The Arse of Paul McCartney
The Walrus was Danny
Walker. The paintings are possibly some of the worst I've ever seen. It was
*very very bad*. It was an embarresment actually (dunno if I've speelt that
write). I hear the Queen was there today.....I bet she doesn't have a lot to
say when she claps eyes on Macca's daubings!
Danny
Mister Charlie
She said they were 'colorful'.
;-)
--
"...I don't want to spoil the party so I'll go,
I would hate my rotten artwork to show..."
Frannie
Tee Hee...
;-)
Frankly
BonusSpin7
That's sad. Picasso's paintings never did much for me on the printed page,
but his paintings in person literally bowled me over and knock me out! I was
hoping it would be the same with Macca's stuff.
Oh, well! Pablo Picasso and Salvador Dali never wrote a song that charted
very high either.
The Walrus was Danny
I took the mother of my very child to the expedition and we both kind of
went a bit quiet. The stuff was so God Awful. Somebody needs to say "No
Paul, stop it.". I think the worst was "Tits on fire", though the big heart
was pretty dreadful. I couldn't get out quick enough, sadly I didn't see the
comments book (Jan spotted it and told me there was one afterwards)
otherwise I'd have voiced how crap the stuff was. Dare I say it but I think
I even prefer Yo's "art" to Macca's. Be gobsmacked, I was.
Danny
The Walrus was Danny
There was a large print out of Macca's Eye, pixelised. It was entitled "My
Eye" with the plaque reading "Photograph taken by Heather Mills". Mmmmm.
Ponders.
I also noticed how badly made the canvases were, staples everywhere, all
skee whiff. Not only can he not paint, he also can't make canvases.
Danny
Dale Houstman
I've seen quite a bit of both, and I think it's a toss-up at best. The one
difference though is that Paul - in many interviews I've seen - makes no big
whoop about his painting, speaking of it in rather off-handed terms as a
sort of meditative hobby. He doesn't really think of himself as much more
than what is referred to as a "Sunday painter." To exhibit it is - perhaps -
an error, but one that many other-talented and successful people fall prey
to, uusally goaded on by well-meaning friends and less well-meaning
promoters hoping to make a splash full of silver.
Yoko however presents herself as a major and innovative artist, and that's
the difference. I would rather see the inept but sincere efforts of a
"Sunday painter" than the mindless offal of a self-proclaimed conceptual
genius anyday.
dmh
BonusSpin7
upset at RMB for "thoughtlessly posting the URL" to a picture of George and
Ringo (with Jools Holland) at the Chelsea Flower Show in London on 24th May
1999 on the website.
http://www.cbarratt.demon.co.uk/photo.htm
Mister Charlie
And for the record, *I* like some of Paul's paintings, as seen in that big-ass
book. More the basic imagery than the execution...he clearly is nothing more
than an amateur hobbyist.
And a painting with the name 'tits on fire' just makes me shudder and happy I
missed THAT puppy.
Some of the stuff in the book was interesting tho, and not totally bad....I
don't remember anything I liked in particular, but just an overall impression
that, even tho nothing he ever did was in a style I particularly care for
(never big on abstract) I still found some that were interesting and a few I
actually liked.
There. I said it.
eji...@eyex.netcom.com
>
> > It was an embarresment
Frannie we can understand. Danny ought to be embarrassed.
The Walrus was Danny
Difficult for me to admit to Dale, trust me. I tend to think Yos "Art" is
shite, which means Maccas must be bad if I deem it worse than Yos!
The one
> difference though is that Paul - in many interviews I've seen - makes no
big
> whoop about his painting, speaking of it in rather off-handed terms as a
> sort of meditative hobby.
So why the expedition and the visit to it by the Queen!
> Yoko however presents herself as a major and innovative artist, and that's
> the difference. I would rather see the inept but sincere efforts of a
> "Sunday painter" than the mindless offal of a self-proclaimed conceptual
> genius anyday.
Good point, but trust me the Macca stuff was, like *the worse stuff I have
ever seen*!!
Danny
Dale Houstman
> > I've seen quite a bit of both, and I think it's a toss-up at best.
>
> Difficult for me to admit to Dale, trust me. I tend to think Yos "Art" is
> shite, which means Maccas must be bad if I deem it worse than Yos!
>
> The one
> > difference though is that Paul - in many interviews I've seen - makes no
> big
> > whoop about his painting, speaking of it in rather off-handed terms as a
> > sort of meditative hobby.
>
> So why the expedition and the visit to it by the Queen!
Who knows? As I said, it was a mistake in my opinion, but it is what he
said. You're famous enough and rich enough, and someone will suggest you put
your toilet waste on display and invite the Pope. He'd probably come.
>
> > Yoko however presents herself as a major and innovative artist, and
that's
> > the difference. I would rather see the inept but sincere efforts of a
> > "Sunday painter" than the mindless offal of a self-proclaimed conceptual
> > genius anyday.
>
> Good point, but trust me the Macca stuff was, like *the worse stuff I have
> ever seen*!!
>
> Danny
I've seen it. I wouldn't hold it against him if he'd only had the smarts to
keep it at home.
dmh
Cynthia Marie
At least they didn't embarrass themselves trying.
Cynthia Marie
BonusSpin7
Do you think Paul's embarrassed? I bet there is at least one painting that
you would hang on your wall. I know I would.
Any of the paintings in a particular decorating scheme might work very well
indeed.
The Walrus was Danny
Clearly not.
I bet there is at least one painting that
> you would hang on your wall. I know I would.
