is as
> useless as your point of view.
=== Yeah, ok there Sigmund. Sorry to have disagreed with you. The past
is useless to you because you know little to nothing about it. Your
precious `ideas' for your science fair projects being passed off as
contemporary art, installations, or whatever is only one style of art
making among many. It's easy to piss in a jar, call it art, and come up
with some poor excuse for thinking to justify it. But you can't fool all
the people all the time.
> If you cannot believe that greatness exists
> now or that greatness will exist in the future then what use are you?
=== Of course it will, but where are you going to learn about greatness?
From Ronald McDonald? South Park? Alanis?
> If I want to know what some dead greek thought I will always have his
> writings to read. I would much rather seek out contemporary ideas, for
> those are what shape TODAY's universe.
=== Don't be a fool. Today's character comes as a direct consequence of
what came before it. NATO exists because of WWII. That's contemporary
culture amigo.
> We cannot function on the
> idea that the dusty past has the only answers for us. What did any of your
> old greats know about living in an age of electricity, computers, etc?
=== Maybe you should find out what you could learn from the past.
> They have SOME answers, but not ALL of them. We must be aware of what they
> teach, but we must also be aware of what modern thinkers think.
=== Modern thinkers are a continuation of a tradition. They don't exist
in a vacuum. Do you think Foucault, Derrida, Irigaray, Rawls, ANYONE
important today got to where they were with that kind of anti-historical
attitude. No one has ALL the answers, past, present, or future. But
paying attention to the past helps us avoid making asses out of ourselves
in the future. Know what I mean Verne?
> Your generalizations are completely absurd. ALL contemporary painters
> are not the same. I "excel" at a number of things, as well as do a
> great many people I know. Perhaps you keep the company of idiots and
> THAT is why you cannot find an artist with a worthwhile thought.
=== And perhaps you're full of it. Regardless, just because I recognize
(or laugh at) a lot of so-called `great' ideas which contemporary artists
employ to justify their works is no reason for you to get upset. Face it.
Your ignorance of history prevents you from relaizing that its all not so
original as you'd like to think it is.
(...)
> > Of course, there are some brilliant painters and sculptors out there,
> > but on the whole, we don't look to Heidegger and Sartre for their
> > brilliant paintings. Nor do we look to Modigliani and Ann Hamilton
> > for their brilliant ideas. To each their own. It's a matter of
> > proficiency at the craft.
>
> Your reality must be such a sad place to live, considering all the
> limitations you place upon people. How do you know no one looks to
> Modigliani for brilliant ideas? What makes you think that these greats
> were so limited in ability?
=== They weren't limited in ability. They were renowned for particular
skills they had.....
> Perhaps Sartre was good at drawing and
> singing, but was most known to history for his ideology.
=== Yeah, perhaps. And then again, perhaps not.
> You can not expect a person of accelerated intelligence to just sit
> around and do ONE THING for his or her entire life. You also can not
> make a rule based upon what a person can "excel" at over the course of
> his or her lifetime. To do so is not only ridiculous, but it is
> borderline despotic.
=== You're not thinking very clearly here. I made no rules, nor do I have
any expectations....I find artistic works more important than the `ideas'
which contemporary artists value so much but in the end, turn out to be
derivative more often than not. The ideas aren't that impressive, except
inasmuch as they bring to bear on the work itself.
> The communists AND the fascists believed in
> forcing young children into tracking programs so that they would, for
> their lifetimes, do that at which they tested most apt to "excel". In
> the real world, people can be proficient at more than one "craft".
=== Yeah, yeah, and the capitalists are killing Yugoslavians in droves.
Is that their `craft"?
Proficiency isn't the issue anyway.
> > At least not the way Nietzsche, Foucault, or Plotinus had briliant ideas
> > because you see, philosophers are artists whose media are their ideas
> > themselves. This gives them a bit of an edge over visual artists who take
> > up too much time fussing with brushes, canvas, charcoal, and other such
> > `distractions'. Likewise, Picasso had brilliant paintings.
>
> Picasso, who said "I paint what I think..." Hmm.
=== Yeah, and not `my ideas are what matter most, not my work. Hell, I
can just sit here and think and give up painting altogether'....
(...)
> > Lots of
> > formulaic PoMo stuff...
>
> Right there - That's not art, that's idiots trying to see if they can get
> away with calling themselves artists.
>
> >, gotten from other writers and thinkers and from
> > *their* artistic works for the most part, anyway, what the artist creates
> > matters way more to me than what he/she thinks.....
>
> You must associate with some heavy-duty frauds.
> Besides, getting ideas from books seems to be your cup of tea.
=== Sure, but I wasn't the one claiming that ideas matter more than the
work w/respect to art work.
> > unless that artist is a
> > poet, philosopher, or writer where the thoughts are the artistic work.
>
> Another clarification:
>
> A poet is a POET and not an artist.
> A philosopher is a PHILOSOPHER and not an artist.
>
> Neither of the two make ART. They write and think.
> (This is, of course, directly in line with your worldview...)
=== According to you (who doesn't think too clearly evidently), All make
art. All make art from each other's art. All MAKE art. That's my point,
get it now?
(...)
> > I don't care about the average Joe/Jane and his or her
> > freaky incoherent mutterings being passed off as `art' because it's simply
> > eccentric.
>
> Here we have a looking-glass anomaly. Who can REALLY say that the
> philosopher-kings we recognize TODAY were not regarded similarly by their
> contemporary snots?
=== True enough, but they left behind WORKS so that future generations
could change their minds about them. They didn't sit around and pretend
their ideas stood in for the work itself right mr. artiste?
> You are a useless individual. Be ashamed.
=== And to make yourself more useful, you could always buy another neuron.
(...)
> So, you dabble and you suck wind. What does that have to do with me? What
> does that have to do with anything. Your lack of talent does not transfer
> onto me or others who HAVE talent. All of this sounds like personal
> problems on your part.
=== Ooohhhh. I'm sorry. It wasn't evident that I was talking with such an
obvious talent. With such an evident lack of ideas, I suspected that you
couldn't stand up to your own contemporary criteria for good art. I stand
corrected, you are a talented genius because, well, you said so.
(...)
> > === No, just recognize that there are levels of proficiency to thinking
> > painting and writing. Write to your heart's content. Just don't expect
> > anyone to care about your writing unless your use of language gets really
> > really good.
>
> Really really good?
> Gee, I hope my use of language isn't very very bad...If I really really
> try, maybe I will one day earn a super duper living, make lots and lots of
> money and meet many many horny horny women.
=== Is that why yo're on-line Sigmund? Your talent and brilliance is more
than evident now, thanks for pointing it out to us.
> People ALREADY care about my writing, as well as about my artwork.
> It's kind of hard to be a dead great, but I'm working really really
> hard at it.
=== Of course. Because you say so. Who's to say you're not sitting in an
asylum somewhere popping meds and finishing up your last ten minutes of
computer time for the day? A victim of your own megalomaniac delusions...
(...)
> Thank goodness I'm great.
=== Right. We got that straight.
> What a hypocrisy. You refuse to even consider the possibility that a
> contemporary has greatness while at the same time pretending the
> greatness of the past is a scale of comparison.
=== Of course there are great contemporaries you clown. It's just that
you're less likely to be one of them than I am for starters, and secondly,
that has nothing to do with `ideas being more important than art works'.
Which was the topic, or was it oh Great One.
> How would you even know if
> greatness was before you? You would shuffle it off as someone's
> QUOTE freaky incoherent mutterings END QUOTE. You do not have the capacity
> to acknowledge greatness, unless of course it was written before you were
> born by some dead guy.
=== You wouldn't know.
> > === Right. I agree. But it doesn't amount to a thing if we can't create
> > WORKS. All that matters in the end are the works, the traces of our
> > existence which we leave behind.
>
> The traces of my existence are more than paintings alone.
=== Right. Because you're great and are so multi-talented (assuming that
no one else is).
> > Think, write, by all means. But the
> > artist is measured by his or her works, not by his or her mind.
>
> Yeah. Leonardo. Yeah.
=== Yeah. Mona Lisa. Yeah. Bad example Sigmund.
> > === Yeah well, I'll do both instead. Anyway, unless you paint for
> > yourself, tucked away in a studio somewhere, not caring about your
> > results, going after some elusive mental image, then you're forced to pay
> > attention to materials, canvas, oils, brushes, medium, etc. and these
> > mediate our mental images.
>
> They do? Funny. Usually I wake up from some alarming dream and have to
> then go and sketch it out so that I can return to sleep. I never once
> consider what surface I'll paint the image on, what media I'll
> use...Maybe, yet again, it's JUST YOU.
(...)
> > What Plato thought and wrote then is more
> > sophisticated and relevant than what the vast majority of people now think
> > and write, or are even capable of thinking and writing. Check out his
> > Republic, or his Apology, and you'll see what I mean.
>
> Yeah, you're right. That must be why Plato's Republic was required reading
> in HIGH SCHOOL.
=== And of course you figured it out in high school eh Sigmund? Because
you're so talented and gifted and all that.
> Plato had no idea what today's world would be like. His
> words and thoughts are VALUABLE, yes, but not at all sophisticated by
> modern standards.
=== No, you're wrong. But then again, I'm talking to a guy who thinks he
got past him in high school...
> > === Yeah but when you're dead, who will the next generation remember for
> > his ideas, you, or Plato?
>
> Plato AND I. *BOW*
=== Well, at least you're an honest megalomaniac. Plato and Hutto. I
see. Time for more meds? Thing is Hutto, you really aren't as bright as
you make yourself out to be. So, you'll have to excuse my skepticism.
(...)
> How do you know how well developed my thoughts and writings are?
> Certainly not via this forum...this is from-the-hip remark and rebuttal.
> If I spent a year crafting a statement of reply I might prove my literary
> skill, but no one would know what I was talking about by then.
=== Yes, you are a bit too much overall.....But thanks for condescending
to engage the r.a.f. crowd, I mean, to come down from such Olympian
heights and all........
> Your points of view MIGHT be valid, but only in a limited frame of
> reality. YOUR worldview does not always equal the state of the world.
> There are plenty of working artisans who exist in complete defiance to
> your point of view. If you refuse to acknowledge the greats among you then
> it is your own problem.
>
> Hutto
=== And, I should start with you right?
A.
Ariane
On Thu, 13 May 1999, Brother Alphabet wrote:
> On Thu, 13 May 1999, A.A. Raimes wrote:
>
> > "Half the major "artists" in the UK seem to thrive on feces and vaginas.
>
> Rephrase: Half the UK artists who get mass-media exposure...
>
> > Probably the most absurd generalisation I ever heard - considering that
> > there are at least 15,000 artists working in the UK
>
> Probably only about 7,000 of them paint with actual feces. The rest only
> fail to boot the prime minister out on his ear for letting the minister of
> culture hype Gilbert and George on worldwide television. The UK sucks.
=== What a complete and utter loser.....Hutto sucks is more like it.
a bientot mon petit cochonnerie,
A.
A.A. Raimes
Brother Alphabet <ja...@isis.msstate.edu> writes
>Probably only about 7,000 of them paint with actual feces. The rest only
>fail to boot the prime minister out on his ear for letting the minister of
>culture hype Gilbert and George on worldwide television. The UK sucks.
That's truly open minded off you and highly intelligent - you have
obviously visited Britain and taken a great deal of time to research
British Art. I find that admirable when one chooses to remark on another
countries culture. However, I must admit, you do seem have a very
different perception to me of what is happening in the art world here -
but then again unfortunately I have never been lured by the
misconception of what the mass media declares to be *mainstream*.
Mainstream, for me, is what is happening in the majority of artists
studios and in the art schools not what one reads in the glossies -
still you declare that 7,000 artists in UK are painting with faeces so I
guess with the sort of profound knowledge from your brainwashing you
have more insight into that than I do. Tomorrow, after I finish at the
gallery where 7 of the 15 artists are working in faeces and vaginas, I
will visit the other 250 studios at Cable St in London and find out how
many artists are doing the same - but of course I am sure you will be
right.
If you ever get a chance to join the real world I suggest you stay your
side of the ocean Higgo, along with your father Mani and your sister
Maddi.
Marcus Bramble
You get a major award for patience for even bothering with this guy. I
think he is really Peter Nelson in disguise (or in drag) .... Smug,
self-assured, and totally and completely fuckwit-ignorant.
Any adult who does not understand the role of history in present day life
and thought is not going to be persuaded by reason, logic, or any other
approach.
Interestingly, I discovered some time ago that the difference between
Sunday, art-fair painters and real artists was not talent or technical
ability
- it was ignorance of art history.
Hasta luego,
Marcus
Ariane <da_l...@alcor.concordia.ca> wrote:
> On Thu, 13 May 1999, Brother Alphabet wrote:
<major snip>
Kay Kane
:
:On Thu, 13 May 1999, A.A. Raimes wrote:
:
:> "Half the major "artists" in the UK seem to thrive on feces and vaginas.
(snipping worthless drivel)
Well, we in the U.S. have our *feces and vaginas* crowd too, but I resent
the ommission of our wonderful *penis and urine* artists too
(Mapplethorpe/Serrano). Nice stereotyping. Very profound.
Kay
To reach me remove 'rcd' from my e-mail address
:
Kay Kane
mdeli
>This is not my genre of art work, but I accept it and find
>it can be thought provoking, both the ideas and the methods.
>Like any art form, it can be overdone or used as an easy
>way out of craft/effort/work/skill. {skill in the real
>sense not the md sense.)
>
What's skill in the REAL sense?
Sounds like the usual Marilyn nonsense.
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
A Skeptical View of Modern Art was updated Jan.16,99
check out my new book, new work, new comments at:.
http://www.interlog.com/~hugod/
Brother Alphabet
On Thu, 13 May 1999, Ariane wrote:
> === Well unless you're role-playing here, it's pretty evident that
> Hemingway and Aristotle could teach you a thing or two.
I doubt it. Both are dead as doorknobs. I have read what they
wrote/thought. It's not like I'm going to model my work after their work,
so what can they really teach me?
> === You don't know what I assume. And the past has a role to play in the
> present, a didactic role if nothing else....
For you and for some others who are as limited as you.
I *DO* know what you assume. You are just like countless other
stuffed-shirts who can't see past their upturned noses.
> === Yeah, ok there Sigmund. Sorry to have disagreed with you.
Too late to be sorry. You have defied the gods.
> The past is useless to you because you know little to nothing about it.
I know PLENTY about it. The difference is, I don't WORSHIP it like you. I
don't see the dead as infallible or insurmountable. Who cares if Picasso
painted this or that. He's DEAD. What matters is what goes on now. The
past is just as nonexistent as the future. The here and now is all there
is. We can either dwell on what was before or we can get things done now.
