"Lennon's sex pictures were "`bad art' "
Diana
By Giles Elgood
LONDON, Jan 25 (Reuters) - Sexually explicit lithographs by Beatle John Lennon
were so bad that they were only exhibited because they were the work of such a
famous figure, according to secret police files from 1970 released on Thursday.
Lennon's "Bag One" exhibition lasted only a few days before police confiscated
most of the pictures and prosecuted the gallery owner under Britain's obscenity
laws.
The artistic merit of the scrawled drawings, which showed Lennon and wife Yoko
Ono in sexually explicit poses, failed to impress either Eugene Schuster, the
American who put on Lennon's controversial "Bag One" exhibition, or the police
officer who raided the gallery.
The police files on the case, released by the Public Record Office as part of
efforts towards greater government openness, quote Schuster as saying: "They
are bad art but after all it's the name that sells them."
The arts editor of the Guardian newspaper, Michael McNay, agreed, telling
police: "I took exception to them because I thought the exhibition was trading
on Lennon's name rather than his talent."
Detective Inspector Frederick Luff, who swooped after complaints from the
public, had doubts whether the pictures were well enough executed to count as
genuine pornography.
"WORK OF A SICK MIND"
"Many toilet walls depict works of similar merit," he noted scornfully. "It is
perhaps charitable to suggest that they are the work of a sick mind," the
30-year-old files quoted him as saying.
"The only danger to a successful prosecution, as I see it, is the argument that
they are so pathetic as to be incapable of influencing anyone and therefore
unable to deprave or corrupt any person," he said.
Luff concluded, however, that the prosecution should go ahead because of the
influence that Lennon could wield as a member of The Beatles.
Publicity material for the show put out by Schuster's London Arts Gallery was
more polite, saying: "Lennon's art speaks of life and reality, not mere
pornography."
Some members of the public who strayed into the gallery were less charitable,
according to the files.
George Holmes, an accountant, said he was horrified.
"They were exaggerated distorted caricatures depicting intimate sexual
relationships of a repulsive and disgusting nature," he said.
Housewife Nansi Creer added: "I was stunned. I couldn't believe what I was
looking at."
In the end, a London magistrate dismissed the charges against Schuster, and
Luff returned the confiscated lithographs to the gallery, where they were on
sale at a price of 40 pounds ($58) each or 550 pounds ($800) the set.
15:05 01-25-01
- - - - - -
Hari Scruffs: http://www.hariscruffs.com
(Updated January 14 2001)
NoFliesonFrank
amara...@aol.com (Diana) wrote:
> Lennon's sex pictures were "bad art"
> By Giles Elgood
>
> LONDON, Jan 25 (Reuters) - Sexually explicit lithographs by Beatle John Lennon
> were so bad that they were only exhibited because they were the work of such a
> famous figure, according to secret police files from 1970 released on Thursday.
Yeah the stuffy Brits really missed a golden opportunity. I saw some of
the originals at the home of a producer ten years ago. They are really
wonderful drawings. If you has purchased one at the 1970 prices you
quoted it would be worth at least 50 times as much.
Not very nice of you to show up the backward-thinking British for the
ignorant racist sexist squares they really were.
It's no wonder John and Yoko moved to New York city.
Francie
--
Girls who put out are tramps. Girls who don't are ladies. This is,
however, a rather archaic usage of the word. Should one of you boys
happen upon a girl who doesn't put out, do not jump to the conclusion
that you have found a lady. What you have probably found is a lesbian.
--Fran Lebowitz--
http://sites.netscape.net/fabest
FRANCIE'S BOOT: Coming to Kick Your Ass.
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Robert Laurie
<shooby...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>In article <20010125184454...@nso-ca.aol.com>,
> amara...@aol.com (Diana) wrote:
>> Lennon's sex pictures were "bad art"
>> By Giles Elgood
>>
>> LONDON, Jan 25 (Reuters) - Sexually explicit lithographs by Beatle John Lennon
>> were so bad that they were only exhibited because they were the work of such a
>> famous figure, according to secret police files from 1970 released on Thursday.
>
>
>Yeah the stuffy Brits really missed a golden opportunity. I saw some of
>the originals at the home of a producer ten years ago. They are really
>wonderful drawings. If you has purchased one at the 1970 prices you
>quoted it would be worth at least 50 times as much.
>
>Not very nice of you to show up the backward-thinking British for the
>ignorant racist sexist squares they really were.
>
>It's no wonder John and Yoko moved to New York city.
>
>Francie
Ignorant, racist, sexist, and square they may be. But John's drawings
do in fact suck.
reinh...@my-deja.com
NoFliesonFrank <shooby...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> In article <20010125184454...@nso-ca.aol.com>,
> amara...@aol.com (Diana) wrote:
> > Lennon's sex pictures were "bad art"
> > By Giles Elgood
> >
> > LONDON, Jan 25 (Reuters) - Sexually explicit lithographs by Beatle
John Lennon
> > were so bad that they were only exhibited because they were the work
of such a
> > famous figure, according to secret police files from 1970 released
on Thursday.
>
> Yeah the stuffy Brits really missed a golden opportunity.
And wot, pray do tell, was this *golden oppurtunity*? Just
wondering...
I saw some
of
> the originals at the home of a producer ten years ago. They are really
> wonderful drawings.
Yes, inded. So romantic...