Yeah but you'd only hang the bugger on the wall because it's by Beatle
Macca, not because it's any good. It's very sad, and that's no judgement on
yourself Bonus, I'd do exactly the same, I'm very sad too. "Tits on Fire" I
ask you!
The problem was there was no kinda theme in the work, it was all just a
mess.
> Any of the paintings in a particular decorating scheme might work very
well
> indeed.
No they wouldn't. They were all very very shit. Paul listen to me:
"No"
Danny
Who Me
>Paul, stop it.".
I seem to recall that some people tried that when he was making that movie...
(but then, at least the movie had the redeeming value of including some great
tunes)
Bill
"Television is not the truth. Television is a goddamn amusement park"
-- Howard Beale
"A lot of people in this business think I'm a smart-ass."
--David Letterman, 2/28/01
"I don't have any regrets, they can talk about me plenty when I'm gone.
Who Me
Because he's Paul Friggin' McCartney.
eji...@eyex.netcom.com
> At least they didn't embarrass themselves trying.
Gee, I don't recall Yoko getting the same criticism around here....
Or do I?
--
-Ed Igoe
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Freedom isn't given; it is won." - A. Phillip Randolph
-----------------------------------------------------------
IBen Getiner
They give blue ribbons to monkeys and elephants who dabble with the
brush. Why not Paul?
H. Atom
Obviously, you're jealous.
The Walrus was Danny
Obviously.
Danny
Frederick W. Harrison
> very high either.
But songs about them sold moderately well. McCartney wrote "Picasso's Last
Words" and Jonathan Richman & The Modern Lovers wrote a song about him as
well. Salvador Dali, aside from working with Alice Cooper, wasn't
immortalized in song unless one counts "Hello Dali". :-<
(yes, I know it's a wretched pun...)
--
Frederick Harrison <><
````````````````````````````````````````````````
"A stone may change the course of the river."
C.S Lewis
"BonusSpin7" <bonus...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020727192249...@mb-cb.aol.com...
Frederick W. Harrison
well
> indeed.
Such as a daycare or a fridge door, perhaps?
Dale Houstman
"The Walrus was Danny" <thewalru...@totalise.co.uk> wrote in message
news:3d44e...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com...
> > Obviously, you're jealous.
>
> Obviously.
>
> Danny
>
I'm jealous too!
dmh
Dale Houstman
"Cynthia Marie" <aeriew...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8485dade.02072...@posting.google.com...
Well, Pablo did slightly embarrass himserlf by attempting to give up
painting and take up poetry, several of which he published, and al of which
are fairly awful. So even "geniuses" are liable to do stupid things from
ego. Gertrude Stein saved him from ruining his life by telling him that his
poetry was dubious at best.
dmh
Frannie
> Frannie wrote:
> >
> > > It was an embarresment
>
No, I didn't write that.
>
> Frannie we can understand. Danny ought to be embarrassed.
No I don't think you can understand... nor do I think you ought to be
trying to tell Danny what to feel.
The Emperor has no clothes.
Cynthia Marie
Yes, you're right. I *do* have a Picasso "poem" in my posession
somewhere in one of my mom's old college literature books. Oh, here
it is:
give tear twist and kill I traverse illuminate and
burn caress and lick embrace and look I sound at
every flight and bells till they bleed frightening
the pigeons and I make them fly around the dovecot. . .
You get the idea. <g>
Cynthia Marie
Prunelda Picklebush
exhibition of his. I've only seen things posted online from his art
catalogue, and I enjoy his sense of color and fun. His shark painting
comes to mind, when I think of fun, and the beach towels on the beach.
I also like some of Yoko's stuff and I have one of her art books.
But I'm not an artist, and I cannot draw or paint, so really I look at
art differently than some of you and I'm not as discriminating. I am
more of the I wish everybody would be supportive of an artists work
because when you create something, you are giving an inner part of
yourself and leaving yourself open to ridicule, praise, approval, or
criticism, and that's difficult. It's such a subjective thing, too.
The kind of ice cream you like to eat might be something that I can't
stand to have in my freezer, and the same with poetry or music or art,
although those aren't kept in the freezer. I don't know, though,
there might be some frozen popsicle poems on a stick in my freezer. I
better check. I'm glad people like Danny are honest about their
feelings, but I do need to say that one very famous artist was
ridiculed all of his life because his art simply wasn't like anybody
else's. Younger artists made fun of him as he grew older and they
pulled pranks on him, giving him fake letters of invitations to art
shows. Finally he is an elderly man, still painting the same style
that he loved and that everybody else hated. The world was a bit more
contemporary and a bit tired of the more conservative painting works
out there, and everybody's bored eyeballs suddenly noticed this one
old guy's work and realized for the first time, here was a true
master. His work was simple and exciting in its elegant simplicity.
His colors were bold and the form was unrealistic but had feeling.
From then on, the younger artists began to imitate his style and he
heavily influenced a lot of great artists who came along behind him,
although is work is very famous as well. So who knows what we'll
think of Paul's art twenty years from now. Or Yoko, either. Or who
knows, maybe Queen Elizabeth was at the art show because she's a
closet painter herself, or because she likes to see things a bit
different and less stodgy than some of the portraits in Buckingham
Palace. I don't know. I'd gladly hang a painting of Paul's on my wall,
or even one by Danny. --
Prunelda
-----
"Frederick W. Harrison" <harriNO...@istar.ca> wrote in message news:<o0a19.921$mx.10...@news.ca.inter.net>...
Dale Houstman
"Prunelda Picklebush" <crosseyed...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:9fa85a58.0207...@posting.google.com...