> Your precious `ideas' for your science fair projects being passed off as
> contemporary art, installations, or whatever is only one style of art
> making among many. It's easy to piss in a jar, call it art, and come up
> with some poor excuse for thinking to justify it. But you can't fool all
> the people all the time.
What the hell are you talking about? Who does that? Certainly not ME. I am
absolutely opposed to that sort of nonsense. You think you know what I am
about but you are ridiculously mistaken. I don't do jerkoff installations
or performance art or any of that postmodern idiot phooey.
> === Of course it will, but where are you going to learn about greatness?
> From Ronald McDonald? South Park? Alanis?
South Park is pretty dang funny. Don't tell me you lack a sense of humor
as WELL as sex appeal. Ronald McDonald is well read in Indonesia, I hear.
There is plenty of greatness to look to in the past. It is not the ONLY
greatness. That was what I was saying.
> === Don't be a fool. Today's character comes as a direct consequence of
> what came before it. NATO exists because of WWII. That's contemporary
> culture amigo.
Oh. Let's see - A good example of learning from the past is NATO, a
hideously bad idea. I got ya.
> === Maybe you should find out what you could learn from the past.
Damnit. I wasted my college experience. Instead of taking all those
history classes I should have taken "What to Learn from the Past 101" and
had it spelled out for me in one course. All this independent research I
continue to do is also a waste. I should go and find "The Past For
Dummies" and forget about writing this book...I mean, it's already obvious
to everyone but me exactly what I should have learned from the past. I
thought it was OK to learn independently of others and take what I valued
from my lessons, but, no, I screwed up and didn't learn "Ariane's Reality"
like everybody else.
> Do you think Foucault, Derrida, Irigaray, Rawls, ANYONE
> important today got to where they were with that kind of anti-historical
> attitude.
Maybe. It isn't IMPOSSIBLE.
> No one has ALL the answers, past, present, or future. But
> paying attention to the past helps us avoid making asses out of ourselves
> in the future. Know what I mean Verne?
Sure. It's the theory that history repeats itself, which isn't valid.
> === And perhaps you're full of it. Regardless, just because I recognize
> (or laugh at) a lot of so-called `great' ideas which contemporary artists
> employ to justify their works is no reason for you to get upset.
That isn't what I got ill about. Odds are very good that I join you in
laughter in regard to a number of "so-called 'great'" contemporary artist
ideas. It is the notion that *I* cannot do something that peeves me. *All*
artists are not fruitcakes with half-baked ideas. Likewise *ALL*
philosophers are not worth listening to. *ALL* writers are not worth
reading. There are as many schmucks in every discipline as there are
worthwhile creators. In fact, there are MORE schmucks. Just because the
schmucks exist does not make all those in a discipline schmucks.
> Face it.
> Your ignorance of history prevents you from relaizing that its all not so
> original as you'd like to think it is.
How do you know what I think? I never defended ANY idea. I defended my
ability to think originally.
I also do not suffer from any ignorance of history. I have learned PLENTY
and I continue to learn. I never said I didn't know history nor did I say
I never studied it. I didn't even say that I was unaffected by it. I just
said and continue to say that history WORSHIP is wasteful.
> === You're not thinking very clearly here.
I always think clearly. It must be unclear to you what I think.
> === Yeah, yeah, and the capitalists are killing Yugoslavians in droves.
> Is that their `craft"?
Is this what they call a random tangent? Nonsequitur?
Are they creatively killing them, or is it more of a utilitarian killing?
Well, as long as they're killing MOST of them, that's the important thing.
> === Yeah, and not `my ideas are what matter most, not my work.
What is the problem with weighing BOTH equally?
> Hell, I can just sit here and think and give up painting altogether'....
That's what Duchamp did...or at least he played chess and did anti-art.
> === Sure, but I wasn't the one claiming that ideas matter more than the
> work w/respect to art work.
I don't think ideas matter MORE. I think ideas matter just as much, or at
least in certain circumstances, they CAN. Landscape and Still Life are
neither normally "idea" works.
> === According to you (who doesn't think too clearly evidently), All make
> art. All make art from each other's art. All MAKE art. That's my point,
> get it now?
That wasn't your point. If all you had said was "Artists make art, Poets
make art...etc..." we wouldn't be having this discussion.
> === True enough, but they left behind WORKS so that future generations
> could change their minds about them. They didn't sit around and pretend
> their ideas stood in for the work itself right mr. artiste?
I don't do that either. At peak times of the year I produce 10 or 12
pictures a week. I write 5 to 7 serious essays a month. I have plenty of
WORK to show for my efforts.
> > You are a useless individual. Be ashamed.
> === And to make yourself more useful, you could always buy another neuron.
I kind of said that just to be jerky. I don't really regard people as
useless. Sorry. Do they sell neurons? Hmm...
> === Ooohhhh. I'm sorry. It wasn't evident that I was talking with such an
> obvious talent.
Now that you know, you should behave yourself accordingly.
> With such an evident lack of ideas, I suspected that you
> couldn't stand up to your own contemporary criteria for good art.
How is a lack of ideas evident?
I'll put my work up against most any modern hack's. If yours is better
than mine, I won't be mad, I'll be impressed.
> I stand
> corrected, you are a talented genius because, well, you said so.
That's all you need - my word. If you have doubts, I'll send you the test
results. I'm a mental giant! (hee hee). OK...Busted. I'm really a complete
idiot. I'm not really here typing this. A smart person is using my email
account without my permission.
> === Is that why yo're on-line Sigmund? Your talent and brilliance is more
> than evident now, thanks for pointing it out to us.
No problem. Glad to grace you. Yes, I am in fact on-line to prove to the
universe how much free time I have, er I mean how smart I am. I really
should be working, but I get in these slumps and check RAF to see if I can
goad an egghead wannabe into an argument.
> === Of course. Because you say so. Who's to say you're not sitting in an
> asylum somewhere popping meds and finishing up your last ten minutes of
> computer time for the day? A victim of your own megalomaniac delusions...
Wanna come visit me and see where I'm sitting? You can see my paintings
and feel humbled at their greatness.
> === Of course there are great contemporaries you clown.
Of course there are great contemporaries. I reminded you of that.
Why do I have to be the clown for knowing that already?
> It's just that
> you're less likely to be one of them than I am for starters...
Doh! Who's the megalomaniac now? YOU think you're more worthy than *I* do!
:) Who the hell are you? No one has heard of you, either. You don't do
anything but read old fart philosophers and hang out with dope smoking
pomo posers...how in the world will you make it while I won't?
Seriously, really, are you sleeping with the nobel prize people?
>, and secondly,
> that has nothing to do with `ideas being more important than art works'.
> Which was the topic, or was it oh Great One.
I don't think ideas are more important. I don't know where you got
that...and please, it's Mr. Almighty.
> > You would shuffle it off as someone's
> > QUOTE freaky incoherent mutterings END QUOTE. You do not have the capacity
> > to acknowledge greatness, unless of course it was written before you were
> > born by some dead guy.
>
> === You wouldn't know.
Yes I would. I QUOTED what you would say. It's not hard to see how your
lack of vision would easily slip another van gogh past.
> === Right. Because you're great and are so multi-talented (assuming that
> no one else is).
PLENTY of other people ARE. That was MY point.
> === And of course you figured it out in high school eh Sigmund?
Didn't say that.
> Because
> you're so talented and gifted and all that.
Did say that. Thanks for remembering.
> > Plato AND I. *BOW*
>
> === Well, at least you're an honest megalomaniac. Plato and Hutto. I
> see.
Why is it so strange for you to consider that I might create things people
would want to know about later in time? If I don't consider my own work to
be important, who else will? I dont trust the historians to do it for me.
Besides, if what I do is not important, why in the world do I do it? Why
am I here? I am not a falsely humble person. I do not believe in being all
lowly as though I will never be better than my predecessors. I will
surpass what they did either by force or by grace or by sheer luck, but
most likely by a combination of all three.
> Time for more meds? Thing is Hutto, you really aren't as bright as
> you make yourself out to be. So, you'll have to excuse my skepticism.
What basis have you for that conclusion? As far as I know, we have never
met. In fact, if we had met your impression of me would be far different
than what you lie above.
> === Yes, you are a bit too much overall.....
INDEED. Isn't that's what it's all about? To go too far, to be too
arrogant, to make outrageous claims...I could be mute and humble, or I
could claim to be a genius and leave the rest of the world to prove me
wrong or accept me at my word. Either way, I am controlling anyone who
reacts or responds.
This is all complete balogna, but it's also a parallel to making images.
I can fling together some crap and try to FORCE it to be art, which is
what you have a problem with, as should anyone...but the problem we have
forces the STUFF to become art in spite of our outrage.
OR, I could make a tame image and hide it in a closet.
OR, I could find the median. I could work dilligently on images that go
too far, are too strange, are too vague...Basically, images that make
people react, respond, even though they might not know why. THESE sorts of
images take thought, and not average thought, but advanced, educated and
enlightened thought.
If you want to criticize me, at least do so AFTER you take a look at the
type of work I am talking about. Of course, that isn't too feasible
considering the likelihood that you live far away from here...I have a
feeling that we really DON'T differ on too many things. We seem to be
saying similar things in different ways.
> But thanks for condescending
> to engage the r.a.f. crowd, I mean, to come down from such Olympian
> heights and all........
It isn't easy. So many of you are blasphemers.
BTW, I have been here a long long long time. I really really really have.
I predate Mani Deli, to drop a name for no apparent reason.
> > your point of view. If you refuse to acknowledge the greats among you then
> > it is your own problem.
> === And, I should start with you right?
Well, naturally. ;P
I have a *worthwhile idea*. Let's stop being nasty to each other before
this degenerates beyond all constructive use. I'm sorry for saying all
those insanely arrogant things and I am sorry for any insults. I don't
REALLY consider myself to be king of the world. :)
Brother Alphabet
On 13 May 1999, Marcus Bramble wrote:
> You get a major award for patience for even bothering with this guy.
You brown-nosing hack feeb.
> I think he is really Peter Nelson in disguise (or in drag) ....
Keep on thinking. Maybe it will work one day.
> Smug,
> self-assured, and totally and completely fuckwit-ignorant.
Fuckwit-ignorant. Do you tongue-kiss your mother with that filthy mouth?
> Any adult...
He uses the term "fuckwit-ignorant" and then pretends to be an adult.
> who does not understand the role of history in present day
> life and thought is not going to be persuaded by reason, logic, or any
> other approach.
I know plenty about history and yet I can't be persuaded even still...Wow,
I'm just plain capable of thinking for myself.
> Interestingly, I discovered some time ago that the difference between
> Sunday, art-fair painters and real artists was not talent or technical
> ability
> - it was ignorance of art history.
I am sure that makes you feel less inferior, but I assure you that it's
technical ability and God-granted talent.
BTW, I have a great deal of art historical knowledge. It sort of came
along with my degree in painting. That plus the ongoing art historical
research I do. I have an art library of over 300 volumes, all of which I
have read at least once.
What else exactly do I need to do to know something about art history?
> Hasta luego,
Bite me.
Hutto
Brother Alphabet
On Thu, 13 May 1999, Ariane wrote:
> === What a complete and utter loser.....Hutto sucks is more like it.
This is excellent. I have been looking for someone in the group other than
Mani Deli to dislike for about a year. You are the first to earn that
gift.
France is a pansy nation, French is a gutter language,
Brother Alphabet
Dear A.A. Raimes,
I would bother to reply line by line, but I will refrain based upon your
lowly rebuttal to my previous post. If the only thing your frail mind can
muster is a weak attempt to belittle me by intentionally mispelling my
name than I haven't the time to waste on you.
Anyway, I honestly don't see why you're offended if you are in the
50% of limeys who DON'T paint with poop.
Brother Alphabet
On Thu, 13 May 1999, Kay Kane wrote:
> (snipping worthless drivel)
And adding more to replace it, how very kind.
> Well, we in the U.S. have our *feces and vaginas* crowd too, but I resent
> the ommission of our wonderful *penis and urine* artists too
> (Mapplethorpe/Serrano). Nice stereotyping. Very profound.
Oh, did I fail to mention that I wasn't in PROFOUND mode today?
Stereotyping is the spice of life. I guess all people named Kay don't read
my entire posts where I freely admit the US art scene is just as
"afflicted" as theirs.
bobig
Brother Alphabet <ja...@isis.msstate.edu> a écrit dans le message :
Pine.SOL.4.10.990514...@ra.msstate.edu...
>
> On Thu, 13 May 1999, Ariane wrote:
>
> > === What a complete and utter loser.....Hutto sucks is more like it.
>
> This is excellent. I have been looking for someone in the group other than
> Mani Deli to dislike for about a year. You are the first to earn that
> gift.
>
> France is a pansy nation, French is a gutter language,
>
> Hutto
Your arguments are only agressive. i've got my opinion about art and you
have yours. why did you talk about France and his gutter language.
i see...you're a good boy nationalist....
i'm not living in your territory..
my country is art...an unexplored country where averybody could decide to be
an artist (poet, painter, writer...)
my goal is to share my art with others for nothing...because i love this
utopian idea.
for me, art is a great vortex mixing philosophy, painting, writing, video,
multimedia...etc....all i want to put in my art, i put it without
restriction.
ART= LIFE LIFE= ART
à bientôt
gros bisous
A.A. Raimes
Brother Alphabet <ja...@isis.msstate.edu> writes
>BTW, I have a great deal of art historical knowledge. It sort of came
>along with my degree in painting. That plus the ongoing art historical
>research I do. I have an art library of over 300 volumes, all of which I
>have read at least once.
Ha ha ha ! You have to laugh at this guy folks - he truly has his head
buried right up the place from which he claims 50% of British Art comes
from. Maybe he read all those books with the light off while he was
jerking off ....
A.A. Raimes
Brother Alphabet <ja...@isis.msstate.edu> writes
>
>
>I would bother to reply line by line, but I will refrain based upon your
>lowly rebuttal to my previous post. If the only thing your frail mind can
>muster is a weak attempt to belittle me by intentionally mispelling my
>name than I haven't the time to waste on you.
Ah, I see that Mr Hotto doesn't like to have anyone *attempt to
belittle* him by intentionally misrepresenting him. Gosh, he must be
awfully busy learning and expanding his horizons to be bothered anymore
with an artists who stands as representative for the nation whose art he
has misrepresented and belittled.
>
>Anyway, I honestly don't see why you're offended if you are in the
>50% of limeys who DON'T paint with poop.