If you has purchased one at the 1970 prices you
> quoted it would be worth at least 50 times as much.
You must be kicking yourself...
> Not very nice of you to show up the backward-thinking British for the
> ignorant racist sexist squares they really were.
Nonsense. The erotic lithos didn't offend just the Brits. They
offended at least some people wherever they were shown, which pleased
JL. It had been his intent to shock the *squares* & provoke outrage.
> It's no wonder John and Yoko moved to New York city.
>
> Francie
>
> --
> Girls like me who put out are considered groupies, but not all
groupies have been lucky enough to have had carnal knowledge with a
Beatle like me. Should one of you boys happen upon a girl who puts out
and claims to have bedded Beatle paul, do not jump to the conclusion
that you have found me. I am only one of many...
> --Francie Schwartz With Fran Lebowitz:
'HOW AN AFFAIR WITH PAUL McCARTNEY MADE ME A LESBIAN SYCOPHANT'
robertandrews
>Housewife Nansi Creer added: "I was stunned. I couldn't believe what I was
looking at."
At least it wasn't scratch & sniff.
NoFliesonFrank
reinh...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <94qj0f$ikg$1...@nnrp1.deja.com>,
> NoFliesonFrank <shooby...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>
>
> > Not very nice of you to show up the backward-thinking British for the
> > ignorant racist sexist squares they really were.
>
> Nonsense. The erotic lithos didn't offend just the Brits. They
> offended at least some people wherever they were shown, which pleased
> JL. It had been his intent to shock the *squares* & provoke outrage.
>
I just love how Fred/Rein informs us of John Lennon's artistic intentions
- ten years before he ever met the guy.
Since the only taste he possesses is in his mouth. It's a metallic taste.
Fred, you miss all the good things in life. What a miserable excuse for a
life you lead.
Francie
--
Girls who put out are tramps. Girls who don't are ladies. This is,
however, a rather archaic usage of the word. Should one of you boys
happen upon a girl who doesn't put out, do not jump to the conclusion
that you have found a lady. What you have probably found is a lesbian.
--Fran Lebowitz--
http://sites.netscape.net/fabest
Mister Charlie
drawings. I met Yoko at a gallery opening of John's artwork and these
pictures were in a back room (more private). ( No pun intended. )
The drawings, scribbly though they may look to the unitiated, really
hold an inner tension of the lines, looking as the figures might
implode at any time. His style is deceptively simple-looking. Don't
forget he was an art student and did have some background of drawing
since he was a child.
Yes, he delighted in provoking, no doubt about it. I remember when the
gallery did this, it seemed so square then, it seems so now. After
seeing the drawings I know they were not Satan incarnate but soke very
sexy, private depictions.
Regardless, Fred's art critique is pretty stupid and just another
reason to go on the attack. I understand those who are put off by
John's style, it is to many the same as Yoko's singing. But being
popular is not necessarily what art is about; it does not negate the
value of an art work if the general public doesn't like it. Often many
years later future generations see the merit.
Anyway, I liked the drawings. I was amazed by them and I think, as a
fan, it invoked in me what it was supposed to. In uptight old farts it
was outrage, in fans and friends it was wonder and delight. And a bit
of bemusement, in all honesty, as it IS odd to see real people
you 'know' depicted that way.
--
"...I've had a drink or two with some old pals,
Kinda strange to see John's genitals..."
the walrus was Danny
"Sensation" went and saw it in the UK.
> It's no wonder John and Yoko moved to New York city.
"Sensation" closed by the Mayor in NYC.
More bull from Franks
Danny
NoFliesonFrank
You're treading on New Yawk territory, punk. "Sensation" was never closed
by anyone, including the lapsed Catholic Mayor who now gets police
protection for his wife as well as his mistress.
Ever check out davidbowie.com's guided tour of the exhibit, PunkCrust?
The show had to come to America (Brooklyn, the land of my father) to make
a wave.
You're totally retarded, Danny.
--
To give an accurate description of what has never occurred is not merely
the proper occupation of the historian, but the inalienable privilege of
any man of parts and culture. ~ Oscar Wilde ~
http://sites.netscape.net/fabest
MY BOOT: Now taking orders.
Save now. The price goes up 2/1/01.
Lord Tim Brent
<shooby...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>Fred, you miss all the good things in life. What a miserable excuse for a
>life you lead.
>
>Francie
>
Fred has no life.
Tim
--------------------
Duchy Of Grand Fenwick
"I wish it (Christianity) were more
productive of good works
... I mean real good works
... not holy-day keeping, sermon-hearing
... or making long prayers, filled with
flatteries and compliments despised by
wise men, and much less capable of
pleasing the Deity."
--Benjamin Franklin,Works, Vol. VII, p. 75
Ronnie Clark
>ignorant racist sexist squares they really were.
...she said in a sweeping racist sexist statement.
Ronnie
Diana
>> Girls like me who put out are considered groupies, but not all
>groupies have been lucky enough to have had carnal knowledge with a
>Beatle like me. Should one of you boys happen upon a girl who puts out
>and claims to have bedded Beatle paul, do not jump to the conclusion
>that you have found me. I am only one of many...
>> --Francie Schwartz With Fran Lebowitz:
> 'HOW AN AFFAIR WITH PAUL McCARTNEY MADE ME A LESBIAN SYCOPHANT'
Ok, Reinhart, ya owe me a new keyboard. Just spit a mouthful of coffee over
mine!