> I am more of the I wish everybody would be supportive of an artists work
> because when you create something, you are giving an inner part of
> yourself and leaving yourself open to ridicule, praise, approval, or
> criticism, and that's difficult.
This is a self-negating idea: IF we all were more "supportive" of an
artist's work because they are leaving themselves open to ridicule, etc.
THEN they would NOT be open to ridicule, etc, and the reason for us
supporting them would not exist. The statement literally means nothing.
At any rate, the best thing one can ALWAYS do for an artist and their work
is to be honest. Merely being "supportive" in the absence of any discernible
quality is to lie to the artist (who is trying to be objective about their
work) and thus deprive them of a possibly valuable insight. Art - after
all - isn't therapy.
But - really - Paul's ego is not about to be shattered simply because
someone here and there expresses some dislike of his work. Picasso and most
other aritists survived the onslaught, and Paul hasn't got his life invested
in his paintings anyway. He is a very accomplished and honored artist in his
true field of creativity. I wouldn't worry over him too much. He'll survive
our opinions.
dmh
Majestic
The Artist-painter is still trying to "FIND HIS STROKE". He will find
it, on his own time. Better to reserve one's judgement, Somedays WE
ALL See things with Different EYES. i wonder how many he did in a
ALTERED STATE. Eventually, some of the Images will find their way to
MASS merchandising, TEE Shirts-Baby
clothes-Hats,letterheads-stationary,postal stamps etal, Like the John
Lennon artwork . Its all PR, and the ART OF BuSINESS-Commerce..And in
the EYE OF THE BEHOLDER. Osirius!
Mister Charlie
> LOL to the Hello Dali. I love Paul's art, but I have not been to an
> exhibition of his. I've only seen things posted online from his art
> catalogue, and I enjoy his sense of color and fun. His shark painting
> comes to mind, when I think of fun, and the beach towels on the beach.
> I also like some of Yoko's stuff and I have one of her art books.
> But I'm not an artist, and I cannot draw or paint, so really I look at
> art differently than some of you and I'm not as discriminating. I am
> more of the I wish everybody would be supportive of an artists work
> because when you create something, you are giving an inner part of
> yourself and leaving yourself open to ridicule, praise, approval, or
> criticism, and that's difficult. It's such a subjective thing, too.
The only difference is once the artist PUTS IT OUT THERE then it is fair
game for criticism, good and/or bad. Many people don't "get" a piece,
or don't like it (or hate it), or they love it or even possibly don't
get *any* feeling at all. Either way...
I have made a LOT of art of my own over the years, some good, a lot
sloppy and terrible, but none of it did I try to foist upon other
people. So that really is the difference. I may not have any glory,
but then I did it for myself and expression anyway, not any one else's
approval. And many people have enjoyed what I've done over the years,
but that didn't matter to me anymore than if they hated it. An artist
tries to express what they feel, and if they have any ability and a
command of the tools they can spend a life continuing to attempt to 'get
it right'. For themselves. It's nice when others see or feel what the
artist did but that shouldn't be the main impetus.
Teddy
Notice we haven't been told WHY the paintings are supposedly so
wretched. I've seen the big coffee-table book of Paul's work, and I
didn't see anything I'd want to hang on my wall, but I also have to
say I'm not crazy about the style Sir P. paints in. I've seen other
things like his sketches for the "Abbey Rd" cover that show he can
draw "for real", with perspective and vanishing points and all that
stuff you learn in art school, and I think he has some real ability.
Maybe it's just like, with his solo music, he never seems to hear
"Paul, that's not good enough, do it over."
If I were given a choice of paintings from a famous pop singer, I'd
rather have one of Tony Bennett's! He's got good technique. A neighbor
of mine has a poster from an exhibit that shows a watercolor landscape
of an Italian town, and it's well-done and interesting subject matter.
McCartney hearts and representations of the women in his life just
aren't that entrancing--to me. But I understand he accepts
commissions. Maybe RMB could get together and ask him to paint us
something.
BonusSpin7
>Notice we haven't been told WHY the paintings are supposedly so
>wretched. I've seen the big coffee-table book of Paul's work, and I
>didn't see anything I'd want to hang on my wall, but I also have to
>say I'm not crazy about the style Sir P. paints in.
This is an interesting perspective I ran acroo in a review on the Barnes and
Nobles site:
CUSTOMER REVIEWS - An Open Forum
Dave (Elmhur...@aol.com), a 45-old Black Hills, SD resident., November 28,
2000,
Big Mountain Face
When I first saw the painting 'Big Mountain Face' I was amazed at how much it
resembled the face of George Washington from the vantage point of the new
walkway at Mount Rushmore, which passes almost directly beneath the Four Faces.
Here's the weird part: When that new walkway first opened, about 2 or 3 years
ago, I was walking along it, admiring the Faces (the original Fab Four?) and I
could not get the thought out of my head, 'What if the Beatles were here?
Wouldn't that be cool!' as if picturing them making another fun movie here,
alas, sans John. That thought lingered with me the rest of the afternoon. I am
a Beatles fan but to have had such a thought from out of the blue was odd, even
for me! Mr. McCartney, if you read this, have you been to Mount Rushmore in the
past few years? Is it what inspired 'Big Mountain Face'? Your painting has been
haunting me because of those strange thoughts I had there 2 or 3 years ago. (I
have to wonder, too, about the song Rocky Raccoon. Sounds like some time in the
past you've been here to the 'Black minin' Hills of Dakota...')
Prunelda Picklebush
> "This is a self-negating idea: IF we all were more "supportive" of an
> artist's work because they are leaving themselves open to ridicule, etc.