>
>Hutto
And coming from someone who screams about the way he is ignored he
wonders why I should be offended by *his* offensiveness which included
the claim that the "UK SUCKS". Well to all the Mr Hotto's of this world:
you and your urban legends that race unsupported through cyberspace had
better be prepared to meet the Alison Aylwin Raimes' of the world who
will demand evidence for the garbage which spurts from your loose
lips... starting with evidence that 50% of UK artists paint with *poop*.
Alison A Raimes
Cable St Studio #324
566 Cable St
Limehouse
London E1 9HB
Tel: 0171 780 9493 Mobile: 07803 208161
Email: ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
A.A. Raimes
Brother Alphabet <ja...@isis.msstate.edu> writes
>
>
>> === What a complete and utter loser.....Hutto sucks is more like it.
>
>This is excellent. I have been looking for someone in the group other than
>Mani Deli to dislike for about a year. You are the first to earn that
>gift.
>
>France is a pansy nation, French is a gutter language,
>
>Hutto
>
Look no further ! Now you have earned at least a dozen others to
*dislike* ... that should keep you busy for a while.
May Flowers
says...
>Maybe this guy is Mani's son ? or maybe it IS Mani.
>There's a thought.
Alphabet doesn't deserve to even be mentioned
in the same sentence with DeLi. Since you are
a relative newcomer to RAF you can be forgiven
this once. Mani and Brother have been around
and about for much longer than most who post
here. Mani hasn't said anything new since his
first posts years ago. At least Brother brings fresh
view points if not fresh feces to the foray.
May Flowers
says...
>starting with evidence that 50% of UK artists paint with *poop*.
...just be thankful that Brother didn't say that
folks! We'd be here, locked in this thread until
all 7,000 poop artists came out of 'the closet.'
May Flowers
da_l...@alcor.concordia.ca says...
>> Picasso, who said "I paint what I think..." Hmm.
>
>=== Yeah, and not `my ideas are what matter most, not my work. Hell, I
>can just sit here and think and give up painting altogether'....
LOVE IT! But as you said, it would be derivative...
A.A. Raimes
<nom...@aintnonesuch.com> writes
>
>Alphabet doesn't deserve to even be mentioned
>in the same sentence with DeLi. Since you are
>a relative newcomer to RAF you can be forgiven
>this once.
Piss off, Flowery Showers ! This business about *whose group this* and
the newcomers having to *earn* the right to be included in the *club* is
a nonsense. This is a world wide public forum, not an American tea room
for you and your friends to gossip in - *how long* one has dominated it
with drivel like mani's and hitto's is inconsequential other than they
both have been doing it for so long they are responsible for changing
the direction of what could be a productive and informative means of
global exchange. You are prepared to stand next to an individual who
ignorantly shoots down the Europeans on this group, by telling *me* that
it is INJUST to compare him to another narrow minded idiot. You fool.
Don't you know this is *not* the same group - it changes as new people
arrive and bring new perspectives. The world changes all the time. The
myths that you and your chums have happily been hurtling back and forth
across cyberspace are being challenged. Are you scared of that ? I
wonder why. Threatened because you have been here for so long and we
have not ? Who are you to dish out forgiveness anyway. You sound like
a primary school teacher.
Next month be sure to spare me your June Joking won't you.
A.A. Raimes
Brother Alphabet <ja...@isis.msstate.edu> writes
>> "Half the major "artists" in the UK seem to thrive on feces and vaginas.
>
>Rephrase: Half the UK artists who get mass-media exposure...
To bring this thread back onto its original course, I would like to
address this twerps comments in a more serious light.
It greatly alarms me that the mass media has such a hold on the legends
of world art that our countries can be regarded with such sneering
contempt - particularly when it is by someone snivelling about their own
exclusion from mainstream. I, for one, am delighted to see this months
issue of _Contemporary Visual Arts_ has now incorporated _World Art_ and
hope that perhaps it will include a much broader account of what is
really happening in the arts.
The recent exposure of the Brit Pack artists - who graduated from
Goldsmith's in the early 90's and broke ground with their independent
private show FRIEZE, (curated by Damien Hirst) - has indeed dominated
the mass media in regards to British Art throughout the world. Good for
them I say - their brashness and blatant deception has been their
success and they revel in it - they are all rich kids now. They make no
claims to being sincere - in fact most of them don't produce new work at
all but recycle old stuff they did at college (when they bothered to
show up). They have milked the system and loved every second of the fame
and glory. Without the backing of American Charles Saatchi these kids
would have taken their mediocre degrees and they would all be doing
something like designing websites to earn a crust. Mr and Mrs Saatchi
hold the purse strings of the British Art scene - the art scene built on
hype and film star madness. They are business people and the Brit Pack
are their product with mass media as their advertising. As long as the
consumerist attitude of America dominates British Art then those reared
on such a culture will not be able to look further than what is thrust
at them by the media.
However, for those have a genuine interest in sharing global views on
art: British Art has some amazing funding for artists - scholarships,
prizes, bursaries and grants which allow artists to exist solely on
their work as artists. As our society recovers from fifty years of
bankruptcy following WW2, the funding increases steadily and more
opportunities are becoming available. Until this year university
education has always been free and supported by government grants - it
has never excluded on the basis of rich and poor. Every city has its own
collection of artists communities and studio complexes and each region
has its own funds available to support them. Like everything concerning
money, competition is tough and only the committed survive.
There is a strong sense of a continuation in painting in the UK today
supported by several awards specifically for painting. The leading
artists, whose works you will regularly see in Contemporary Visual Arts
or Modern Painters are: Zebedee Jones; Theresa Oulton; Ian Davenport;
Gary Hume; Gwen Hardie; Jason Martin; Fiona Rae; and Jonathan Lasker
amongst many many others. They are regularly reported on in the *mass
media* but if you are to busy looking for gossip content you would
surely be blind to their existence. Its up to you.
Alison A Raimes
ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
9th May to 9th June 1999 @ Peterbourough Arthouse
26, Fitzwilliam Street. Peterborough
Tel: 01733 319581 (for gallery opening hours)
A.A. Raimes
Twit - he did say it.
mdeli
, Ariane wrote:
>
>> === What a complete and utter loser.....Hutto sucks is more like it.
>
>This is excellent. I have been looking for someone in the group other than
>Mani Deli to dislike for about a year. You are the first to earn that
>gift.
>
>France is a pansy nation, French is a gutter language,
>
>Hutto
After Hutto complained about a Russian student for some errors in
English it became clear that his worldliness extended no further than
a two mile radius beyond his outhouse.
His web site, which he no longer mentions, was further evidence of
that fact.
Dan Fox
> Brother Alphabet wrote:
> >France is a pansy nation, French is a gutter language,
> >
> >Hutto
>
> After Hutto complained about a Russian student for some errors in
> English it became clear that his worldliness extended no further than
> a two mile radius beyond his outhouse.
I would make it the radius of his shithole Mississippi town. Amazing
when the cliche of the Southern bigot comes to life. I always thought that
the odor of magnolias was mixed with the stench of rotting lives.
You couldn't carry Ariane's shoes, asshole. F.O.A.D.
Dan
Ariane
On Fri, 14 May 1999, Brother Alphabet wrote:
>
> On Thu, 13 May 1999, Ariane wrote:
>
> > === Well unless you're role-playing here, it's pretty evident that
> > Hemingway and Aristotle could teach you a thing or two.
>
> I doubt it. Both are dead as doorknobs. I have read what they
> wrote/thought. It's not like I'm going to model my work after their work,
> so what can they really teach me?
=== You're full of it. You haven't read either of them at all. It's
evident in your stunted prose which, in turn, reflects your limited
intellect.....
> > === You don't know what I assume. And the past has a role to play in the
> > present, a didactic role if nothing else....
>
> For you and for some others who are as limited as you.
> I *DO* know what you assume. You are just like countless other
> stuffed-shirts who can't see past their upturned noses.
=== Yeah, whatever. You haven't got a clue really. Not about me, not
about history, not about art, nor about contemporary thinkers and artists.
I also know more about modernity and post-modernity than you as well. You
come across as all hip and cool, but in actuality, I'm willing to bet that
you're the one who ends up looking like the putz in the stuffed shirt in
the end....
> > === Yeah, ok there Sigmund. Sorry to have disagreed with you.
>
> Too late to be sorry. You have defied the gods.
=== ....and not you and those whom you deify....
> > The past is useless to you because you know little to nothing about it.
>
> I know PLENTY about it.
=== Right, because you say so. Just like you're a great writer, painter,
artist, and whatever else you decide to invent. Soon you'll be the
ambassador to Nicaragua if I keep letting you wank on and on and on....
> The difference is, I don't WORSHIP it like you.
=== You don't know what I worship. I just know more about it than
you....
> I
> don't see the dead as infallible or insurmountable.
=== Neither do I. Gotta know `em to `beat' `em though.....
> Who cares if Picasso
> painted this or that. He's DEAD. What matters is what goes on now.
=== No, you're wrong. What matters in art are works and a dead Picasso
still has better works than a living Hutto. That's why his works matter
and conversely, why you don't.
> The
> past is just as nonexistent as the future. The here and now is all there
> is. We can either dwell on what was before or we can get things done now.
=== It's not an `either, or' situation. You have a better grasp of the
present and can predict and create your future more intelligently when you
have a knowledge of the past. Otherwise you just think you're being all
original and creative with your `rad ideas' when you're really just a big
yawn to all who know more than the present.
> > Your precious `ideas' for your science fair projects being passed off as
> > contemporary art, installations, or whatever is only one style of art
> > making among many. It's easy to piss in a jar, call it art, and come up
> > with some poor excuse for thinking to justify it. But you can't fool all
> > the people all the time.
>
> What the hell are you talking about? Who does that? Certainly not ME. I am
> absolutely opposed to that sort of nonsense. You think you know what I am
> about but you are ridiculously mistaken. I don't do jerkoff installations
> or performance art or any of that postmodern idiot phooey.
=== So you've officially abandoned the `ideas are more important than art
work' argument because you can't uphold that position? Now, we've moved
on to `the past (also the UK and the French) sucks and the only thing that
matters is the present'? Another stupid argument.....
> > === Of course it will, but where are you going to learn about greatness?
> > From Ronald McDonald? South Park? Alanis?
>
> South Park is pretty dang funny. Don't tell me you lack a sense of humor
> as WELL as sex appeal. Ronald McDonald is well read in Indonesia, I hear.
=== Well hot dang! South Park's pretty cool after all, jess bring on them
grits an' dumplins'!! An' ah don appeel nun to Farmer Hutto's
sexyualitee. Oh well Grimace, there's always your hand, it's been working
out for you so far, why stop now......?
> There is plenty of greatness to look to in the past. It is not the ONLY
> greatness. That was what I was saying.
>
> > === Don't be a fool. Today's character comes as a direct consequence of
> > what came before it. NATO exists because of WWII. That's contemporary
> > culture amigo.
>
> Oh. Let's see - A good example of learning from the past is NATO, a
> hideously bad idea. I got ya.
=== Yeah its a bad idea. Point is, it DIDN'T learn from the past, it
EXISTS because of it. Past feeds into the present, best to learn from
it....
> > === Maybe you should find out what you could learn from the past.
>
> Damnit. I wasted my college experience. Instead of taking all those
> history classes I should have taken "What to Learn from the Past 101" and
> had it spelled out for me in one course. All this independent research I
> continue to do is also a waste. I should go and find "The Past For
> Dummies" and forget about writing this book...I mean, it's already obvious
> to everyone but me exactly what I should have learned from the past. I
> thought it was OK to learn independently of others and take what I valued
> from my lessons, but, no, I screwed up and didn't learn "Ariane's Reality"
> like everybody else.
> > Do you think Foucault, Derrida, Irigaray, Rawls, ANYONE
> > important today got to where they were with that kind of anti-historical
> > attitude.
>
> Maybe. It isn't IMPOSSIBLE.
=== Well, you're wrong because they don't and they didn't. Your `book'
obviously isn't on contemporary thought now is it oh enlightened
artist/writer/photographer/South Park watchin', grimace fantasizin',
holier-than-thou clown.
> > > No one has ALL the answers, past, present,
or future. But
> > paying attention to the past helps us avoid making asses out of ourselves
> > in the future. Know what I mean Verne?
>
> Sure. It's the theory that history repeats itself, which isn't valid.
=== Of course it's valid. You don't know anything about it, that's your
problem....
> > === And perhaps you're full of it. Regardless, just because I recognize
> > (or laugh at) a lot of so-called `great' ideas which contemporary artists
> > employ to justify their works is no reason for you to get upset.
>
> That isn't what I got ill about. Odds are very good that I join you in
> laughter in regard to a number of "so-called 'great'" contemporary artist
> ideas. It is the notion that *I* cannot do something that peeves me.
=== Of course you can `do something'. And chances are, with a knowledge
of history, you'll be better placed to avoid the mistakes made by
countless other contemporaries who think they're `doing something'
original and creative only to find out that someone else did it, and maybe
even did it better. We're writing history now. You can't escape history.
> *All*
> artists are not fruitcakes with half-baked ideas.
=== True enough.
> Likewise *ALL*
> philosophers are not worth listening to.
=== Wrong. I think you meant `not all philosophers are worth listening
to' but screwed the sentence structure up. Gotta be careful of that in
your `book' Herpes. Many philosophers are indeed worth reading, if only
to find out that philosophy extends beyond its academic
encapsulation....but whatever, I don't want to go too far over your head.
> *ALL* writers are not worth
> reading.
=== Same sentence error.....anyway, the only way to find out is by picking
up books and figuring out for yourself what's good and what's not. And if
you happen to like a few dead authors. SO WHAT?!
> There are as many schmucks in every discipline as there are
> worthwhile creators. In fact, there are MORE schmucks. Just because the
> schmucks exist does not make all those in a discipline schmucks.
=== Yup.
> > Face it.
> > Your ignorance of history prevents you from relaizing that its all not so
> > original as you'd like to think it is.
>
> How do you know what I think? I never defended ANY idea. I defended my
> ability to think originally.
=== Well, no one was attacking that Sigmund. Is your inferiority complex
getting the better of you again? Back to megalomania you go......
> I also do not suffer from any ignorance of history. I have learned PLENTY
> and I continue to learn. I never said I didn't know history nor did I say
> I never studied it. I didn't even say that I was unaffected by it. I just
> said and continue to say that history WORSHIP is wasteful.
>
> > === You're not thinking very clearly here.
>
> I always think clearly. It must be unclear to you what I think.