NoFliesonFrank
Actually, Semenboy's the only one she can reply to at this point because
she has nothing at all to say about her 30 year old non-scoop on the art
world reception to John's erotic drawings of his beloved.
If ever two people deserved each other, Semenboy and Di do.
Didoobyscooby-doo!
ROTFL
franny
In article <20010126175041...@nso-fu.aol.com>,
amara...@aol.com (Diana) wrote:
> reinh...@my-deja.com writes:
>
> >> Girls like me who put out are considered groupies, but not all
> >groupies have been lucky enough to have had carnal knowledge with a
> >Beatle like me. Should one of you boys happen upon a girl who puts out
> >and claims to have bedded Beatle paul, do not jump to the conclusion
> >that you have found me. I am only one of many...
> >> --Francie Schwartz With Fran Lebowitz:
> > 'HOW AN AFFAIR WITH PAUL McCARTNEY MADE ME A LESBIAN SYCOPHANT'
>
> Ok, Reinhart, ya owe me a new keyboard. Just spit a mouthful of coffee over
> mine!
>
>
--
To give an accurate description of what has never occurred is not merely
the proper occupation of the historian, but the inalienable privilege of
any man of parts and culture. ~ Oscar Wilde ~
http://sites.netscape.net/fabest
MY BOOT: Now taking orders.
Save now. The price goes up 2/1/01.
Sien Hoornik
cents in the pot on this one-
What is good art?
It was once defined for me as "something which provokes a strong emotional
reaction or physical reaction from the viewer". It has also been explained in
terms of mathematics and other sciences. (Take a closer look at the composition
methods of some famous artists- Van Gogh, for instance, was not random in his
use of intense colour)
What, then, draws the line between good art and bad art?
At the time of the first Impressionist Exposition in Paris, the Expo was
considered by most to be full of bad art. Monet, one of whose entries gave the
title to the movement is reveret as one of the greats.
Is bad art by a famous name worse than a name made famous by bad art?
I have a feeling the art galleries of the world are filled with some good, some
bad. Some very famously bad, making us think they must be good.
I happen to like the Bag One series better than some off his other
illustrations, simply for their very warm feeling. While "In His Own Write" and
"Spaniard in the Works" are filled with the deformed and the misshapen, he and
Yoko- in one of the more G-rated poses- look as cozy as two cats. They'll still
look cozy and immensely self-satisfied whether they're called bad art or good,
and still appeal to me.
Cyn
"The only bonding I want to do with him involves a tube of super glue and a
rabid hamster"
CYBERFLOYD
whatever..) visual art really takes a lot of dedicated practice as well as
talent, much like music. As far as drawing goes, John didn't have the practice.
He was playing guitar in art school after all..(lucky us.)
He was a sometimes inspired doodler and his stuff worked well in tandem with
his little stories. As far as his more autobiographical drawings go, I never
took them that seriously myself. I don't think John did either.
Mint Pattie
"Sien Hoornik" <modg...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010127001231...@ng-cn1.aol.com...
NoFliesonFrank
cyber...@aol.com (CYBERFLOYD) wrote:
> Regardless of the style,(abstract, primitive, cartoon, realistic or
>
>
> his little stories. As far as his more autobiographical drawings go, I never
> took them that seriously myself. I don't think John did either.
>
If John hadn't taken his erotic drawings seriously, he would never have
allowed them to be seen. Your comment calling him a "doodler" is deeply
ignorant of the value of the unconscious in drawing and painting. Check
out Picasso's "doodles".
Great artistry cannot be taught. Or practiced like the piano.
You don't need practice to make good art. Just passion, will and a touch
of madness.
Francie
--
To give an accurate description of what has never occurred is not merely
the proper occupation of the historian, but the inalienable privilege of
any man of parts and culture. ~ Oscar Wilde ~
http://sites.netscape.net/fabest
MY BOOT: Now taking orders.
Save now. The price goes up 2/1/01.
NoFliesonFrank
>
>
> his little stories. As far as his more autobiographical drawings go, I never
> took them that seriously myself. I don't think John did either.
>
If John hadn't taken his erotic drawings seriously, he would never have
allowed them to be seen. Your comment calling him a "doodler" is deeply
ignorant of the value of the unconscious in drawing and painting. Check
out Picasso's "doodles".
Great artistry cannot be taught. Or practiced like the piano.
You don't need practice to make good art. Just passion, will and a touch
of madness.
Francie
--
To give an accurate description of what has never occurred is not merely
the proper occupation of the historian, but the inalienable privilege of
any man of parts and culture. ~ Oscar Wilde ~
http://sites.netscape.net/fabest
MY BOOT: Now taking orders.
Save now. The price goes up 2/1/01.
CYBERFLOYD
allowed them to be seen. >>
I think it's on the record that John was pretty casual about his drawing
endeavors. Who knows what he may have thought in more irrational or ego-driven
moments, especially with Yoko egging him on, but I'm guessing that deep down,
John had enough common sense not to get too delusional about his drawings.
<< Your comment calling him a "doodler" is deeply
ignorant of the value of the unconscious in drawing and painting. Check
out Picasso's "doodles". >>
Your comment is deeply ignorant of the fact that you are talking out of your
ass, like you do about 800 times a day on this board. Picasso was a grand
master who studied and practiced art from the time he was a child. His doodles
are interesting precisely because of that fact. He had the craft necessary to
express something in his unconscious in a way that made it worth taking note
of. Having said that, his doodles were still doodles.