> THEN they would NOT be open to ridicule, etc, and the reason for us
> supporting them would not exist."
What kind of fucked-up reasoning is that? Why can you not support
someone merely because they are expressing themselves and you value
that right in yourself and in other people?
"The statement literally means nothing."
No. It means nothing to you, but it meant something to me.
>
> "At any rate, the best thing one can ALWAYS do for an artist and their work
> is to be honest. Merely being "supportive" in the absence of any discernible
> quality is to lie to the artist (who is trying to be objective about their
> work) and thus deprive them of a possibly valuable insight. Art - after
> all - isn't therapy.
>
> > dmh"
And again I disagree -- where is it written that if an artist puts
their work out there that it has to be judged, decreed as to worth,
criticized, be involved in some type of imaginary competition that
actually devalues the act of creativity itself and the reason for the
creative work's existence? Honesty of others might be full of wrongs
because they were not in that artist's skin to know the feeling,
experience, landscape, or moment that inspired that work. No, art is
not therapy, but neither should be the criticism, nor should it be
mandatory.
--------
Prunelda
Dale Houstman
> "Dale Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote in message:
> >
> > "This is a self-negating idea: IF we all were more "supportive" of an
> > artist's work because they are leaving themselves open to ridicule, etc.
> > THEN they would NOT be open to ridicule, etc, and the reason for us
> > supporting them would not exist."
>
> What kind of fucked-up reasoning is that? Why can you not support
> someone merely because they are expressing themselves and you value
> that right in yourself and in other people?
My reasoning is fine. your reading ability is "fucked up." I didn't say one
couldn't support an artist, only that your reasoning behind your statement
was self-negating.>
>
> "The statement literally means nothing."
>
> No. It means nothing to you, but it meant something to me.
No, it means nothing logically. You may "feel" it means something, but it
literally means nothing to anyone.
> >
> > "At any rate, the best thing one can ALWAYS do for an artist and their
work
> > is to be honest. Merely being "supportive" in the absence of any
discernible
> > quality is to lie to the artist (who is trying to be objective about
their
> > work) and thus deprive them of a possibly valuable insight. Art - after
> > all - isn't therapy.
> >
> > > dmh"
>
> And again I disagree -- where is it written that if an artist puts
> their work out there that it has to be judged, decreed as to worth,
> criticized, be involved in some type of imaginary competition that
> actually devalues the act of creativity itself and the reason for the
> creative work's existence? Honesty of others might be full of wrongs
> because they were not in that artist's skin to know the feeling,
> experience, landscape, or moment that inspired that work. No, art is
> not therapy, but neither should be the criticism, nor should it be
> mandatory.
I'm an artist, as are most of my friends, and I can tell you from decades of
experience that "loving support" has absolutely nothing to do with the "care
and feeding" of an artist. You can yell about it, and you can use your
little swear words, and you can repeat your sub-standard nonsense over and
over until your throat wears down to the size of a Little Smokie, but
uncritical acceptance is pointless in the development of art. An artist (if
he wants to be more than just a spineless little basement doodler) needs to
learn how to listen to criticism, how to analzye its value, and - most
importantly - how to internalize the lessons. Your sweet little Pollyanna
vision of art is totally irrelevant to human experience.
dmh
Teddy
> >
> >
> > Well, Pablo did slightly embarrass himserlf by attempting to give up
> > painting and take up poetry, several of which he published, and al of which
> > are fairly awful. So even "geniuses" are liable to do stupid things from
> > ego. Gertrude Stein saved him from ruining his life by telling him that his
> > poetry was dubious at best.
> >
> > dmh
>
> Yes, you're right. I *do* have a Picasso "poem" in my posession
> somewhere in one of my mom's old college literature books. Oh, here
> it is:
>
> give tear twist and kill I traverse illuminate and
> burn caress and lick embrace and look I sound at
> every flight and bells till they bleed frightening
> the pigeons and I make them fly around the dovecot. . .
>
> You get the idea. <g>
>
> Cynthia Marie
Picasso also wrote a play that I suffered through because a friend was
in it.It was really painful. To be fair, though, I think the director
stopped trying to figure it out and just decided to have nudity and
simulated onstage urinating for shock value. I don't think this play
was ever performed during Picasso's lifetime, so maybe Pablo P.
settled for being one of the defining artists of his era and stopped
trying to find an audience for his writing. I wonder what percentage
of famous and truly gifted artists go into a different art form and
are good and/or financially successful? Stephen Fry (British actor and
comedian) is writing novels, Steve Martin has written a very good play
I'm helping a friend rehearse (ironically, it's called "Picasso at the
Lapin Agile"), Frank Sinatra turned out to be a dramatic actor, Tony
Bennett paints, Dudley Moore was both an excellent musician and
comedian. I'm trying to just think of people who've had real acclaim
here. Maybe there just aren't that many Renaissance men and women for
good reasons?
I doubt Paul McC is going to be remembered as a painter anymore than
Winston Churchill is, or John Entwistle. Still, its' interesting that
his name and presence weren't enough to save "Broad St." from being a
huge flop, but his paintings seem to get some respect.
Dale Houstman
"Teddy" <hennes...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5d47aa5.02073...@posting.google.com...
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Well, Pablo did slightly embarrass himserlf by attempting to give up
> > > painting and take up poetry, several of which he published, and al of
which
> > > are fairly awful. So even "geniuses" are liable to do stupid things
from
> > > ego. Gertrude Stein saved him from ruining his life by telling him
that his
> > > poetry was dubious at best.