=== ....And to everybody else on the planet but hey, its clear to you
so.....
(...)
> > === Yeah, and not `my ideas are what matter most, not my work.
>
> What is the problem with weighing BOTH equally?
=== Because they're not equal. Works outweigh ideas in the realm of
visual art.....I will change my mind only when confronted with reasonable
evidence to the contrary, and you haven't done anything but yank your own
chain here. Ideas are important but then comes the craft dimensions to
creating and in the end, the `artist' is the work.
For an artist, the idea is a means to an end, the work is an end in
itself.
(...)
> I don't think ideas matter MORE. I think ideas matter just as much, or at
> least in certain circumstances, they CAN. Landscape and Still Life are
> neither normally "idea" works.
=== Yes, ideas matter. We agree Hutto.
(...)
> That wasn't your point. If all you had said was "Artists make art, Poets
> make art...etc..." we wouldn't be having this discussion.
=== Maybe you should think a little more clearly then, because that was,
and is, part of the point I'm making. Don't be so quick to jump off the
haywagon and call out the lynch mob next time.
(...)
> > === True enough, but they left behind WORKS so that future generations
> > could change their minds about them. They didn't sit around and pretend
> > their ideas stood in for the work itself right mr. artiste?
>
> I don't do that either. At peak times of the year I produce 10 or 12
> pictures a week. I write 5 to 7 serious essays a month. I have plenty of
> WORK to show for my efforts.
=== Great, keep going. Because no one really gives a damn about your
ideas unless they're contained in your work.......You were never
really making much sense anyway, so like, if you paint youir ideas,
would it look like Pollock's work?
......
> > > You are a useless individual. Be ashamed.
> > === And to make yourself more useful, you could always buy another neuron.
>
> I kind of said that just to be jerky. I don't really regard people as
> useless. Sorry. Do they sell neurons? Hmm...
>
> > === Ooohhhh. I'm sorry. It wasn't evident that I was talking with such an
> > obvious talent.
>
> Now that you know, you should behave yourself accordingly.
>
> > With such an evident lack of ideas, I suspected that you
> > couldn't stand up to your own contemporary criteria for good art.
>
> How is a lack of ideas evident?
> I'll put my work up against most any modern hack's. If yours is better
> than mine, I won't be mad, I'll be impressed.
=== Yes, How to paint, the Green Bay Packer way.....is that what you're
actually writing over there?
> > I stand
> > corrected, you are a talented genius because, well, you said so.
>
> That's all you need - my word. If you have doubts, I'll send you the test
> results. I'm a mental giant! (hee hee). OK...Busted. I'm really a complete
> idiot. I'm not really here typing this. A smart person is using my email
> account without my permission.
>
> > === Is that why yo're on-line Sigmund? Your talent and brilliance is more
> > than evident now, thanks for pointing it out to us.
>
> No problem. Glad to grace you. Yes, I am in fact on-line to prove to the
> universe how much free time I have, er I mean how smart I am. I really
> should be working, but I get in these slumps and check RAF to see if I can
> goad an egghead wannabe into an argument.
!
> > === Of course. Because you say so. Who's to say you're not sitting in an
> > asylum somewhere popping meds and finishing up your last ten minutes of
> > computer time for the day? A victim of your own megalomaniac delusions...
>
> Wanna come visit me and see where I'm sitting? You can see my paintings
> and feel humbled at their greatness.
=== Do they give you brushes and paint from time to time??
> > === Of course there are great contemporaries you clown.
>
> Of course there are great contemporaries. I reminded you of that.
> Why do I have to be the clown for knowing that already?
>
> > It's just that
> > you're less likely to be one of them than I am for starters...
>
> Doh! Who's the megalomaniac now? YOU think you're more worthy than *I* do!
=== Well comparatively speaking and all.....
> :) Who the hell are you? No one has heard of you, either.
=== Of course they have, I'm actually Celine Dion.....my middle name is
Ariane.
> You don't do
> anything but read old fart philosophers and hang out with dope smoking
> pomo posers...how in the world will you make it while I won't?
=== It's all in the dope actually, but the pomo posing between concerts
helps.....and my husband Rene likes it....
> Seriously, really, are you sleeping with the nobel prize people?
=== No, Rene. (And my roadie too).
(...)
> > > Plato AND I. *BOW*
> >
> > === Well, at least you're an honest megalomaniac. Plato and Hutto. I
> > see.
>
> Why is it so strange for you to consider that I might create things people
> would want to know about later in time?
=== Uhhh, due to this conversation we're having. But I wish you all the
self-improvement in the world......
> If I don't consider my own work to
> be important, who else will? I dont trust the historians to do it for me.
=== Of course, couldn't agree more. The historians will do what they do
regardless....
> Besides, if what I do is not important, why in the world do I do it? Why
> am I here? I am not a falsely humble person.
=== My raison d'etre isn't importance. But in any case, there's a
difference between `I am brilliant' and `my work matters to me,' can you
see that?
> I do not believe in being all
> lowly as though I will never be better than my predecessors. I will
> surpass what they did either by force or by grace or by sheer luck, but
> most likely by a combination of all three.
=== Not if you don't know who they are or what has been done. Thus the
necessity of HISTORY...I don't deny your dedication nor your right to
self-worth, but saying it doesn't make it so, the proof is in the work not
in your daydreams. Keep painting......
> > Time for more meds? Thing is Hutto, you really aren't as bright as
> > you make yourself out to be. So, you'll have to excuse my skepticism.
>
> What basis have you for that conclusion? As far as I know, we have never
> met. In fact, if we had met your impression of me would be far different
> than what you lie above.
>
> > === Yes, you are a bit too much overall.....
>
> INDEED. Isn't that's what it's all about? To go too far, to be too
> arrogant, to make outrageous claims...
=== Maybe in Mississippi. It's easy to become a cultural construct, a lot
harder to create an artist people are going to want to know, not want to
laugh at. To be too much....that's only one strategy, and not a very
bright one. Isn't that what Marilyn Manson's doing? Worked for him. But
he'll be forgotten when he's replaced by the next clown, that's what these
`outrageous' artists are after all, harlequins, jesters, the population of
Picasso's Rose period oeuvres, McArtists. ...
> I could be mute and humble, or I
> could claim to be a genius and leave the rest of the world to prove me
> wrong or accept me at my word. Either way, I am controlling anyone who
> reacts or responds.
=== Life as a Nintendo game. Your `control' is in your mind, people
exercise their free will as they see fit, I wouldn't be so dazzled that
you may have a small effect on the world. From a minutely larger
perspective, you have no control over anything, not even yourself....
> This is all complete balogna, but it's also a parallel to making images.
> I can fling together some crap and try to FORCE it to be art, which is
> what you have a problem with, as should anyone...but the problem we have
> forces the STUFF to become art in spite of our outrage.
>
> OR, I could make a tame image and hide it in a closet.
>
> OR, I could find the median. I could work dilligently on images that go
> too far, are too strange, are too vague...Basically, images that make
> people react, respond, even though they might not know why. THESE sorts of
> images take thought, and not average thought, but advanced, educated and
> enlightened thought.
=== You're after powerful images then. Picasso's all about it. There are
many other images and ways of creating out there, as you may know, being
too much is only one strategy, and, if we look at history, its already
been done. To death. Being really creative is not so easy.....
> If you want to criticize me, at least do so AFTER you take a look at the
> type of work I am talking about. Of course, that isn't too feasible
> considering the likelihood that you live far away from here...I have a
> feeling that we really DON'T differ on too many things. We seem to be
> saying similar things in different ways.
>
> > But thanks for condescending
> > to engage the r.a.f. crowd, I mean, to come down from such Olympian
> > heights and all........
>
> It isn't easy. So many of you are blasphemers.
>
> BTW, I have been here a long long long time. I really really really have.
> I predate Mani Deli, to drop a name for no apparent reason.
=== Who predates you?
> > > your point of view. If you refuse to acknowledge the greats among you then
> > > it is your own problem.
> > === And, I should start with you right?
>
> Well, naturally. ;P
>
> I have a *worthwhile idea*. Let's stop being nasty to each other before
> this degenerates beyond all constructive use. I'm sorry for saying all
> those insanely arrogant things and I am sorry for any insults. I don't
> REALLY consider myself to be king of the world. :)
>
> Hutto
=== ok. I don't either.
ciao,
A.
Glenn Geist
On the other hand, how really worthwhile can anything be if no one
wants to pay money to have control over or the use of it? The fact
that rich people will pay large amounts of money for something does
destabilize the argument that art's value is the result of a
contageous illusion when one then also has to argue that people
without money are somehow smarter, or at least more pure in their
perception, than we of the proletariat. It's an elitist argument.
We can lament that all the things of life have a monetary value, but
to me it's like lamenting gravity. Nothing would work if it were
otherwise. Nothing of cultural value will be without monetary value -
if it were, it would not be protected by society and would be lost.
I'm not sure you can say that the interest follows value or value
follows interest any more than you can say yin follows yang. <s>
>>i saw the sale by auction of cezanne's painting. medias (radio, television)
>>talk about the price not the painting...
>
>You've a real point there, and I can't wish it entirely away by saying
>it was, after all, auction news. That is, it was the sale that was
>news; the painting had been there before. But I realize it does
>reflect the public's need for certification of art before they take to
>it, plus the role money plays in certifying things in our world.
>
>On the other hand, I am not sure one can expect the media to discuss
>art. Given that, I am glad Cezanne made the news, and the article in
>the New york Times kept insisting on the importance of the collection
>up for sale.
>
>Also, at least the public has become loyal indeed to, say, Jasper
>Johns or Jackson Pollock once money had convinced them to look. The
>outcry recently over the proposed sale of a Johns white flag from a
>public place, Lincoln Center, reflected that.
>
>And finally, as I say, I won't let my dismay at capitalism or the art
>world stop me from praising artists who keep trying to earn a living.
>
>
>>Personnally, i think the idea is most important than the result.
>>i love the idea of an artist without works.
>>the best artist could be an artist without works
>
>A very Duchamp or Cage attitude. Est-ce que vous jouez aux echec? :)
>
>
>Creators always have that dual within. It's mine, one wants to say,
>something out of me that can only be mistranslated by halfway plastic
>media of paint or words or equations -- and by the public gaze. And
>yet the pride of creation and looking is always so wrapped up in the
>thing itself; the painting or the phrase found from, well, somewhere
>mysterious always seems so much more beautiful than anything I could
>have imagined .
>
>A quality of modern art is to make that duality part of its content.
>No ideas but in things, as the poem goes. And so one gets not just
>Duchamp (and that hauntingly real toilet turned 90 degrees), but also
>the achingly gorgeous work of someone as close to him as Man Ray. One
>gets the idealism of Greenberg, but an idealism wrapped up in making
>paint the end in itself. One gets the debate between philosophers
>like Danto and Goodman: Can there ever be objects indiscernible from
>other things (a Brillo box, a red square) in the world of art, or does
>their very resemblance only focus on one the fineness of perceiving
>the world?
>
>Maybe the duality is the content, and that's the lesson?
>
>John (www.haberarts.com)
Ariane
On Fri, 14 May 1999, Brother Alphabet wrote:
>
> On Thu, 13 May 1999, Ariane wrote:
>
> > === What a complete and utter loser.....Hutto sucks is more like it.
>
> This is excellent. I have been looking for someone in the group other than
> Mani Deli to dislike for about a year. You are the first to earn that
> gift.
>
> France is a pansy nation, French is a gutter language,
>
=== Mississippians are racist illiterate incestuous goobers, Southern
english makes no sense even to Southerners, they're all solipsists, that's
why they lost the war.......
a bientot,
A.
peter nelson
>laughter in regard to a number of "so-called 'great'" contemporary artist
>ideas. It is the notion that *I* cannot do something that peeves me. *All*
>artists are not fruitcakes with half-baked ideas. Likewise *ALL*
>philosophers are not worth listening to. *ALL* writers are not worth
>reading. There are as many schmucks in every discipline as there are
>worthwhile creators. In fact, there are MORE schmucks.
Sturgeon said this in a lot fewer words.
>How do you know what I think? I never defended ANY idea. I defended my
>ability to think originally.
How do you know it's original if you ignore the past?
---peter
emat...@tomatoweb.com
nom...@aintnonesuch.com (May Flowers) wrote:
> In article <3uzhDCCG...@raimes.demon.co.uk>, ali...@address.in.signature
> says...
>
> >Maybe this guy is Mani's son ? or maybe it IS Mani.
> >There's a thought.
>
> in the same sentence with DeLi. Since you are
> a relative newcomer to RAF you can be forgiven
> and about for much longer than most who post
> here. Mani hasn't said anything new since his
> first posts years ago. At least Brother brings fresh
> view points if not fresh feces to the foray.
>
'bologna' correctly. That has earned my respect.
Erik
--== Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ ==--
---Share what you know. Learn what you don't.---
emat...@tomatoweb.com
"A.A. Raimes" <ali...@address.in.signature> wrote:
> And coming from someone who screams about the way he is ignored he
> wonders why I should be offended by *his* offensiveness which included
> the claim that the "UK SUCKS". Well to all the Mr Hotto's of this world:
> you and your urban legends that race unsupported through cyberspace had
> better be prepared to meet the Alison Aylwin Raimes' of the world who
> will demand evidence for the garbage which spurts from your loose
> lips... starting with evidence that 50% of UK artists paint with *poop*.
Well, Alison, continuing on with the Greenaway 'spark of light in the
darkness' discussion, it's true that British poop is 2 naughts distant
from British pop. Heck, Your people invented pop art, after all. It's
really amazing too, since it would seem that the U.S. is much more
consumer oriented. But maybe it was the promise of the relief of
technology after the devastation of the war.
I am beginning to think, however, that the incubus of great art is indeed
early childhood -- that first reach down the back of our diapers and the
first wonderful warm grasp of the devine substance. How else can we
explain the relentless anal and fecal references proliferating on this
ng? We should all ask our mother's what our reward was when we made our
first smears. There may be a common thread here, and at last we'll
understand the substance of greatness in art.
Erik Mattila
bobig
Glenn Geist <grg...@earthlink.net> a écrit dans le message :
373c48dd...@news.earthlink.net...
> jh...@columbia.edu (John Haber) wrote:
>
> On the other hand, how really worthwhile can anything be if no one
> wants to pay money to have control over or the use of it? The fact
> that rich people will pay large amounts of money for something does
> destabilize the argument that art's value is the result of a
> contageous illusion when one then also has to argue that people
> without money are somehow smarter, or at least more pure in their
> perception, than we of the proletariat. It's an elitist argument.