<< Great artistry cannot be taught. Or practiced like the piano.
You don't need practice to make good art. Just passion, will and a touch
of madness.
>>
What sheer unmitigated bs..And an insult to artists of all disciplines
everywhere. Great art, even good art requires craft in order to be
communicated in a meaningful way and that is what we are discussing here. Craft
is why we are discussing JL's music decades later. Because he spent 8 hours a
night in Hamburg honing that craft. Without that craft, we would not be
listening to it, no matter how passionate it is. Most of John's drawings never
rise to the level of serious effort or ability and that is why when judged as
art they are marginal at best.
NoFliesonFrank
cyber...@aol.com (CYBERFLOYD) wrote:
> << If John hadn't taken his erotic drawings seriously, he would never have
> allowed them to be seen. >>
>
> I think it's on the record that John was pretty casual about his drawing
> endeavors.
On what record? I repeat. He wouldn't have had the erotic drawings
reproduced as lithographs and exhibited in 1970 if he hadn't thought they
were any good.
Who knows what he may have thought in more irrational or ego-driven
> moments, especially with Yoko egging him on,
When you love someone, you want to encourage them to have confidence in
themselves. But you wouldn't know about that, would you...
but I'm guessing that deep down,
> John had enough common sense not to get too delusional about his drawings.
Perhaps, but you are deluded if you think you know squat about art.
>
> << Your comment calling him a "doodler" is deeply
> ignorant of the value of the unconscious in drawing and painting. Check
> out Picasso's "doodles". >>
>
> Your comment is deeply ignorant of the fact that you are talking out of your
> ass, like you do about 800 times a day on this board.
If you can't take the heat of an argument backed up with a formal
education in art, then stick your ugly head in the garbage disposal and
flip the switch. Also you can't count. Since I am the topic of most of
the new threads, I have a perfect right to post as often as a dozen times
a day. Get a calculator.
Picasso was a grand
> master who studied and practiced art from the time he was a child. His doodles
> are interesting precisely because of that fact.
Bull. He needed no training for the abstract art for which he is best
known. His doodles are interesting because he's the most famous painter
of the 20th century. Picasso was the master of getting people to pay the
most money for the least amount of effort. He often said he charged so
much for his casual drawings because he *could.*
He had the craft necessary to
> express something in his unconscious in a way that made it worth taking note
> of. Having said that, his doodles were still doodles.
>
Now you're talking out of your anus. Your statement is self-
contradictory. The unconscious needs no craft. In fact, craft isn't
relevant in the unconscious mind. There are prisoners on death row who
have nothing but craft and who draw and render perfectly. Doesn't make
them artists. Thr only painters who require real craft are the forgers.
> << Great artistry cannot be taught. Or practiced like the piano.
>
> You don't need practice to make good art. Just passion, will and a touch
> of madness.
> >>
>
> What sheer unmitigated bs..And an insult to artists of all disciplines
> everywhere. Great art, even good art requires craft in order to be
> communicated in a meaningful way and that is what we are discussing here.
Ignorant twaddle. Art doesn't need to *communicate in a meaningful way*.
We're discussing visceral erotic drawings and self-portraits of a couple.
John's drawings were highly personal and intuitively communicative. It
seems his "craft" was good enough. Everyone understood those drawings!
Craft
> is why we are discussing JL's music decades later. Because he spent 8 hours a
> night in Hamburg honing that craft.
John would have laughed his ass off at you for saying that.
It was ROCKnROLL and he didn't stick around in Hamburg taking lessons,
you asshole. He became a god in short order. And some people think rock
music is anti-craft. It's not a fuckin hobby y'know. They don't teach it
in school.
Without that craft, we would not be
> listening to it, no matter how passionate it is. Most of John's drawings never
> rise to the level of serious effort or ability and that is why when judged as
> art they are marginal at best.
>
Your intellect is marginal at best. People who think "serious effort"
doesn't apply to John's art work are the sort who get their art education
in USA Today. Morons and dimwits like you.
robertandrews
>Your comment is deeply ignorant of the fact that you are talking out of
your ass, like you do about 800 times a day on this board.
It's too bad our discussions dissolve into name-calling, because the issues
raised here are worth investigating. I often wonder what is art, & what
constitutes great, good or inferior art. Certainly technique (or craft) is
required, but exactly what & how much is debatable.
>Most of John's drawings never rise to the level of serious effort or
ability and that is why when judged as art they are marginal at best.
You've mentioned three aspects: technique, effort & talent (ability).
Technique is mostly (but not exclusively) training & practice, effort is
desire & determination, talent is hard to define. Even with more technique
& effort, I doubt I'd be terribly interested in John's drawings. As an
analogy, consider the first films made by Paul, John, Bob Dylan, Paul Simon,
Prince, etc. Then look at the first one by Orson Welles. Granted, Welles
came from the stage & adapted some of his techniques; but I think there's a
mysterious quality linked to particular aptitudes & means of expression --
which is why few artists are equally talented in all fields.
Maybe Picasso couldn't play the blues.
an old brown shoe
"robertandrews" <robert...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ddSc6.24$FA6...@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net...