> > >
> > > dmh
> >
> > Yes, you're right. I *do* have a Picasso "poem" in my posession
> > somewhere in one of my mom's old college literature books. Oh, here
> > it is:
> >
> > give tear twist and kill I traverse illuminate and
> > burn caress and lick embrace and look I sound at
> > every flight and bells till they bleed frightening
> > the pigeons and I make them fly around the dovecot. . .
> >
> > You get the idea. <g>
> >
> > Cynthia Marie
>
> of famous and truly gifted artists go into a different art form and
> are good and/or financially successful? Stephen Fry (British actor and
> comedian) is writing novels, Steve Martin has written a very good play
> I'm helping a friend rehearse (ironically, it's called "Picasso at the
> Lapin Agile"), Frank Sinatra turned out to be a dramatic actor, Tony
> Bennett paints, Dudley Moore was both an excellent musician and
> comedian. I'm trying to just think of people who've had real acclaim
> here. Maybe there just aren't that many Renaissance men and women for
> good reasons?
>
I think the percentage is fairly small. In literature, the great example is
Thomas Hardy, who went from being a great novelist to being a very good
poet. Tony Bennett - as a painter borders on the embarrassing. John Tesh was
both a bland television host and a bland musician: does that count? I am
sure there atre othjer real examples, but I can't for the life of me think
of any at the moment: I think it's the heat! Jean Arp (the
Dadaist/Surrealist) was a good painter and a sculptor, and a very enjoyable
poet. England's own Edward Lear was a great writer of nonsense, a fine
illustrator, and a very good watercolouirst and naturalist. Lewis Carroll
also more than dabbled in photography.
dmh
Frederick W. Harrison
twist and kill? Is this before or after the Isley Brothers?
I traverse illuminate and
> burn caress and lick embrace and look I sound at
> every flight and bells till they bleed
We're starting to sink into Vogon territory but are mercifully still a long
way from the poetry of Paul Neil Milne Johnstone of Redbridge, Essex, UK
frightening
> the pigeons and I make them fly around the dovecot. . .
>
> You get the idea. <g>
But I'd rather not.
(hey... that rhymed!)
..........................................
Q: Do you like Beethoven?
Ringo: Yes, especially his poems. (or words to that effect)
Who Me
>ago, I was walking along it, admiring the Faces (the original Fab Four?) and
>I
>could not get the thought out of my head, 'What if the Beatles were here?
>Wouldn't that be cool!'
That thought was probably triggered by the resemblance between Rushmore and the
photo on the "Beatles for Sale" cover...
Prunelda Picklebush
author who has friends who are artists, musicians, and authors. One
of my best friends was very close to an outstanding artist whose work
is on posters everywhere and is considered a master -- I believe the
hands is the more familiar work to the general public. I've promoted
art shows of sizeable merit and also have a degree in music, and
believe it or not, some of my friends were New York editors and
actually lived in the big city there, so it's not like I'm some
country yodel who should be intimidated by you whatsoever. I'm
well-read and I have a huge collection of art books that I do open and
study. There's nothing wrong with my interpretations of anything
regarding art or anything else in this world, because that is my
choice to interpret as I please. It is everybody's right to interpret
and feel any way they please, and that does not require prior
education or experience. There's something very wrong, however, with
somebody who thinks they are the only one holding the franchise on
what is "relevant" to the human experience. Meglomania can be cured,
but first you have to understand that you do not speak for the world
and then you have to understand that you could not possibly interpret
for everyone in the world, thus your statement that what I said means
literally nothing to no one, is not only mentally off, but it is also
an intellectually inferior statement and is the voice of a bully. I'm
sorry I can't hand you a prism and tell you tomorrow will be a better
day, but you're not my aunt, and I'm not Pollyanna. I'm going to
suggest instead that you listen to more Beatles music and that you
quit being so frustrated about your own artwork so much so that you
feel the need to rob others of the joy of enjoying art or being an
artist, or even remarking about art without being told their feelings
have no value. Not everybody in art has tough skin like you, nor does
it mean they should have, nor does it mean they can't be good artists
if they are not as tough as you. -- that's just my opinion, but it's
every bit as worthy as yours. -----Prunelda
---------
"Dale Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote in message news:<uke3cmh...@corp.supernews.com>...
The Walrus was Danny
> vision of art is totally irrelevant to human experience.
In all honesty I'm personally on an quandry about all art. With me being a
father and all that, and trust me I'm being a Devil's Apricot here, but is
there any point? I'm inclined to advocate being "Uncivilised"...I might be
happier. Fuck Art, Fuck the Beatles, let's just eat.
When do I get to kill animals?
Maybe it was viewing Macca's expedition, look what it's done to me! I'm a
heathen!
Danny
The Walrus was Danny
To be fair Prunelda, you went in a big er aggressively.."What kind of fucked
up reasoning is that?"....you know, an element of decorum might help. I'm
the expert in Decorum, coming from Liverpool and all, I can help you.
Aside, does all this mean you actually *Like* the excuse for paintings that
flow from the Maccabrush?
I went to the expedition, trust me I have yet to see anything worse.
Everybody there was kind of hushed and bowed..maybe that was the point...in
which case it was brilliant!....somehow I tend to think that wasn't the
point though.
Still I like the idea..maybe Macca *deliberatly* put together the shittiest
badly painted shit, ever shitted, just to make the audience feel
uncomfortable, and it was the audiences uncomfortability that was the Art.