>
> We can lament that all the things of life have a monetary value, but
> to me it's like lamenting gravity. Nothing would work if it were
> otherwise. Nothing of cultural value will be without monetary value -
> if it were, it would not be protected by society and would be lost.
i think art doesn't need to be protect and doen't need to have value.
art protect society and not the opposite.art keep a trace of the society.
when you saw some egyptian antiquities. it's a mark from an vanished
society.
and art isn't eternal.so why determinating a value..
how many works of art destroyed in kosovo?
since 1997, i've got an utopian attitude with my art.giving my art for
nothing.
no value perhaps ...but everyone can have a bobig's work.
in July, i'll make a exhibition in Paris.each visitor could be back at home
with a
bobig's work.in exchange for it, i ask to the visitor to send me a slide of
my
work in his environment.visitor participate to my art.there is complicity
between
us. i made democratic art. art for everybody...
the web allow to share my art too and all over the world...
i think the web is a great tool to show his art, share ideas....artists
didn't need
to have contract with galleries or art system. it's a direct link between
the artist and
the visitors.
Amicalement BOBIG
emat...@tomatoweb.com
exclude the darker denizens from your tedious concept of the human?
Wasn't Medgar Evers a Mississippian? But then, solipsism is apparently
thriving among the Cajuns' Northern tribe.
For a real treat which honors the top scrabble word state, try this:
http://www.olemiss.edu/depts/art/MVAI/alphadex.html
May Flowers
says...
>Next month be sure to spare me your June Joking won't you.
>
I'll bet you even wear army boots and fatigues...
You pathetic wilted petunia!
May Flowers
says...
>Twit - he did say it.
I invoke "Arg. Y" -- Twat!
mdeli
<da_l...@alcor.concordia.ca> wrote:
>
>
>
>On Fri, 14 May 1999, Brother Alphabet wrote:
Ariane wrote:
>=== Mississippians are racist illiterate incestuous goobers, Southern
>english makes no sense even to Southerners, they're all solipsists, that's
>why they lost the war.......
>
>a bientot,
>
>A.
-And your all inclusive condemnations are as stupid as Hutto's.
Mani DeLi
...no skill no art
A Skeptical View of Modern Art was updated Jan.16,99
Glenn Geist
argue that art doesn't entail skills, harder though to say which
skills are essential and which are superflous and hardest yet to
impose these rules for all time. To say that art requires skill isn't
quite the same thing as to say it *is skill or to say that it can best
be judged by that skill level.
Surely the sculptor's skills are a bit different from the
watercolorists, but am I wrong to say that the important commonality
is that the skill is in transmitting the concept to the media? Is it
wrong to say that only the skill required to execute the concept is
important and that extraneous skills are nice but unimportant?
Now maybe Twombly *wants to paint exactly what he did paint - not that
I could understand why, but it doesn't *necessarily follow that he
really would rather paint like Ingres but can't. Maybe Basquiat ( who
I also don't like) had sufficient skill to do what he set out to do -
so how do we judge art without setting prior limits to it based on
mechanical ability or even when faced with artist of equal technical
skill? Do rules help there?
Glenn
No skill, no skill
Glenn
hug...@interlog.com (mdeli) wrote:
>On 13 May 99 20:20:53 GMT, wq...@victoria.tc.ca (Marilyn Welch) wrote:
>
>>This is not my genre of art work, but I accept it and find
>>it can be thought provoking, both the ideas and the methods.
>>Like any art form, it can be overdone or used as an easy
>>way out of craft/effort/work/skill. {skill in the real
>>sense not the md sense.)
>>
>What's skill in the REAL sense?
>
>Sounds like the usual Marilyn nonsense.
Dennis L. Dykema
> do you have you noticed that people do not speak about work of art
> but
> rather about its price?
> what is most important?
> does the price made the work of art or work of art made the price?
> as an artist I made my choice.my art is free. I do not sell I give...
>
Bobig, I think this is more a matter of the inability of people
to think and talk about quality in art aside from the labels which price
tags provide. It's a little like people making judgements about other
people. Little of substance is mentioned until the standard of degree,
title, salary, or other labels affirm the stattus and value of the
person. In the case of art, the incomprehenisble vocabulary which
critics and curators have provided are so vacuous that they are
unusuable for most conversations.So, Bobig, you'll have to resign
yourself to seeing your work garner little value since viewers will be
unable to assign an verifying price to it. Be content to accept the
thanks and praise of those who are happy to receive it.
Dennis L. Dykema
>
Ariane
On Fri, 14 May 1999, ! wrote:
> Ariane wrote in message ...
> >
> >=== Mississippians are racist illiterate incestuous goobers, Southern
> >english makes no sense even to Southerners, they're all solipsists, that's
> >why they lost the war.......
> >
> >a bientot,
> >
> >A.
>
>
> careful, prejudice runs both ways.
>
> - jetgirl
=== Yeah, yeah....I know. Word from jetgirl. I don't have anything
against Mississippians. Just stupid insulting people. I figured a dose of
his own bile might wake him up......a mistake.
a bientot,
A.
Ariane
=== What kind of stupid thread is this anyway?
Ariane
On Sat, 15 May 1999 emat...@tomatoweb.com wrote:
> Ariane <da_l...@alcor.concordia.ca> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Fri, 14 May 1999, Brother Alphabet wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > On Thu, 13 May 1999, Ariane wrote:
> > >
> > > > === What a complete and utter loser.....Hutto sucks is more like it.
> > >
> > > This is excellent. I have been looking for someone in the group other than
> > > Mani Deli to dislike for about a year. You are the first to earn that
> > > gift.
> > >
> > > France is a pansy nation, French is a gutter language,
> > >
> >
> > === Mississippians are racist illiterate incestuous goobers, Southern
> > english makes no sense even to Southerners, they're all solipsists, that's
> > why they lost the war.......
> >
> > a bientot,
> Gee, there you go again with your poingnant bigotry, Ariane, or do you
> exclude the darker denizens from your tedious concept of the human?
=== In your indignation at having yet another sacred cow upended by an
unsuspecting passer-by (we can't be legitimately expected keep track of
all of them now, there's just so many culturally constructed ones in your
fold...) you may have missed the irony which, after all was the point.
A.
Brother Alphabet
On Fri, 14 May 1999, A.A. Raimes wrote:
> >BTW, I have a great deal of art historical knowledge. It sort of came
> >along with my degree in painting. That plus the ongoing art historical
> >research I do. I have an art library of over 300 volumes, all of which I
> >have read at least once.
>
> Ha ha ha ! You have to laugh at this guy folks - he truly has his head
> buried right up the place from which he claims 50% of British Art comes
> from. Maybe he read all those books with the light off while he was
> jerking off ....
Gosh, I can't catch a break from the wicked wit of A.A. Raimes. Whew. I
mean stop it, you're making me upset. I might burst into tears. You hurt
me, deeply, really.
By the way, I was wondering, should I flush, or do you need new art
supplies? If I paint a picture of dog poo, is it the same as painting a
picture of human poo? Can I still have a career in England? Also I was
curious if I have to actually be obsessed with sex or can I just make sly
references to sexual behavior. I mean, I could do something OBVIOUS like
painting symbolic references, or I could subtly imply sexual content by
scribbling large words across my images. I really want to be like the
great UK artists. Please advise.
Thanks,
Hutto
Marilyn
You seem unfamiliar with the Game.
It goes like this, bored nerds sitting in front of their
computers become bitter and jealous against artists
great & small, living & dead
who actually love what they are doing,
who loved what they did.
The nerds become artist-poseurs who denounce art & artists.
Have you ever seen/heard/read an interview of a great
artist who defamed other artists? No they usually speak
with reverence towards other artists living or dead.
They speak of those who inspired them, whose work they
love.
Here in the Game, artists respond to the bitter nerds, and give them the
attention they crave in their bored little worlds.
Marilyn
A.A. Raimes wrote:
>
> In article <Pine.SOL.4.10.990514...@ra.msstate.edu>,
> Brother Alphabet <ja...@isis.msstate.edu> writes
> >
> >Dear A.A. Raimes,
> >
> >I would bother to reply line by line, but I will refrain based upon your
> >lowly rebuttal to my previous post. If the only thing your frail mind can
> >muster is a weak attempt to belittle me by intentionally mispelling my
> >name than I haven't the time to waste on you.
>
> Ah, I see that Mr Hotto doesn't like to have anyone *attempt to
> belittle* him by intentionally misrepresenting him. Gosh, he must be
> awfully busy learning and expanding his horizons to be bothered anymore
> with an artists who stands as representative for the nation whose art he
> has misrepresented and belittled.
>
> >
> >Anyway, I honestly don't see why you're offended if you are in the
> >50% of limeys who DON'T paint with poop.
> >
> >Hutto
>
> And coming from someone who screams about the way he is ignored he
> wonders why I should be offended by *his* offensiveness which included
> the claim that the "UK SUCKS". Well to all the Mr Hotto's of this world:
> you and your urban legends that race unsupported through cyberspace had
> better be prepared to meet the Alison Aylwin Raimes' of the world who
> will demand evidence for the garbage which spurts from your loose
> lips... starting with evidence that 50% of UK artists paint with *poop*.
>
> Alison A Raimes
> Cable St Studio #324
> 566 Cable St
> Limehouse
> London E1 9HB
> Tel: 0171 780 9493 Mobile: 07803 208161
> Email: ali...@raimes.demon.co.uk
> http://www.raimes.demon.co.uk
Brother Alphabet
On Tue, 18 May 1999, Marilyn wrote:
> Most Artists recognize each other in the world. (not here of
> course, it is much easier to pose here.)
Is it?
> > Well, who asked me those questions?
> You need to be prodded?
> you don't seem the shy, retiring type to me.
I also am not the type to write about my influences without reason. I used
to write positive things, but I have learned over the years that it is
better to reserve those conversations for those worthy of participating in
them. These generally occur via email or real letters as a result of the
initial contact made here on the newsgroup. I exchange letters with
numerous lurkers here, most of whom are either good artists or at least
good theorists. I choose not to conduct those discussions here because
experience has taught me I will get nothing out of posting but ignorant
argument from certain people I will avoid naming. If I want to discuss
THEORY I don't want some goof rebutting it with historical precedence or
something else useless. I discuss theory with like minds and in private in
order to get things accomplished. Have you not seen the futility in
posting ideas to this forum? You've been here long enough to know how the
wannabes react to serious discussion. They always have to know more or
know better regardless of their utter lack of skill and talent, regardless
of their complete separateness from art in general. I grew sick of
debating art theory with math teachers, really.
> > Most of those I defame LIVE here, and the forum is ripe for the plucking.
>
> At one point you denied defaming.
I said and I quote:
"I have never defamed another person whom I considered to be an
artist."
> How can you visualize the frothing? She seems pretty
> cool, & level-headed from what I have read.
If you ignore all the name-mocking and lie-spreading and altogether irate
limeyness.
> Most absurdities can be by-passed.
They CAN be but they usually AREN'T...That's the funny part.
> It is the conventions which are more annoying:
> What is art?
> Should I sign my work?
> Are titles important?
> Who is this artist who painted this scene I found at a garage sale?
> Should art have a message?
> Landscapes or still life, o, to choose.
Tee hee. I hate those topics :)
> There are conventions discussed here that most artists I know have
> dismissed years ago. There are magazines just being discovered
> here, that many artists have already dismissed. Takes a long time
> for this arena to catch up with the artists in the world.
Does it ever really do that? I read this group because I do a lot of work
on the internet. If I ever get around to painting full-time I will
probably never read here. Or at least I will read here seldom. None of the
full timers I know read this list anymore. We are all other than artists.
If we have the time to read and post here, we are not working on art.
That's the bottom line. As soon as I find a way to work 24/7 on painting,
I will detach from the world and paint, not read newsgroups looking for
discourse. This group catches up with wish-we-were artists, mostly. I was
offline for months straight. I never missed it, other than email. I had no
phone, no TV, no communications at all...I painted more than I'd painted
in 3 years...But I starved a little and that was bad. I'm too much of a
wimp to starve. Got to have money to eat and to have a place to sleep. So
I returned to the world, to the internet, to RAF with the rest of my
tribe, the wish-we-were artists who read the news and rant and rave and
wait.
> I actually doubted that you could really mean all those inflammatory
> remarks, but they remain inflammatory. Archived forever by big brother
> Dejanews.
Hehe. Neat.
> That sounds like a paranoid exercise to me, as well as a waste of
> paper.
Ack! I don't print it out! :) How is it paranoid? It's more like
twisted journalism.
> Also sounds unlikely.
> But, if true,
> You could use the printouts to make collaged sculptures of cyber-people.
Didn't someone do a similar thing?
> Since you have played The Game so often with predictable results,
> why not change the rules?
Rules?
> Come up with positive statements,
> as I wrote in another post, you will be just as hated,
> maybe more so.
The aim is not to be hated. Perhaps that is a laughable side effect. The
aim is to generate nonsensical dissonance.
> But nonsense: because something has no sense does
> not mean that it is use-less.
Nonsense is VERY useful.
> Looking forward to your next exhibition. Will this post be in it?
Probably not. This portion of the game has turned into a honest
conversation. Gotta hate that.
Hutto
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Visit Brother Alphabet's Evergrowing List of Bad Ads
w w w . b a d - a d s - l i s t . c o m
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
Ariane
On Tue, 18 May 1999, Brother Alphabet wrote:
> On Fri, 14 May 1999, Ariane wrote:
>
> > > I doubt it. Both are dead as doorknobs. I have read what they
> > > wrote/thought. It's not like I'm going to model my work after their work,
> > > so what can they really teach me?
> >
> > === You're full of it. You haven't read either of them at all. It's
> > evident in your stunted prose which, in turn, reflects your limited
> > intellect.....
>
> I wish I was as eloquently articulate as you.
=== Keep practicing then.....
> By the way, I haven't posted ANY prose here. I have posted random rablings
> and rebuttals to your easy-to-refute nonsensical posturings.
=== Like history, its only nonsense to you....
> > > For you and for some others who are as limited as you.
> > > I *DO* know what you assume. You are just like countless other
> > > stuffed-shirts who can't see past their upturned noses.
> >
> > === Yeah, whatever. You haven't got a clue really. Not about me, not
> > about history, not about art, nor about contemporary thinkers and artists.
>
> Yeah. You caught me.
>
> > I also know more about modernity and post-modernity than you as well.
>
> Sure, sure. I concede to your almighty wisdom and knowledge.
>
> There really is nothing to know about "post-modernity". It is a joke that
> has less to do with art than you.
>
> > You come across as all hip and cool...