> "CYBERFLOYD" <cyber...@aol.com> wrote:
> >Your comment is deeply ignorant of the fact that you are talking out of
> your ass, like you do about 800 times a day on this board.
>
> It's too bad our discussions dissolve into name-calling, because the
issues
> raised here are worth investigating. I often wonder what is art, & what
> constitutes great, good or inferior art. Certainly technique (or craft)
is
> required, but exactly what & how much is debatable.
i think it varies. you cant really generalise about the prerequisites for
art, good or bad. art itself is just too slippery an eel to get a grip on.
and i dont want to get into that middle ground crap when you call *all* art
*good* art. there's heaps of *bad* art out there.
and while i think there is a strong case for the need of craft and rehearsal
and technique, a great deal of fabulous art has been made by "unskilled"
artists.
>
> >Most of John's drawings never rise to the level of serious effort or
> ability and that is why when judged as art they are marginal at best.
>
> You've mentioned three aspects: technique, effort & talent (ability).
> Technique is mostly (but not exclusively) training & practice, effort is
> desire & determination, talent is hard to define. Even with more
technique
> & effort, I doubt I'd be terribly interested in John's drawings. As an
> analogy, consider the first films made by Paul, John, Bob Dylan, Paul
Simon,
> Prince, etc. Then look at the first one by Orson Welles. Granted, Welles
> came from the stage & adapted some of his techniques; but I think there's
a
> mysterious quality linked to particular aptitudes & means of expression --
> which is why few artists are equally talented in all fields.
well said.
> Maybe Picasso couldn't play the blues.
he could paint them.
>
Reel Love
Nicely put!
Francie
--
Frannie's Boot
Details at:
http://sites.netscape.net/Fabe9131944
CYBERFLOYD
When you love someone, you want to encourage them to have confidence in
themselves. But you wouldn't know about that, would you... >>
If you were honest, you'd know what I mean. J and Y did a lot of dubious things
publicly. Does Yoko Ono really pay you to write this tripe?
<< Perhaps, but you are deluded if you think you know squat about art.
>>
I probably don't know as much about art as you know about sucking Paul
McCartney's cock, but that leaves me room to know some...
<< If you can't take the heat of an argument backed up with a formal
education in art, then stick your ugly head in the garbage disposal and
flip the switch. >>
God, I hate it when people try and flaunt supposed credentials in the middle of
a discussion.
<< Bull. He needed no training for the abstract art for which he is best
known. >>
This asinine statement belies the veracity of the claims that you have a formal
education. Can you major in Groupie? Picasso almost single-handedly formulated
a movement which arose out of his personal sensibility and his craft.
Everything he was and everything he did previously led to that point. Your
incredibly foolish statement is sort of like saying John didn't need to be
Beatle in order to create Plastic Ono Band.
<< The unconscious needs no craft. In fact, craft isn't
relevant in the unconscious mind. >>
The unconscious without craft remains the unconscious. It needs craft to be
brought into physical form so that it can be viewed by others. How well the
artist's vision is expressed (be in unconscious or otherwise) is how we
separate the John Lennons from the Picassos, the Beatles from the Monkees.
<< There are prisoners on death row who
have nothing but craft and who draw and render perfectly. Doesn't make
them artists. Thr only painters who require real craft are the forgers. >>
More amazingly uninformed blather. Yes, there are people who can render well
who don't have a compelling personal vision. Your point being?
<< John would have laughed his ass off at you for saying that.
It was ROCKnROLL and he didn't stick around in Hamburg taking lessons,
you asshole. He became a god in short order. And some people think rock
music is anti-craft. It's not a fuckin hobby y'know. They don't teach it
in school.
>>
Stupid and not really worthy of comment.
<< Your intellect is marginal at best. People who think "serious effort"
doesn't apply to John's art work are the sort who get their art education
in USA Today. Morons and dimwits like you.
>>
While I doubt your claims of an advanced education, I do congratulate you on
one aspect. You do seem well-versed in Yoko-speak. All these kind of sketchy
ideas about art are her stock in trade after all..
CYBERFLOYD
It's too bad our discussions dissolve into name-calling, because the issues
raised here are worth investigating. >>
True. I never initiate flame wars, but I have no problem trading insult for
insult.<
<< Even with more technique
& effort, I doubt I'd be terribly interested in John's drawings. >>
I think some of John's drawings come close to working when used to illustrate
his stories, writing being an area where he was more advanced. As stand alone
pieces I don't think they do. I remember being more intrigued by the packaging
of that Bag One thing than the actual pictures.
CYBERFLOYD
and technique, a great deal of fabulous art has been made by "unskilled"
artists. >>
True, but even with those, considerable effort and imagination usually goes
into the work.
NoFliesonFrank
cyber...@aol.com (CYBERFLOYD) wrote:
>
>
> << Perhaps, but you are deluded if you think you know squat about art.
> >>
>
> I probably don't know as much about art as you know about sucking Paul
> McCartney's cock, but that leaves me room to know some...
>
Lovely. Really convincing argument. Case closed.
>
> << Bull. He (Picasso) needed no training for the abstract art for which he is best
> known. >>
>
> Picasso almost single-handedly formulated
> a movement which arose out of his personal sensibility and his craft.
If you believe that, then you probably think Fred Semen single-handedly
forumlated the movement against Yoko when he spewed his poison to
Goldman.
Picasso is quite famous for one of his sayings: "If you're going to
steal, steal from the best." Nothing he did was "single-handed." You have
just proved my point about your ignorance of art history.