Danny
saki
> Still I like the idea..maybe Macca *deliberatly* put together the
> shittiest badly painted shit, ever shitted, just to make the
> audience feel uncomfortable, and it was the audiences
> uncomfortability that was the Art.
So he's a conceptual artist as well? :-)
A colleague of mine completed his masters of fine arts with an exhibit,
to which I was cordially invited. At the gallery it appeared that every
one of twenty or so canvases was blank. For awhile I thought this was
the point of the exhibit until the artist began to talk about the
technique of using thread-thin lines of pale paint to express his
oeuvre. True enough, each canvas only appeared to be blank, but you had
to look where he pointed to see what was there. I was less impressed
after that but didn't say so because it would have been impolite.
I thought the Queen's assessment of Macca's art as "colourful" was a
kind way to put it.
Now that he's tried poetry and painting, perhaps it's time to move on
to landscape architecture.
----
"Doing the garden, digging the weeds...."
------------------------
sa...@ucla.edu
mcnews
> badly painted shit, ever shitted, just to make the audience feel
> uncomfortable, and it was the audiences uncomfortability that was the Art.
>
> Danny
nope.
if you read the miles biography you'll find that he's serious.
even makes comparisons to real artists.
Frederick W. Harrison
shittiest
> badly painted shit, ever shitted, just to make the audience feel
Well at least it's slightly better than exhibiting a urinal or bicycle wheel
he didn't make and calling it art. He at least expended some effort and the
best one can say about the result is "colourful". But even vomit can be
colourful.
Paul, however, knows a bit more about art than he lets on - he's got a few
Magrittes and once dropped references to Albert Jarry's "Ubu Roi" in an
interview. Is he following in the footsteps of the Dadaists and
situationalists and deliberately provoking a response, like Jarry beginning
Ubu Roi with the word "merde!" (French for shit)?
That approach doesn't seem like our Paulie - that would be more like John.
More likely he picked up the brush as a means of taking his mind off the
death of Linda and used art as a means of therapy. There is also the
possibility that he's been curious as to what would have happened had he
stayed in art school instead of joining a band.
The problem is that he believes that the world is ready for Paul the
Painter, when perhaps a few more years of experience and study might have
been recommended.
But that raises another problem. Paul doesn't like to be told to wait or
that he can't do something. Make a movie without any clear ideas about plot
(MMT). Why not?
Worse that he still defends such decisions years after the general verdict
agrees that the idea was misguided at best. One suspects that any rejection
of his art will be handled in the same way - he will find one or two
influential/well known souls who express a liking for his work and then say
"See? They think it's good" implying that the rest of the world just doesn't
get it.
"I've suffered for my art. Now it's your turn." Eric Idle
Dale Houstman
> > Still I like the idea..maybe Macca *deliberatly* put together the
> shittiest
> > badly painted shit, ever shitted, just to make the audience feel
> > uncomfortable, and it was the audiences uncomfortably that was the Art.
>
> Well at least it's slightly better than exhibiting a urinal or bicycle
wheel
> he didn't make and calling it art. He at least expended some effort and
the
> best one can say about the result is "colourful". But even vomit can be
> colourful.
You are referring - I suspect - to Marcel Duchamp's urinal and bicycel
wheel? They happen to be two of the most central artistic/cultural
statements of the 20th century. You must recall he was the first to do such
a thing. It shocked and lampooned the art world. That it has since been done
again and again (by such "artists" as Yoko Ono) and thus become just another
attention-getting art "happening" is not a reflection on the brilliance and
true Dadaist humor of Marcel, who was truly testing new waters, and defying
precisely what Paul does so poorly, but others do "well" and yet are still
art whores: retinal art, gallery puffery, digestible vignettes, and
domesticated expression.
> Paul, however, knows a bit more about art than he lets on - he's got a few
> Magrittes and once dropped references to Albert Jarry's "Ubu Roi" in an
> interview. Is he following in the footsteps of the Dadaists and
> situationalists and deliberately provoking a response, like Jarry
beginning
> Ubu Roi with the word "merde!" (French for shit)?
Jarry actually used the invented word "merdre" which is usually translated
as "shitr" or "crapr" in English. As for having a "few Magrittes" (whose
large green apple in a room was the inspiration for the Apple Corps logo),
his having or not having them doesn't indicate the extent of his artistic
knowledge only the extent of his bank account. Sly Stallone has
Impressionist art hung in his mansion. He's a lummox.
dmh
dmh
BlackMonk
> But that raises another problem. Paul doesn't like to be told to wait or
> that he can't do something. Make a movie without any clear ideas about
plot
> (MMT). Why not?
> Worse that he still defends such decisions years after the general verdict
> agrees that the idea was misguided at best.
Good for him. Maybe the rest of the world thinks it sucks, but if he thinks
it's good, he should stand by it.
One suspects that any rejection
> of his art will be handled in the same way - he will find one or two
> influential/well known souls who express a liking for his work and then
say
> "See? They think it's good" implying that the rest of the world just
doesn't
> get it.
>
> "I've suffered for my art. Now it's your turn." Eric Idle
> --
Neil Innes, actually.
Prunelda Picklebush
instead of a question? You have to help me on this decorum thing.
But yes, I do like Macca's painting, but then that's based upon the
stuff I've seen online, like the painting in the red room with what
appears to be John's head, and I like Linda at the piano. Yellow
Linda. I didn't see the work at the art show, and I respect your
right to your opinion. I like the celtic influenced work, the celtic
themes which I do think reflects early celtic drawings and symbols,
and that reminds me of the celtic influence in his Standing Stone
musical work. So perhaps that's what it is, is the connection to his
music through his art, that I appreciate, too. Perhaps "tits afire"
refers to the fact that breast cancer took two beloved women out of
his life, and he finds that to be a sort of fire, the cancer, that
invades and destroys and he's expressing anger, or he feels cancer is
the anger or tits (is that word allowable?)are a woman's blight, or
maybe he's into pyro-porn. I don't know. I'm just a dumbass with
nothing relevant to say.