>
> Why, thank you.
>
> > but in actuality, I'm willing to bet that
> > you're the one who ends up looking like the putz in the stuffed shirt in
> > the end....
>
> How MUCH are you willing to bet, that's the real question. I say put your
> money where your big fat mouth is.
=== Sure. No problem. You seem to enjoy embarrassing yourself......
> > > Too late to be sorry. You have defied the gods.
> >
> > === ....and not you and those whom you deify....
>
> Is that incoherent, or is it just you?
>
> > > > The past is useless to you because you know little to nothing about it.
> > > I know PLENTY about it.
> > === Right, because you say so. Just like you're a great writer, painter,
> > artist, and whatever else you decide to invent. Soon you'll be the
> > ambassador to Nicaragua if I keep letting you wank on and on and on....
>
> Why the hell would I want to go to that festering sore of a nation?
> Why would I want to be ambassador to anywhere? Blah.
>
> If you keep LETTING me? What are you going to do? STOP me? You sound a
> little insane. I might need to start worrying about you stalking me.
=== Got better things to do than occupy myself with megalomaniacal clowns.
I'm spending way too much time on you as it is.
> > > The difference is, I don't WORSHIP it like you.
> > === You don't know what I worship. I just know more about it than
> > you....
>
> OK. You know more than I do about it. That's fine. You feel good now,
> right? OK? No coming to my house to kill me?
=== Your logic, not mine. (Interesting how you're the one to bring up the
stalking and killing references). A little intimidation innuendo there?
Did you learn this on `South Park'? Or are you a victim of your culture
too?
> > > I
> > > don't see the dead as infallible or insurmountable.
> >
> > === Neither do I. Gotta know `em to `beat' `em though.....
>
> You are as arrogant as I am. It's bizarre. We should hang out, really.
=== It would be a tough commute really. Montreal's got some great places
to hang out though. Plateau-Mont Royal was recently picked by some US
lifestyle magazine as the `funkiest' neighbourhood in North America,
lots of art here...
> > > Who cares if Picasso
> > > painted this or that. He's DEAD. What matters is what goes on now.
> >
> > === No, you're wrong. What matters in art are works and a dead Picasso
> > still has better works than a living Hutto. That's why his works matter
> > and conversely, why you don't.
>
> As if you DO.
=== That's not the point you were making Hutto. Need another med? One
point at a time, easy does it now.....
> My work is way better than Picasso's last 30 years. He was a hack in his
> late life.
=== Whatever. That's easy to say. Fact is, he worked to get to a point
where the world was ready to take whatever he gave them. I'll bet that
one of his turpentine soaked rags is worth more than everything you've
ever created up till now. He got to that point because of his painting.
So, how about a little credit where it's due.
> I hate to say it, for he is one of the art gods, but it's true.
> His work was aimless and vague and worst of all, completely contrived.
=== He was a businessman, yes. At the same time, you can't legitimately
claim that all his work was contrived. Contrived in the sense that he
contrived to make this painting, or that sculpture, but still, his works
are there for all to see. They're legitimate works, and people loved
them. He attracted the viewer.
> I
> studied Picasso and his work for nearly three years.
=== So what. So have I. Who cares. He's a great artist and you, calling
him a `hack', means nothing.
> You aren't going to
> get by with trying to tell me about the quality of my work versus his,
> especially when you haven't even SEEN mine.
=== Yeah, yeah, yeah. Like I said, one of his rags are worth more than
all your work. But lets forget about money.....He invented a new movement
in art history. What have you done again? He laid historical groundwork
for future generation of painters to reckon with.....and you've done
*what* again? Don't put yourself on a pedestal by trashing the masters.
That's easy. Put your works out to the public. If Mississippi doesn't
cut it, then move to Rome, Paris, London, Milan, New York, wherever.
Make a move, let the world decide for you, because in the end, no one
cares what you say about your work.....
> > > The
> > > past is just as nonexistent as the future. The here and now is all there
> > > is. We can either dwell on what was before or we can get things done now.
> >
> > === It's not an `either, or' situation. You have a better grasp of the
> > present and can predict and create your future more intelligently when you
> > have a knowledge of the past. Otherwise you just think you're being all
> > original and creative with your `rad ideas' when you're really just a big
> > yawn to all who know more than the present.
>
> I don't think I have "rad" ideas. I know my influences as well. I do not
> think I am doing NEW and EXCITING, NEVERBEFORESEEEEEN things. What I am
> doing is expanding upon what was set forth in the past.
=== Ahhhh, so the past isn't `irrelevant' then. Is contradicting yourself
part of your argument?
> Really Ariane, you should find out what I am working on before you try to
> talk about it. You don't have a leg to stand on without knowing what I do
> or what my goals are or anything at all significant about me.
=== Yeah, ok, there's a possibility then that you are the next main figure
in Western art history, replacing Picasso as the new master. But I'm
willing to bet that you aren't.
> Facts are facts: I never said I did not APPRECIATE the past, nor did I say
> that I did not VALUE history, nor did I say that I never STUDIED history,
> so on and so on.
=== Yeah, you just said it was `irrelevant'.
> > > What the hell are you talking about? Who does that? Certainly not ME. I am
> > > absolutely opposed to that sort of nonsense. You think you know what I am
> > > about but you are ridiculously mistaken. I don't do jerkoff installations
> > > or performance art or any of that postmodern idiot phooey.
> >
> > === So you've officially abandoned the `ideas are more important than art
> > work' argument because you can't uphold that position?
>
> I never MADE that argument. Bobig said that crap.
=== And you barged in to support it, but have since moved on to claim
other `crap,' as you so aptly put it.
> > Now, we've moved
> > on to `the past (also the UK and the French) sucks and the only thing that
> > matters is the present'? Another stupid argument.....
>
> *SIGH!*
>
> No one around here can get OVER a little bit of sillyness.
=== Sorry, your clown outfit isn't apparent over the internet. Let us no
when you're doing your little act next time and you won't be taken
seriously.
> The FRENCH don't SUCK, except when opposed by Nazis, or when harboring
> American fugitives.
>
> Only CERTAIN UK Artists paint with or about FECES and not 50% of them.
> Only A.A. Raimes REALLY sucks.
=== Actually, Alison sounds a lot more intelligent, well-intentioned, and
open to art from around the world than you, or most other people whom I've
happened to read here. You, on the other hand, have been doing a lot of
`sucking' so far.....
(...)
> I am happy to see that you can't comprehend sarcasm. You really ARE smart.
> You see, I replied to your stupid examples of contemporary greatness by
> making sarcastic remarks as to Ronald McDonald's imaginary literary
> following.
=== oh. ha ha ha ha. That remark was a very witty one I must say there
Hutto.
> > === Yeah its a bad idea. Point is, it DIDN'T learn from the past, it
> > EXISTS because of it. Past feeds into the present, best to learn from
> > it....
>
> Thanks for the convenient clarification.
>
> > > > Do you think Foucault, Derrida, Irigaray, Rawls, ANYONE
> > > > important today got to where they were with that kind of anti-historical
> > > > attitude.
> > >
> > > Maybe. It isn't IMPOSSIBLE.
> >
> > === Well, you're wrong because they don't and they didn't. Your `book'
> > obviously isn't on contemporary thought now is it oh enlightened
> > artist/writer/photographer/South Park watchin', grimace fantasizin',
> > holier-than-thou clown.
>
> Are you 85 years old? You think like a bitter old hag regardless.
=== I used to be 85, back in the old days that is. As for being a `bitter
old hag,' you've proven yourself to be quite bitter, I'll bet you're older
than me, and, well, what the hell is a `hag' anyway?
> I am obviously not holier-than-THOU, now am I?
=== Good, you're learning.....
> I do NOT fantasize about GRIMACE.
=== Yeah right, just like you're better than Picasso. I'll bet you
fantasize daily that Grimace comes to your solo exhibition at the
Louvre, publicly proclaims that you've now surpassed Picasso in greatness,
then tears off your clothes, and feeds you McNuggets while rubbing you
down with french fry grease......
> It's that Breakfast Bird chick I dig.
=== Yeah, right. A likely story. You're a Grimace guy all the way....
> My 'book' is a modern revision of the Surrealist manifestos. It's not
> really so much a "revision" as it is an examination of the postulates
> based upon contemporary psychological knowledge and theory.
=== So you're examining specific Surrealist postulates on ???? Which
manifestos exactly? And you're assessing them on the basis of modern
psychology? Apples to oranges really. The surrealists weren't
psychologists, they didn't advance scientific theories. I doubt if
psychology can accomodate the philosophical implications of Surrealist art
manifestos. Not equipped enough.
> I watch and enjoy South Park, and I should feel bad for this? You have got
> to be the least fun person on planet earth.
=== How would you know? South Park is not `fun' in my books, it's stupid
really. The only TV I watch is Hockey Night in Canada. (Go Leafs Go)!
TV sucks and it certainly isn't `fun'.
> > > Sure. It's the theory that history repeats itself, which isn't valid.
> >
> > === Of course it's valid. You don't know anything about it, that's your
> > problem....
>
> Prove it.
=== How? Should I refer to psychological theory? I could ask you
historical questions I guess.....Who synthesized Plato, Aristotle and
Christianity creating the cultural parameters for all future Western
thinking? Who defected from Athens to Sparta and then back to Athens only
to cause the Athenians to lose the war in the end?
(...)
> > > I don't do that either. At peak times of the year I produce 10 or 12
> > > pictures a week. I write 5 to 7 serious essays a month. I have plenty of
> > > WORK to show for my efforts.
> >
> > === Great, keep going. Because no one really gives a damn about your
> > ideas unless they're contained in your work.......You were never
> > really making much sense anyway, so like, if you paint youir ideas,
> > would it look like Pollock's work?
> > ......
>
> I make plenty of sense. You just haven't been enlightened yet.
!
> I paint mostly dream-images. They will likely not make "sense" but
> that is the objective. It makes people wonder after the meaning when
> there really isn't any. The image just IS. That's all it ever was
> about.
=== Cool. Surrealism's not my thing but hey, enjoy.....
> > > How is a lack of ideas evident?
> > > I'll put my work up against most any modern hack's. If yours is better
> > > than mine, I won't be mad, I'll be impressed.
> >
> > === Yes, How to paint, the Green Bay Packer way.....is that what you're
> > actually writing over there?
>
> No. The last thing on earth I would do is encourage more hacks to take up
> painting.
=== You're sure starting to sound like Mani de Li. Art isn't about
technique anyway, its a lot deeper than that. Since African art has been
acknowledged as such, as well as other arts the world over, technique, in
the classical sense is no longer a priority. Although it certainly exists
alongside the new styles and forms. Painting has been liberated, I guess
the French were doing a little liberating of their own this century.
(..)
> It takes two to tango. You've been just as arrogant and megalomaniacal as
> I have, yet you say that YOU will make it while *I* won't. I think you're
> just as insane as I am.
=== Perhaps, but my insanity is quite different from yours....
> > > Besides, if what I do is not important, why in the world do I do it? Why
> > > am I here? I am not a falsely humble person.
> >
> > === My raison d'etre isn't importance. But in any case, there's a
> > difference between `I am brilliant' and `my work matters to me,' can you
> > see that?
>
> Yes indeed. However, the happy coincidence is...
>
> > > ~I do not believe in being all
> > > lowly as though I will never be better than my predecessors. I will
> > > surpass what they did either by force or by grace or by sheer luck, but
> > > most likely by a combination of all three.
> >
> > === Not if you don't know who they are or what has been done. Thus the
> > necessity of HISTORY...I don't deny your dedication nor your right to
> > self-worth, but saying it doesn't make it so, the proof is in the work not
> > in your daydreams. Keep painting......
>
> My work bears the proof.
> I know history and continue to learn more.
=== M-E-G-A-L-O-M-A-N-I-A. You need independent corroboration for your
Grimace fantasy to come true. You get the solo exhibit at the Louvre,
I'll supply the freak in the Grimace outfit. Deal?
> > === Maybe in Mississippi. It's easy to become a cultural construct, a lot
> > harder to create an artist people are going to want to know, not want to
> > laugh at.
>
> People laugh at me here, but only when I'm not being serious, as I am
> when I bait folks like you into these arguments. You're as big an
> idiot for participating in these nonsense experiments as I am for
> starting them. The POINT *is* to be laughed at...
=== For a clown maybe.....But that's what I've been calling you all along
now isn't it? Yes, I'm a fool for wasting my time on you. You got me
there.
> > To be too much....that's only one strategy, and not a very
> > bright one.
>
> It's not bright to be overwhelming? How is it avoidable if it is innate?
>
> > Isn't that what Marilyn Manson's doing? Worked for him. But > he'll
> be forgotten when he's replaced by the next clown, that's what these >
> `outrageous' artists are after all, harlequins, jesters, the
> population of > Picasso's Rose period oeuvres, McArtists. ...
> You act as though Picasso wasn't such a clown....Dali was such....Warhol
> was such...Who has forgotten them? Picasso walked down the streets of
> Paris shooting off a pistol. Picasso painted things just to see if he
> could get away with painting them...Picasso didn't get attention UNTIL he
> made himself outrageous. The rose works were mostly unknown until he
> became significant via early cubist works which were regarded as
> nonsensical by the establishment.
=== Yes. But Braque, Matisse, Gauguin, Sisely, Miro, Goya etc. weren't
clowns. Being a clown is only one strategy. But, by all means, go for it.
Its already been done though. You'll be absorbed the way Picasso and
Hendrix were. And they both paid a high price for being conquered.
(...)
> > === Life as a Nintendo game. Your `control' is in your mind, people
> > exercise their free will as they see fit, I wouldn't be so dazzled that
> > you may have a small effect on the world. From a minutely larger
> > perspective, you have no control over anything, not even yourself....
>
> All of this is expertly planned. I have done this for a long time. It's a
> hobby. Notice how you are still involved in this debate?
=== And you are deluded into thinking that I'm not here because I choose
to be. Yes, I'm wasting my time, but frankly, I'm on the ng to
procrastinate anyway. Not because you are controlling the universe with
your little voodoo marionettes which you paint in your spare time when the
asylum gives you a little paint and a brush so as to get you off the
computer......I think we're still debating because you're a masochist and
you appeal to the sadistic side of my character.....When I'm done playing,
it's back to the toychest you go......
Back to the toychest you go,
A.
Ariane
On Mon, 17 May 1999, ! wrote:
> sorry for jumping the gun... that'll teach me. *grin*
>
> - jetgirl
=== Exactly what I learned here!! (smile)
a la prochaine,
A.