> Everything he was and everything he did previously led to that point. Your
> incredibly foolish statement is sort of like saying John didn't need to be
> Beatle in order to create Plastic Ono Band.
>
Bad analogy. BAD.
> << The unconscious needs no craft. In fact, craft isn't
> relevant in the unconscious mind. >>
>
> The unconscious without craft remains the unconscious.
Oh, now you're quoting Freud (the Psych 101 version)!
It needs craft to be
> brought into physical form so that it can be viewed by others.
Nope. It doesn't.
How well the
> artist's vision is expressed (be in unconscious or otherwise) is how we
> separate the John Lennons from the Picassos, the Beatles from the Monkees.
>
You have no clue what the artist's vision was when he created the piece,
and once it hangs in a gallery, his "vision" is irrelevant (unless you're
taking a correspondence course in "hopw to view art"). Again there is no
need whatsoever to separate one artist from another. All artists are
interconnected.
> << There are prisoners on death row who
> have nothing but craft and who draw and render perfectly. Doesn't make
> them artists. Thr only painters who require real craft are the forgers.
>>
>
> More amazingly uninformed blather. Yes, there are people who can render well
> who don't have a compelling personal vision. Your point being?
>
You sound like a Bushie. Vision, vision thing... it's crap.
> << John would have laughed his ass off at you for saying that.
>
> It was ROCKnROLL and he didn't stick around in Hamburg taking lessons,
> you asshole. He became a god in short order. And some people think rock
> music is anti-craft. It's not a fuckin hobby y'know. They don't teach it
> in school.
> >>
>
Just because you don't have an answer for this, you call it stupid.
>
> << Your intellect is marginal at best. People who think "serious effort"
> doesn't apply to John's art work are the sort who get their art education
> in USA Today. Morons and dimwits like you.
> >>
>
> While I doubt your claims of an advanced education, I do congratulate you on
> one aspect. You do seem well-versed in Yoko-speak.
We both speak English. Is that what you mean?
All these kind of sketchy
> ideas about art are her stock in trade after all..
>
>
Your weakest point, saved for the last!
Thank you for making my point all by yourself.
CYBERFLOYD
> McCartney's cock, but that leaves me room to know some...
>
Lovely. Really convincing argument. Case closed.
>>
haha.. Truth hurts.
<< If you believe that, then you probably think Fred Semen single-handedly
forumlated the movement against Yoko when he spewed his poison to
Goldman. >>
I could really give a rat's ass about all this Fred Seaman/Yoko Ono claptrap.
It doesn't obsess me the way it does you. I rarely even come to this NG unless
there is new product and I want to get info, in this case, George's album. But
when I'm here I always notice you battling with various people and you always
claim you're going to get on your broom and fly away, but YOUR STILL HERE,
rattling on about the same old pointless crap, year after year. Your routine
has some nominal entertainment value, but discussing art with you is just
tedious.
<< Picasso is quite famous for one of his sayings: "If you're going to
steal, steal from the best." Nothing he did was "single-handed." You have
just proved my point about your ignorance of art history. >>
John Lennon was also candid in the way he mentioned the Beatles tendency to
pilfer other artists work. Are we to assume John was a rip-off artist? Of
course not. You'll also not that I said *almost* in reference to Picasso. He
certainly had more to do with establishing cubism as a major movement that the
other people involved.
<< Bad analogy. BAD. >>
Actually, it was quite apropos. The only ignorance being revealed here is your
quite stunning case of it. You seem out of your depth when discussing anything
beyond sordid groupie recollections.
<< It needs craft to be
> brought into physical form so that it can be viewed by others.
Nope. It doesn't. >>
See above post
<< Again there is no
need whatsoever to separate one artist from another. All artists are
interconnected. >>
Here we go from simple ignorance to some sort of muddle-headed theory, possibly
cribbed from Yoko.
<< You sound like a Bushie. Vision, vision thing... it's crap. >>
You couldn't be more wrong about GW, and I wouldn't expect you to understand
anything about artistic vision.
<< > It was ROCKnROLL and he didn't stick around in Hamburg taking lessons,
> you asshole. He became a god in short order. And some people think rock
> music is anti-craft. It's not a fuckin hobby y'know. They don't teach it
> in school.
> >>
>
Just because you don't have an answer for this, you call it stupid.
>>
Actually, it's not that I didn't have an answer for it, it's just that I was so
totally grossed out by the way you switched into tough talking, hip sounding,
old groupie hag mode when trying to discuss something like John Lennon's
considerable musical artistry. I think I'll still stay away from that one.
NoFliesonFrank
You call this a discussion about art?
What a joke.
All you want to discuss is your own resentment against me for having the
guts to post in a place where most people are Paul fans - and for having
told the truth 30 years ago when no one was listening.
CYBERFLOYD
>>
No..The limits of your knowledge about the subject seem to be prattling on
about Picasso as if you were some high society matron..Puhleeaze. And trying to
goad me into making some factual error about the guy. I can tell you there are
lots of great artists, art historians and critics who have no particular
interest in Picasso or 20th century modern art. I fall into that camp myself.
Picasso really isn't my area. I appreciate and enjoy much of his work but your
trying to score some John and Yoko propaganda brownie points by way of Picasso
is frankly (no pun intended) ridiculous.