----- Prunelda
"The Walrus was Danny" <thewalru...@totalise.co.uk> wrote in message news:<3d47d...@mk-nntp-2.news.uk.tiscali.com>...
Dale Houstman
> So what are you saying, Danny? I should have made it a statement
> instead of a question? You have to help me on this decorum thing.
> But yes, I do like Macca's painting, but then that's based upon the
> stuff I've seen online, like the painting in the red room with what
> appears to be John's head, and I like Linda at the piano. Yellow
> Linda. I didn't see the work at the art show, and I respect your
> right to your opinion. I like the celtic influenced work, the celtic
> themes which I do think reflects early celtic drawings and symbols,
> and that reminds me of the celtic influence in his Standing Stone
> musical work. So perhaps that's what it is, is the connection to his
> music through his art, that I appreciate, too. Perhaps "tits afire"
> refers to the fact that breast cancer took two beloved women out of
> his life, and he finds that to be a sort of fire, the cancer, that
> invades and destroys and he's expressing anger, or he feels cancer is
> the anger or tits (is that word allowable?)are a woman's blight, or
> maybe he's into pyro-porn. I don't know. I'm just a dumbass with
> nothing relevant to say.
> ----- Prunelda
>
the emotional source of an artist's work (or the work of a person who is
acting as an artist) is not a valid point of departure for an analysis of
the art AS ART. Bad paintings can be created around very real feelings, just
as great paintings may arise merely from a person's intellectual
appreciation of an idea,or the way light falls on a plate of fruit. I have
no doubt Paul is both sincere about his work and even works at it in his
fashion, but the work as it is presented is quite below par, filled with
half-digested bits of better painters' ideas and techniques. I don't
begrudge him his gallery show: wealthy and powerful people can get their
urine displayed as art if they want to. But no amount of sincerity or real
pain eventually can stand in the way of making an honest critique of the
work as it is presented.
dmh
azaela
> > Yeah but you'd only hang the bugger on the wall because it's by Beatle
> Macca, not because it's any good. It's very sad, and that's no judgement on
> yourself Bonus, I'd do exactly the same, I'm very sad too. "Tits on Fire" I
> ask you!
I've seen that one. Pretty funny if you ask me. He isn't serious
about his work, so why are you?? And I do have one on the wall
because I love it, not because it's beatle macca....
>
> The problem was there was no kinda theme in the work, it was all just a
> mess.
Why would you expect a "theme'??? That's the most half assed thing
I've heard in art.
>
> No they wouldn't. They were all very very shit. Paul listen to me:
Good thing he doesn't imo......because you sound like a dickhead to
me...
>
azaela
> > > More likely he picked up the brush as a means of taking his mind off the
> death of Linda and used art as a means of therapy. There is also the
> possibility that he's been curious as to what would have happened had he
> stayed in art school instead of joining a band.
> The problem is that he believes that the world is ready for Paul the
> Painter, when perhaps a few more years of experience and study might have
> been recommended.
>
>
never went to art school. That was John. Get your beatles straight.
I also recall that a curator in Germany persuaded him to exhibit
because (gasp! shock! horror!) he likes the work. It took him five
years to convince Paul to do so. He paints to please himself, not
you or the other arseholes here. It has little to do with ego or what
he believes the world is ready for.
azaela
>
> I have made a LOT of art of my own over the years, some good, a lot
> sloppy and terrible, but none of it did I try to foist upon other
> people. So that really is the difference. I may not have any glory,
> but then I did it for myself and expression anyway, not any one else's
> approval. And many people have enjoyed what I've done over the years,
> but that didn't matter to me anymore than if they hated it. An artist
> tries to express what they feel, and if they have any ability and a
> command of the tools they can spend a life continuing to attempt to 'get
> it right'. For themselves. It's nice when others see or feel what the
> artist did but that shouldn't be the main impetus.
Oh good.....there *is* someone here that gets it. I feel better already.
Frederick W. Harrison
indicate the
> extent of his artistic
> knowledge only the extent of his bank account.
One presumes he had some idea what he was purchasing as opposed to simply
plunking money down on the advice of an investment consultant. At least he
didn't purchase lurid nudes on black velvet. There is one interview I've
heard where he discusses Julian's drawing that became the basis for Lucy In
The Sky With Diamonds and he's comparing it to Marc Chagall by noting that
the people in it seem to be floating in defiance of gravity, which makes one
think he had some idea of what he was talking about. His art appreciation
may have been absorbed through John and Stu, tutored by Jane Asher, or
simply picked up on his own in his dalliances with the London "in crowd".
Sly Stallone has
> Impressionist art hung in his mansion. He's a lummox.
Now he's <<exactly>> the sort of person you'd expect to have black velvet
paintings, or at least paintings of nude and/or ample breasted women like
the sort preferred by Dan Ackroyd's cable TV art critic from Saturday Night
Live.
"The guy's name is Titian..." (mispronounced TIT-ee-yan)
And you're right - it was Neil Innes, though it's the sort of line I
associate with Eric Idle.
R Lapworth
from saki <sa...@ucla.edu> contains these words:
> Now that he's tried poetry and painting, perhaps it's time to move on
> to landscape architecture.