Ariane
On Tue, 18 May 1999, Brother Alphabet wrote:
> Clue: I dislike Mississippi about as much as anyone. I will not take
> offense at the disdain of anything southern. Sure, I will argue in its
> defense, but that's just for the sake of argument.
>
> Your feeble little tactics won't work. The quicker you learn that I am
> not STUPID, the better. Until then, why shouldn't I insult you at every
> opportunity?
>
> Hutto
=== Well the reason why it's taking me a while to `learn' this is due to
the fact that you are incessantly reminding me that you, in fact, are
rather stupid. Insulting people because you appear moronic to them is,
well, kind of stupid. Know what I mean Verne?
A.
Brother Alphabet
On Fri, 14 May 1999, Ariane wrote:
> > I doubt it. Both are dead as doorknobs. I have read what they
> > wrote/thought. It's not like I'm going to model my work after their work,
> > so what can they really teach me?
>
> === You're full of it. You haven't read either of them at all. It's
> evident in your stunted prose which, in turn, reflects your limited
> intellect.....
I wish I was as eloquently articulate as you.
By the way, I haven't posted ANY prose here. I have posted random rablings
and rebuttals to your easy-to-refute nonsensical posturings.
> > For you and for some others who are as limited as you.
> > I *DO* know what you assume. You are just like countless other
> > stuffed-shirts who can't see past their upturned noses.
>
> === Yeah, whatever. You haven't got a clue really. Not about me, not
> about history, not about art, nor about contemporary thinkers and artists.
Yeah. You caught me.
> I also know more about modernity and post-modernity than you as well.
Sure, sure. I concede to your almighty wisdom and knowledge.
There really is nothing to know about "post-modernity". It is a joke that
has less to do with art than you.
> You come across as all hip and cool...
Why, thank you.
> but in actuality, I'm willing to bet that
> you're the one who ends up looking like the putz in the stuffed shirt in
> the end....
How MUCH are you willing to bet, that's the real question. I say put your
money where your big fat mouth is.
> > Too late to be sorry. You have defied the gods.
>
> === ....and not you and those whom you deify....
Is that incoherent, or is it just you?
> > > The past is useless to you because you know little to nothing about it.
> > I know PLENTY about it.
> === Right, because you say so. Just like you're a great writer, painter,
> artist, and whatever else you decide to invent. Soon you'll be the
> ambassador to Nicaragua if I keep letting you wank on and on and on....
Why the hell would I want to go to that festering sore of a nation?
Why would I want to be ambassador to anywhere? Blah.
If you keep LETTING me? What are you going to do? STOP me? You sound a
little insane. I might need to start worrying about you stalking me.
> > The difference is, I don't WORSHIP it like you.
> === You don't know what I worship. I just know more about it than
> you....
OK. You know more than I do about it. That's fine. You feel good now,
right? OK? No coming to my house to kill me?
> > I
> > don't see the dead as infallible or insurmountable.
>
> === Neither do I. Gotta know `em to `beat' `em though.....
You are as arrogant as I am. It's bizarre. We should hang out, really.
> > Who cares if Picasso
> > painted this or that. He's DEAD. What matters is what goes on now.
>
> === No, you're wrong. What matters in art are works and a dead Picasso
> still has better works than a living Hutto. That's why his works matter
> and conversely, why you don't.
As if you DO.
My work is way better than Picasso's last 30 years. He was a hack in his
late life. I hate to say it, for he is one of the art gods, but it's true.
His work was aimless and vague and worst of all, completely contrived. I
studied Picasso and his work for nearly three years. You aren't going to
get by with trying to tell me about the quality of my work versus his,
especially when you haven't even SEEN mine.
> > The
> > past is just as nonexistent as the future. The here and now is all there
> > is. We can either dwell on what was before or we can get things done now.
>
> === It's not an `either, or' situation. You have a better grasp of the
> present and can predict and create your future more intelligently when you
> have a knowledge of the past. Otherwise you just think you're being all
> original and creative with your `rad ideas' when you're really just a big
> yawn to all who know more than the present.
I don't think I have "rad" ideas. I know my influences as well. I do not
think I am doing NEW and EXCITING, NEVERBEFORESEEEEEN things. What I am
doing is expanding upon what was set forth in the past.
Really Ariane, you should find out what I am working on before you try to
talk about it. You don't have a leg to stand on without knowing what I do
or what my goals are or anything at all significant about me.
Facts are facts: I never said I did not APPRECIATE the past, nor did I say
that I did not VALUE history, nor did I say that I never STUDIED history,
so on and so on.
> > What the hell are you talking about? Who does that? Certainly not ME. I am
> > absolutely opposed to that sort of nonsense. You think you know what I am
> > about but you are ridiculously mistaken. I don't do jerkoff installations
> > or performance art or any of that postmodern idiot phooey.
>
> === So you've officially abandoned the `ideas are more important than art
> work' argument because you can't uphold that position?
I never MADE that argument. Bobig said that crap.
> Now, we've moved
> on to `the past (also the UK and the French) sucks and the only thing that
> matters is the present'? Another stupid argument.....
*SIGH!*
No one around here can get OVER a little bit of sillyness.
The FRENCH don't SUCK, except when opposed by Nazis, or when harboring
American fugitives.
Only CERTAIN UK Artists paint with or about FECES and not 50% of them.
Only A.A. Raimes REALLY sucks.
The PAST *DOESN'T* "Suck" - The past teaches valuable lessons and is ONE
of MANY sources of enlightenment.
> > South Park is pretty dang funny. Don't tell me you lack a sense of humor
> > as WELL as sex appeal. Ronald McDonald is well read in Indonesia, I hear.
>
> === Well hot dang! South Park's pretty cool after all, jess bring on them
> grits an' dumplins'!! An' ah don appeel nun to Farmer Hutto's
> sexyualitee. Oh well Grimace, there's always your hand, it's been working
> out for you so far, why stop now......?
Hehe. What a moron.
I prefer to avoid both grits and dumplings. Nasty. Feel free to indulge if
you wish. My hand? Farmer? The farmer stereotype belongs to the MidWest.
I am happy to see that you can't comprehend sarcasm. You really ARE smart.
You see, I replied to your stupid examples of contemporary greatness by
making sarcastic remarks as to Ronald McDonald's imaginary literary
following.
> === Yeah its a bad idea. Point is, it DIDN'T learn from the past, it
> EXISTS because of it. Past feeds into the present, best to learn from
> it....
Thanks for the convenient clarification.
> > > Do you think Foucault, Derrida, Irigaray, Rawls, ANYONE
> > > important today got to where they were with that kind of anti-historical
> > > attitude.
> >
> > Maybe. It isn't IMPOSSIBLE.
>
> === Well, you're wrong because they don't and they didn't. Your `book'
> obviously isn't on contemporary thought now is it oh enlightened
> artist/writer/photographer/South Park watchin', grimace fantasizin',
> holier-than-thou clown.
Are you 85 years old? You think like a bitter old hag regardless.
I am obviously not holier-than-THOU, now am I?
I do NOT fantasize about GRIMACE. It's that Breakfast Bird chick I dig.
My 'book' is a modern revision of the Surrealist manifestos. It's not
really so much a "revision" as it is an examination of the postulates
based upon contemporary psychological knowledge and theory.
I watch and enjoy South Park, and I should feel bad for this? You have got
to be the least fun person on planet earth.
> > Sure. It's the theory that history repeats itself, which isn't valid.
>
> === Of course it's valid. You don't know anything about it, that's your
> problem....
Prove it.
> > That isn't what I got ill about. Odds are very good that I join you in
> > laughter in regard to a number of "so-called 'great'" contemporary artist
> > ideas. It is the notion that *I* cannot do something that peeves me.
>
> === Of course you can `do something'. And chances are, with a knowledge
> of history, you'll be better placed to avoid the mistakes made by
> countless other contemporaries who think they're `doing something'
> original and creative only to find out that someone else did it, and maybe
> even did it better. We're writing history now. You can't escape history.
> > Likewise *ALL*
> > philosophers are not worth listening to.
>
> === Wrong. I think you meant `not all philosophers are worth listening
> to' but screwed the sentence structure up. Gotta be careful of that in
> your `book' Herpes.
Herpes? Thanks for the grammatical pointers, Genital Warts.
> Many philosophers are indeed worth reading, if only
> to find out that philosophy extends beyond its academic
> encapsulation....but whatever, I don't want to go too far over your head.
That really isn't possible, at least for you alone it isn't.
> > *ALL* writers are not worth
> > reading.
>
> === Same sentence error.....
It's pretty easy to edit posts.
I have found numerous grammar errors in your previous posts as well. I
haven't pointed them out because it's also easy to slip up when writing
quickly. Whatever makes you feel superior, though. By all means, continue.
> ...anyway, the only way to find out is by picking
> up books and figuring out for yourself what's good and what's not. And if
> you happen to like a few dead authors. SO WHAT?!
So NOTHING. Nothing wrong with it. They just aren't the ONLY source of
enlightenment.
> > How do you know what I think? I never defended ANY idea. I defended my
> > ability to think originally.
>
> === Well, no one was attacking that Sigmund. Is your inferiority complex
> getting the better of you again? Back to megalomania you go......
You repeatedly suddenly pretend like you made none of your previous
remarks.
> > What is the problem with weighing BOTH equally?
>
> === Because they're not equal. Works outweigh ideas in the realm of
> visual art...
Here you go again. You're just narrow-minded. Why is it so necessary for
you to classify everything into easy-to-define categories?
> ..I will change my mind only when confronted with reasonable
> evidence to the contrary, and you haven't done anything but yank your own
> chain here.
That's about all YOU have done to make your point as well.
> === Maybe you should think a little more clearly then, because that was,
> and is, part of the point I'm making. Don't be so quick to jump off the
> haywagon and call out the lynch mob next time.
It's a conveniently attached belated point, but OK.
> > I don't do that either. At peak times of the year I produce 10 or 12
> > pictures a week. I write 5 to 7 serious essays a month. I have plenty of
> > WORK to show for my efforts.
>
> === Great, keep going. Because no one really gives a damn about your
> ideas unless they're contained in your work.......You were never
> really making much sense anyway, so like, if you paint youir ideas,
> would it look like Pollock's work?
> ......
I make plenty of sense. You just haven't been enlightened yet.
I paint mostly dream-images. They will likely not make "sense" but that is
the objective. It makes people wonder after the meaning when there really
isn't any. The image just IS. That's all it ever was about.
> > How is a lack of ideas evident?
> > I'll put my work up against most any modern hack's. If yours is better
> > than mine, I won't be mad, I'll be impressed.
>
> === Yes, How to paint, the Green Bay Packer way.....is that what you're
> actually writing over there?
No. The last thing on earth I would do is encourage more hacks to take up
painting.
> > That's all you need - my word. If you have doubts, I'll send you the test
> > results. I'm a mental giant! (hee hee). OK...Busted. I'm really a complete
> > idiot. I'm not really here typing this. A smart person is using my email
> > account without my permission.
> >
> > > === Is that why yo're on-line Sigmund? Your talent and brilliance is more
> > > than evident now, thanks for pointing it out to us.
> >
> > No problem. Glad to grace you. Yes, I am in fact on-line to prove to the
> > universe how much free time I have, er I mean how smart I am. I really
> > should be working, but I get in these slumps and check RAF to see if I can
> > goad an egghead wannabe into an argument.
>
> !
Aww! No comment?
> > Wanna come visit me and see where I'm sitting? You can see my paintings
> > and feel humbled at their greatness.
>
> === Do they give you brushes and paint from time to time??
Who?
> === Well comparatively speaking and all.....
Er...Whatever...You have no basis for a comparison. I haven't seen your
work and you haven't seen mine.
> === Of course they have, I'm actually Celine Dion.....my middle name is
> Ariane.
Good lord, you suck even worse.
> > Why is it so strange for you to consider that I might create things people
> > would want to know about later in time?
>
> === Uhhh, due to this conversation we're having. But I wish you all the
> self-improvement in the world......
It takes two to tango. You've been just as arrogant and megalomaniacal as
I have, yet you say that YOU will make it while *I* won't. I think you're
just as insane as I am.
> > Besides, if what I do is not important, why in the world do I do it? Why
> > am I here? I am not a falsely humble person.
>
> === My raison d'etre isn't importance. But in any case, there's a
> difference between `I am brilliant' and `my work matters to me,' can you
> see that?
Yes indeed. However, the happy coincidence is...
> > I do not believe in being all
> > lowly as though I will never be better than my predecessors. I will
> > surpass what they did either by force or by grace or by sheer luck, but
> > most likely by a combination of all three.
>
> === Not if you don't know who they are or what has been done. Thus the
> necessity of HISTORY...I don't deny your dedication nor your right to
> self-worth, but saying it doesn't make it so, the proof is in the work not
> in your daydreams. Keep painting......
My work bears the proof.
I know history and continue to learn more.
> === Maybe in Mississippi. It's easy to become a cultural construct, a lot
> harder to create an artist people are going to want to know, not want to
> laugh at.
People laugh at me here, but only when I'm not being serious, as I am when
I bait folks like you into these arguments. You're as big an idiot for
participating in these nonsense experiments as I am for starting them. The
POINT *is* to be laughed at...
> To be too much....that's only one strategy, and not a very
> bright one.
It's not bright to be overwhelming? How is it avoidable if it is innate?
> Isn't that what Marilyn Manson's doing? Worked for him. But
> he'll be forgotten when he's replaced by the next clown, that's what these
> `outrageous' artists are after all, harlequins, jesters, the population of
> Picasso's Rose period oeuvres, McArtists. ...
You act as though Picasso wasn't such a clown....Dali was such....Warhol
was such...Who has forgotten them? Picasso walked down the streets of
Paris shooting off a pistol. Picasso painted things just to see if he
could get away with painting them...Picasso didn't get attention UNTIL he
made himself outrageous. The rose works were mostly unknown until he
became significant via early cubist works which were regarded as
nonsensical by the establishment.
I certainly do not compare newsgroup antics to the origins of cubism, I
only defend the value of good old fashioned nonsense.
> === Life as a Nintendo game. Your `control' is in your mind, people
> exercise their free will as they see fit, I wouldn't be so dazzled that
> you may have a small effect on the world. From a minutely larger
> perspective, you have no control over anything, not even yourself....
All of this is expertly planned. I have done this for a long time. It's a
hobby. Notice how you are still involved in this debate?
> > images take thought, and not average thought, but advanced, educated and
> > enlightened thought.
>
> === You're after powerful images then. Picasso's all about it. There are
> many other images and ways of creating out there, as you may know, being
> too much is only one strategy, and, if we look at history, its already
> been done. To death. Being really creative is not so easy.....