<< All you want to discuss is your own resentment against me for having the
guts to post in a place where most people are Paul fans - and for having
told the truth 30 years ago when no one was listening.
>>
Really? You really are a fascinating head case. I've noticed you post about
yourself as much or more than you post about Beatles and you're constantly
imagining what other people think about you and their motivations as it relates
to you..ect..you, you..ect. I would imagine most people here really don't spend
much time thinking about you at all, unless it's for a laugh. The 60's are long
since over, deary. Get off the hard stuff and seek help.
NoFliesonFrank
LOL. That's gonna be real bad news to Apple Records, you silly fool....
You're an idiot. Stop giving me all that great ammunition.
Sien Hoornik
I don't think it matters if they're major or minor art. We could have this
discussion about a number of side projects undertaken by Beatles and members of
their families.
If you're going to punt this around, you might as well kick around:
Argument 1:
Linda Mac's photos and revive the "She only got those shots because she hung
around with the stars. Anyone who hung around with stars could have gotten
those shots". (I find this to be untrue in my opinion after viewing her work
on display this week).
Argument 2:
Paul McCartney's forays into the world of visual art- I reference his recent
display of paintings. Does "Bowie Spewing" contain more artistic merit than
something out of Bag One?
My solution: I'm not educated enough in art to call this. Nor is this intended
to be a piss-on-Macca-fest. Just some of the readiest examples I can think of.
Humble Fat & Small
Now that you've admitted you're not "into" Picasso (right after you
declared that he singlehandedly "formulated" Cubism) maybe you ought to
admit you haven't got a clue about what "goes into" the work.
It's not like a recipe. That's why it's art.
Read my sig line... I put it on especially for you.
Francie
--
Art is not the application of a canon of beauty but what the instinct and
the brain can conceive beyond any canon.When we love a woman we don't
start measuring her limbs. ~ Pablo Picasso ~
_Frannie's Boot_
Best of the Beatle Anecdotes & More!
http://sites.netscape.net/Fabe9131944
CYBERFLOYD
<< LOL. That's gonna be real bad news to Apple Records, you silly fool....
You're an idiot. Stop giving me all that great ammunition.
>>
Well, the 60's ARE over. Maybe not for corny old hags like yourself. Of course
the music of the Beatles transcends time. But I wouldn't expect you to be able
to make that subtle of a distinction....
CYBERFLOYD
declared that he singlehandedly "formulated" Cubism) maybe you ought to
admit you haven't got a clue about what "goes into" the work. >>
Well, I haven't admitted or declared anything, and "into" with quotation marks
is really more your line of hip, 60's lingo than mine. But back to this Picasso
fixation of yours, no I wouldn't give you a dissertation on what "goes into"
his work. (If that's what you meant by the awkward way in which you linked your
two ideas together. ) I wouldn't try explain to you what "goes into" the work
of any artist for that matter, because that is something that varies from
person to person, and even if I did attempt a detailed explanation of the
creative process, you're obviously too belligerent of a person to receive the
information.
Also, your misusing the Picasso quote. He didn't really say that to be used as
a mantra by lousy artists who want to do crappy work. Seems pretty clear that's
what your agenda is...
CYBERFLOYD
display of paintings. Does "Bowie Spewing" contain more artistic merit than
something out of Bag One? >>
My Two Cents-
Not Bowie Spewing but some of the others. I think McCartney's paintings are
kind of hit-and-miss like his songs.
Stephen Carter
think it's funny... read on...
On 28 Jan 2001 07:55:22 GMT, cyber...@aol.com (CYBERFLOYD)
wrote:
> Picasso was a grand
>master who studied and practiced art from the time he was a child. His doodles
>are interesting precisely because of that fact.
Some years back I had the (genuine) privilege of going to a
long meeting along with Richard Attenborough. (We were
representing a charity based at our alma mater to try to get
a private trust fund to give us a lump of money).
He's one *seriously* impressive person - make no mistake.
Amazing man.
The meeting happened to be about 10 days after the Nelson
Mandela release concert at Wembley - and there was a direct
connection between our charity and the concert.
Anyway, in the small talk at the end of the meeting, the
other folk asked Attenborough if he had met Mandela. He
said that he had been out of the country and had been been
unable to.
But, he said, his wife had met him.
Everyone keenly asked him what she said he was like....
His reply was a grand multiple name-drop. She had told him
that Mandela was the most impressive person she had met
since she'd met Picasso.
Creases me every time.
--
st...@stephencarterNOSPAM.net
Nothing is Beatle Proof!!
NoFliesonFrank
cyber...@aol.com (CYBERFLOYD) wrote:
>
>
> Also, your misusing the Picasso quote. He didn't really say that to be used as
> a mantra by lousy artists who want to do crappy work. Seems pretty clear that's
> what your agenda is...
>
ROTFMFAO! Now you're declaring Picasso's intention!
What a jerk you are.
--
To give an accurate description of what has never occurred is not merely
the proper occupation of the historian, but the inalienable privilege of
any man of parts and culture. ~ Oscar Wilde ~
http://sites.netscape.net/fabest
Francie's Boot: The Last Best Interview.
Sien Hoornik
>
>Not Bowie Spewing but some of the others. I think McCartney's paintings are
>kind of hit-and-miss like his songs.