Or music.
Ron
Mister Charlie
>From: R Lapworth rlap...@zetnet.co.uk
>Date: 8/1/2002 12:55 PM Pacific Standard Time
>Message-id: <200208012...@zetnet.co.uk>
Prunelda Picklebush
song collection for kids for educational records a few years ago, but
I've always loved Tony's voice and style and all of the hits from way
back. Glad to know that about Tony, Teddy.
---Prunelda
hennes...@yahoo.com (Teddy) wrote in message news:<5d47aa5.02073...@posting.google.com>...
Prunelda Picklebush
Is there an artbook of collected works of Beatles and their
spouses/children/friends? I have that illustrated Beatles lyrics book
(Alan Aldridge) which I love. Perhaps there's an actual art book of
Beatles work (other than the sketches here and there with liner notes
or the examples in the new Beatles bio that came out the year before)
-- Prunelda
"Dale Houstman" <dm...@citilink.com> wrote in message news:<ukjk90l...@corp.supernews.com>...
Dale Houstman
> Is there an artbook of work by rock star celebrities?
I don't know. You'd have to think that someone thought of this. I'd buy it,
if only for the laughs.
>Does Ozzy paint?
From what I see on his show, he does a lot of fairly awful marker pen
drawings.
For the life of me, I can't think of a non-artist celebrity whose painting
is worth looking at for more than a giggle.
dmh
Cynthia Marie
You know that terrible feeling you get when actually feel embarrassed
*for* someone? That's how I feel about Paul after reading the above.
Cynthia Marie
Cynthia Marie
That was low.
Cynthia Marie
eji...@eyex.netcom.com
> You know that terrible feeling you get when actually feel embarrassed
> *for* someone? That's how I feel about Paul after reading the above.
That's ok, we've been feeling the same way about certain posters here
for years.
Frederick W. Harrison
>
> I don't know. You'd have to think that someone thought of this. I'd buy
it,
> if only for the laughs.
There is/was indeed such a book. It's titled "Starart" and it's designed and
edited by Debby Chesher. It was printed in 1979 by Starart Productions Ltd.
in rural Alberta (!), with distribution in Canada by Dorset Publishing.
(ISBN 0-9690053-0-X) US distribution may have been handled by A. Horowitz &
Sons, New Jersey who did the binding for publication. It's a 12" x 9-1/4"
coffee table hardback and features the work of six musicians/artists:
Joni Mitchell
John Mayall
Cat Stevens
KLAUS VOORMAN
Ron Wood
Commander Cody.
The dust cover front is by Klaus and consists of his drawings and photo
collage of the other five artists featured in the book in an homage to his
cover for "Revolver".
Each artist has a brief biography then a selection of their work. All very
impressive and accomplished - some of their pieces you may recognize as
album covers, but those comprise the minority of work shown. Mayall and
Commander Cody might seem to be odd choices but their work measures up to
their companions.
While many of us are familiar with Klaus's work through the lyric book on
the "Ringo" album there are other media in which he has worked. There are
sculpted doorknobs that he did for George and Ringo - Ringo's consists of a
hand that you grasp; George's consists of a head that you grab. There's
also an Escher inspired piece showing Ringo's image in a snooker ball that
he is about to shoot.
Definitely worth a look.
Mister Charlie
>
> While many of us are familiar with Klaus's work through the lyric
> book on the "Ringo" album there are other media in which he has
> worked. There are sculpted doorknobs that he did for George and Ringo
> - Ringo's consists of a hand that you grasp; George's consists of a
> head that you grab. There's also an Escher inspired piece showing
> Ringo's image in a snooker ball that he is about to shoot.
>
> Definitely worth a look.
Shades of MC Escher!
--
"...I don't want to spoil the party so I'll go,
I would hate my fractalized litho to show..."
BlackMonk
> > > Is there an artbook of work by rock star celebrities?
> >
> > I don't know. You'd have to think that someone thought of this. I'd buy
> it,
> > if only for the laughs.
>
> There is/was indeed such a book. It's titled "Starart" and it's designed
and
> edited by Debby Chesher. It was printed in 1979 by Starart Productions
Ltd.
> in rural Alberta (!), with distribution in Canada by Dorset Publishing.
> (ISBN 0-9690053-0-X) US distribution may have been handled by A. Horowitz
&
> Sons, New Jersey who did the binding for publication. It's a 12" x 9-1/4"
> coffee table hardback and features the work of six musicians/artists:
> Joni Mitchell
> John Mayall
> Cat Stevens
> KLAUS VOORMAN
> Ron Wood
> Commander Cody.
>
> The dust cover front is by Klaus and consists of his drawings and photo
> collage of the other five artists featured in the book in an homage to his
> cover for "Revolver".
Klaus is something of a ringer, since he's more of an artist than a
musician. Another person who should be mentioned is Don VanVliet/Captain
Beefheart who went from being one of the most important rock musicians ever,
to being a commercial success as an artist.
Cynthia Marie
I'm sorry I insulted your crush. I promise I won't do it again. (hehehe)
Cynthia Marie
eji...@eyex.netcom.com
Ooooh Stingies! Is that the best you can do?
McLesh
>Date: 8/4/02 8:10 AM Central Daylight Time
>Message-id: <3D4D27D7...@ix.netcom.com>
Heh. It was head and shoulders above anything you've had to say.
eji...@eyex.netcom.com
> Heh. It was head and shoulders above anything you've had to say.
Hey, mind yer own beeswax mister! If she wants to get in a pissing
match, she'd better practice her aim.
--
-Ed Igoe