Who said it was?
> === Who predates you?
Hmmm...who does...Actually I don't even know who's still lurking.
Mattison is an old-schooler. Lotta others. YOU could have been here before
I was, under another name. Dunno.
Hutto
Brother Alphabet
On Fri, 14 May 1999, peter nelson wrote:
> >That isn't what I got ill about. Odds are very good that I join you in
> >laughter in regard to a number of "so-called 'great'" contemporary artist
> >ideas. It is the notion that *I* cannot do something that peeves me. *All*
> >artists are not fruitcakes with half-baked ideas. Likewise *ALL*
> >philosophers are not worth listening to. *ALL* writers are not worth
> >reading. There are as many schmucks in every discipline as there are
> >worthwhile creators. In fact, there are MORE schmucks.
>
> Sturgeon said this in a lot fewer words.
Want me to applaud now or later?
> >How do you know what I think? I never defended ANY idea. I defended my
> >ability to think originally.
>
> How do you know it's original if you ignore the past?
ARGH.
Tell some people the past ain't holy and look what happens.
Brother Alphabet
On Fri, 14 May 1999, bobig wrote:
> hutto tell me the link with the discussion about art and money or UK art.
It's pretty much all random.
> Your arguments are only agressive.
Not ONLY. They are also mostly true.
> i've got my opinion about art and you
> have yours.
That's true.
> why did you talk about France and his gutter language.
Honestly? I have no idea. I'll take any chance I can get to rag on french
people.
> i see...you're a good boy nationalist....
Not really, The USA irritates me also.
> i'm not living in your territory..
> my country is art...
Art isn't a country.
> an unexplored country where averybody could decide to be
> an artist (poet, painter, writer...)
Not true. God decides who is and who is not.
> my goal is to share my art with others for nothing...because i love this
> utopian idea.
You must have an alternate means of survival.
I believe that one gets what one pays for.
> for me, art is a great vortex mixing philosophy, painting, writing, video,
> multimedia...etc....all i want to put in my art, i put it without
> restriction.
Good. More power to you, etc.
What exactly were you trying to say?
Hutto
> ART= LIFE LIFE= ART
I agree.
Brother Alphabet
On Fri, 14 May 1999, A.A. Raimes wrote:
> Look no further ! Now you have earned at least a dozen others to
> *dislike* ... that should keep you busy for a while.
Probably, I will ignore most of you, then once again return to painting
when I get rid of this blockage.
Hutto
Brother Alphabet
On Fri, 14 May 1999, A.A. Raimes wrote:
> Ah, I see that Mr Hotto doesn't like to have anyone *attempt to
> belittle* him by intentionally misrepresenting him.
No, I just don't regard repeated intentional misspellings of someone's
name to be valid counterpoints.
> Gosh, he must be
> awfully busy learning and expanding his horizons to be bothered anymore
> with an artists who stands as representative for the nation whose art he
> has misrepresented and belittled.
You must be one of the poopainters to be so dedicatedly offended by my
remarks.
> And coming from someone who screams about the way he is ignored he
> wonders why I should be offended by *his* offensiveness which included
> the claim that the "UK SUCKS".
The UK DOES suck.
> Well to all the Mr Hotto's of this world:
> you and your urban legends that race unsupported through cyberspace
I get my information from your art publications and from the mouths of
your public servants.
> had
> better be prepared to meet the Alison Aylwin Raimes' of the world...
Good lord, however will I cope?
> who
> will demand evidence for the garbage which spurts from your loose
> lips... starting with evidence that 50% of UK artists paint with *poop*.
You apparently dont read anyone's replies. I already rephrased that
statement.
Brother Alphabet
On Fri, 14 May 1999, Ariane wrote:
> === Mississippians are racist illiterate incestuous goobers, Southern
> english makes no sense even to Southerners, they're all solipsists, that's
> why they lost the war.......
Hahaha! Goobers!
What happened? Did you drop the dictionary and have to come up with a word
on your own?
That war was 135 years ago. We're sort of over it.
Brother Alphabet
On Fri, 14 May 1999, mdeli wrote:
> After Hutto complained about a Russian student for some errors in
> English it became clear that his worldliness extended no further than
> a two mile radius beyond his outhouse.
You already used that remark. Get some new lines, how about it?
You're still as dry as a bone and as uninteresting as ever.
> His web site, which he no longer mentions, was further evidence of
> that fact.
I no longer mention it because it's no longer online. Git.
On the subject of web sites, everyone check out Mani Deli's to see how he
can't paint without an artograph and computer enhancements. You're a
complete disgrace to your motto.
Brother Alphabet
On 14 May 1999, Fox Nad brown-nosed:
> I would make it the radius of his shithole Mississippi town.
Yeah? Come here and say that.
The radius of an outhouse is SMALLER than that of a town, you feeb.
> Amazing when the cliche of the Southern bigot comes to life.
I'm not a bigot, you flaming moron. I dislike stupid people like you -
that isn't bigotry, thats natural selection.
> I always thought that the odor of magnolias was mixed with the stench of
> rotting lives.
That's rather interesting. Do you often have such utterly useless
thoughts?
> You couldn't carry Ariane's shoes, asshole. F.O.A.D.
Why would I want to, you ass-kissing little gnat?
Don't you have anything better than kneebiting and bootlicking to do?
Brother Alphabet
On Mon, 17 May 1999, Ariane wrote:
> === Yeah, yeah....I know. Word from jetgirl. I don't have anything
> against Mississippians. Just stupid insulting people. I figured a dose of
> his own bile might wake him up......a mistake.
Clue: I dislike Mississippi about as much as anyone. I will not take
offense at the disdain of anything southern. Sure, I will argue in its
defense, but that's just for the sake of argument.
Your feeble little tactics won't work. The quicker you learn that I am
not STUPID, the better. Until then, why shouldn't I insult you at every
opportunity?
Hutto
Brother Alphabet
On Mon, 17 May 1999, Marilyn wrote:
> You seem unfamiliar with the Game.
> It goes like this, bored nerds sitting in front of their
> computers become bitter and jealous against artists
> great & small, living & dead
> who actually love what they are doing,
> who loved what they did.
Blah blah blah. You have no idea what you are talking about.
> The nerds become artist-poseurs who denounce art & artists.
I denounce bullshit excuses for art.
> Have you ever seen/heard/read an interview of a great
> artist who defamed other artists?
I have never defamed another person whom I considered to be an artist.
> No they usually speak
> with reverence towards other artists living or dead.
Anyone who does this for ALL who claim to be artists could also be
convinced to buy certain bridges around the country.
> They speak of those who inspired them, whose work they
> love.
Well, who asked me those questions?
> Here in the Game, artists respond to the bitter nerds, and give them the
> attention they crave in their bored little worlds.
I'm mainly bored of those I defame.
Most of those I defame LIVE here, and the forum is ripe for the plucking.
Look at how Alison Raimes has vehemently frothed at the mouth at my
BLATANTLY nonsensical claims.
It works every time. THAT is the "game" Marilyn. :)
I show up here once in a blue moon, make a load of ludicrous remarks,
start as many arguments over nothing as I can and leave. Hehe. It's art
within itself. One staple requisite of surrealism: nonsense - spread it
whenever possible. The group argues over absurdities for a week or two and
then its back to the drawing board for three or four months. I keep huge
files of all of these threads for use in various projects. Even the people
who think they are anonymous are tracked, identified, logged and used as
evidence that the world is naught but nonsense.
Art is the grand ruse, a joke to play on everyone, nothing but nonsense,
without any practical meaning or purpose.
THAT is the GAME. Don't you understand?
Brother Alphabet
On Tue, 18 May 1999, Ariane wrote that it was from Canada...
Well, I have no more time to devote to you. It is common knowledge that
nothing comes from Canada. Unless you count mediocrity and hockey,
a drunkard blue-collar sport. You are obviously a sham artist, but beyond
that you wouldn't know real art if it scribbled "Canada's national heroes
are in the movie Strange Brew" on your forehead.
Canada is mainly the space between mainland USA and Alaska.
Hutto
Alison A Raimes
>Alison,
>
>You seem unfamiliar with the Game.
No Marilyn - after three years of usenet and lists I am perfectly
familiar with it ... and I have met Brother Alphabet/TechnoCrate before
... lets just say I have not been working since the show went up and
Gallery sitting for a day can get pretty boring, ok - I do apologise to
all for allowing my guard to drop ! Its back up now.
Now, back in the studio, I *killed* Brother Alphabet so haven't read a
word except what people don't snip in their replies - but don't worry,
he won't be getting his kicks from anything I say to him. I feel really
sorry for folks like that - I mean it is one thing to be bored
occasionally but to be so bored he has to troll and put so much energy
into such a futile pastime when he could be making art - I dread to
think what his work is like. Its very sad.
Regards
Alison.
Brother Alphabet
On Tue, 18 May 1999, Alison A Raimes wrote:
> No Marilyn - after three years of usenet and lists I am perfectly
> familiar with it ... and I have met Brother Alphabet/TechnoCrate before
I only have ONE identity.
> ... lets just say I have not been working since the show went up and
> Gallery sitting for a day can get pretty boring, ok - I do apologise to
> all for allowing my guard to drop ! Its back up now.
You have to sit in the same place your work hangs? What is it, a co-op
gallery or one of those consignment places?
> Now, back in the studio, I *killed* Brother Alphabet so haven't read a
> word except what people don't snip in their replies - but don't worry,
> he won't be getting his kicks from anything I say to him.
So you can slander me as much as you like but you don't want to be replied
to? You can dish it out but you can't take it? Pitiful.
> I feel really
> sorry for folks like that - I mean it is one thing to be bored
> occasionally but to be so bored he has to troll and put so much energy
> into such a futile pastime when he could be making art - I dread to
> think what his work is like. Its very sad.
I feel the same about your work, but I fear worse its smell.
Thanks for feeling sorry for me. I really don't get enough pity these
days. Hehe.
Marilyn
>
> On Mon, 17 May 1999, Marilyn wrote:
>
> > computers become bitter and jealous against artists
> > great & small, living & dead
> > who actually love what they are doing,
> > who loved what they did.
>
> Blah blah blah. You have no idea what you are talking about.
I have a very good idea of what I am writing.
>
> > The nerds become artist-poseurs who denounce art & artists.
>
> I denounce bullshit excuses for art.
>
> > Have you ever seen/heard/read an interview of a great
> > artist who defamed other artists?
>
> I have never defamed another person whom I considered to be an artist.
>
> > No they usually speak
> > with reverence towards other artists living or dead.
>
> Anyone who does this for ALL who claim to be artists could also be
> convinced to buy certain bridges around the country.
As if I would mean "ALL who claim to be artists."
I have my criteria for that definition which I keep to myself.
Most Artists recognize each other in the world. (not here of
course, it is much easier to pose here.)
>
> > They speak of those who inspired them, whose work they
> > love.
>
> Well, who asked me those questions?
>
You need to be prodded?
you don't seem the shy, retiring type to me.
> > Here in the Game, artists respond to the bitter nerds, and give them the
> > attention they crave in their bored little worlds.
> I'm mainly bored of those I defame.
> Most of those I defame LIVE here, and the forum is ripe for the plucking.
At one point you denied defaming.
> Look at how Alison Raimes has vehemently frothed at the mouth at my
> BLATANTLY nonsensical claims.
How can you visualize the frothing? She seems pretty
cool, & level-headed from what I have read.
> It works every time. THAT is the "game" Marilyn. :)
>
> I show up here once in a blue moon, make a load of ludicrous remarks,
> start as many arguments over nothing as I can and leave. Hehe. It's art
> within itself. One staple requisite of surrealism: nonsense - spread it
> whenever possible. The group argues over absurdities for a week or two and
> then its back to the drawing board for three or four months.
Most absurdities can be by-passed.
It is the conventions which are more annoying:
What is art?
Should I sign my work?
Are titles important?
Who is this artist who painted this scene I found at a garage sale?
Should art have a message?
Landscapes or still life, o, to choose.
There are conventions discussed here that most artists I know have
dismissed years ago. There are magazines just being discovered
here, that many artists have already dismissed. Takes a long time
for this arena to catch up with the artists in the world.
I actually doubted that you could really mean all those inflammatory
remarks, but they remain inflammatory. Archived forever by big brother
Dejanews.
>I keep huge
> files of all of these threads for use in various projects. Even the people
> who think they are anonymous are tracked, identified, logged and used as
> evidence that the world is naught but nonsense.
That sounds like a paranoid exercise to me, as well as a waste of
paper. Also sounds unlikely.
But, if true,
You could use the printouts to make collaged sculptures of cyber-people.
> Art is the grand ruse, a joke to play on everyone, nothing but nonsense,
> without any practical meaning or purpose.
Well that is as Borges tried to point out about writing and
about life, but his is only one partial view.
> THAT is the GAME. Don't you understand?
>
> Hutto
Since you have played The Game so often with predictable results,
why not change the rules? Come up with positive statements,
as I wrote in another post, you will be just as hated,
maybe more so. Whenever I have written anything favourable
about some work I have seen here on the internet, I have
been accused of politicking for favour for some future date
when I have a web-site. Like a Borges library...I am pre-reviewing
my future work which does not yet exist.
But nonsense: because something has no sense does
not mean that it is use-less.
Looking forward to your next exhibition. Will this post be in it?
M.
~Artist~
>
> Alison,
>
> You seem unfamiliar with the Game.
> It goes like this, bored nerds
Don't call them NERDS!
It is not PC this IS the 90's they are "GEEKS"!
"Geeks"
Robert Mykland - Physicist
sitting in front of their
> computers become bitter and jealous against artists
> great & small, living & dead
> who actually love what they are doing,
> who loved what they did.
> The nerds become artist-poseurs who denounce art & artists.
> Have you ever seen/heard/read an interview of a great
> artist who defamed other artists? No they usually speak
> with reverence towards other artists living or dead.
Hell - they scream at each other for the fun of it ask Hutto. We all do
it.
> They speak of those who inspired them, whose work they
> love.
Lives they love better and lives they intend to change and culture
they intend to affect.
Meow.
See it worked real e.z.
>
> Here in the Game, artists respond to the bitter nerds, and give them the
> attention they crave in their bored little worlds.
Press is Press...till the paint dries and you can go back and rework it.
Alison, Never put your phone number out here or your address.
Never keep your art collection in your studio.
Weirdo men.
Mattison
~Artist~
It has already eaten you alive.
It is too late to stop.
Witches and seers wonder as the horrid disease grips you under.
M