So, bad choice of paintings. It's one I"m familiar with and can cite by title
:)
But on the topic of Lennon again, I work part time as a clerk in thew
children's department of a bookstore- and was very excited when the book of
drawings for Sean came out. Why? Because it sure beats some of the other
illustration I've seen. It was quite a bit different from staring at a shelf
full of Lois Ehlert and Eric Carle (both of whom use a cut-paper collage
technique and have won several awards for it.)
(Note to the Caldecott people- Please, please don't have me fired)
CYBERFLOYD
What a jerk you are.
>>
Yes, how could I ever interpret the words of another human being? Must be
bizarre to someone like yourself accustomed to idol worship. I've heard you
declare John Lennon God on more than one occation..ROTFMAO back atcha...You
wouldn't be so mystified and awed by the ways of creative people if you had the
slightest bit of it in yourself. That's why it's so incredibly funny to watch
you hold forth on art and such..You remind me of that Tracy Ullman Character in
Small Time Crooks who holds a party and tries to pass herself off as erudite
but gets shown up for the uncouth person she really was...
Crawl back under your rock, Groupella, you seem haggard...
NoFliesonFrank
cyber...@aol.com (CYBERFLOYD) wrote:
> I've heard you
> declare John Lennon God on more than one occation..
What a TOTAL CROCK O' SHITE!
Fuck you.
Sien Hoornik
What could be a nice discussion so often winds up in a "Fred said this",
"Francie said that", crocks of shite and plain old name calling.
"I may not believe in what you have to say, but I'll fight to the death for
your right to say it" - Some French guy, badly misquoted.
Live and let live, okay?
Now lets discuss Ringo's.....portable....art...
Cyn, who didn't have that card, but wished she did.
CYBERFLOYD
Fuck you >>
She yells in her best phony Brit affectation...Is that an invitation? Lady, I
wouldn't touch you with a barge pole. Would anybody?
>>He became a god in short order<<
You may continue your worship.....
robertandrews
Ehtue
>>>He became a god in short order<<
>
>He made the best BLTs
No Coke. Pepsi.
SquabLeb
> Yes, how could I ever interpret the words of another human being? Must be
>bizarre to someone like yourself accustomed to idol worship. I've heard you
>declare John Lennon God on more than one occation..ROTFMAO back atcha...You
>wouldn't be so mystified and awed by the ways of creative people if you had
>the
>slightest bit of it in yourself. That's why it's so incredibly funny to watch
>you hold forth on art and such..You remind me of that Tracy Ullman Character
>in
>Small Time Crooks who holds a party and tries to pass herself off as erudite
>but gets shown up for the uncouth person she really was...
> Crawl back under your rock, Groupella, you seem haggard...
To Which Frankie Lamely Replies:
>What a TOTAL CROCK O' SHITE!
>
>Fuck you.
C'mon Fannie Mae. Is this the best response you can come back with?
I expected more from Paul McCartney's #1 Embittered Groupie.
Well, so much for expectations.
"When I am weaker than you, I ask for freedom because that is
according to your principles;
When I am stronger than you, I take away your freedom because
that is according to my principles."
Strabbo
news:950ntr$clv$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> >
> He had the craft necessary to
> > express something in his unconscious in a way that made it worth taking
note
> > of. Having said that, his doodles were still doodles.
> >
>
> Now you're talking out of your anus. Your statement is self-
> contradictory. The unconscious needs no craft. In fact, craft isn't
> relevant in the unconscious mind.
True, but art requires both the unconscious mind to create it, and the
conscious mind to form it into something the rest of the world can
see/hear/feel/smell/taste. That conscious mind does require skill, practice
and a mastery of the craft of interpreting the lunacy of the artist's mind
into something tangible.
True, there are some brilliant artists that could just pick up a brush, a
lump of clay, a guitar, etc., and spew out unarguable genius, but that
doesn't happen often, nor does it mean that they are the only true artists.
There are prisoners on death row who
> have nothing but craft and who draw and render perfectly. Doesn't make
> them artists. Thr only painters who require real craft are the forgers.
>
I can't disagree enough. I'm not knowledgeable enough to speak about modern
art, but clearly most every great artist had to develop their skill over
time. See my above paragraph.
> Craft
> > is why we are discussing JL's music decades later. Because he spent 8
hours a
> > night in Hamburg honing that craft.
>
> John would have laughed his ass off at you for saying that.
>
> It was ROCKnROLL and he didn't stick around in Hamburg taking lessons,
> you asshole. He became a god in short order. And some people think rock
> music is anti-craft. It's not a fuckin hobby y'know. They don't teach it
> in school.
Some people think it's anti-craft. This is why punk/grunge/etc... is
popular. Sometimes just hearing people bash out 3 chords and shriek out
vocals is enough. But the Beatles did become much better at what they did in
Hamburg. Are you saying that they laid down Sgt. Pepper without any craft,
just the artists within them?
Good rock 'n roll requires craft.
NoFliesonFrank
I was arguing with yesterday's troll about John Lennon's art. His tangent
about the Beatles "honing their craft" in Hamburg wasn't relevant, but I
would love to post about the fact that what the Beatles did was play and
write and play and write. There was no training in the sense of lessons
or studies in the craft of writing songs.
When I was at college, we had professional painters and sculptors and
animators and art historians come to visit the school and talk to all of
us.
Larry Rivers, one of the finer second generation of abstract
expressionists, who brought lyrical representational images back into the
spotlight following the outright abstract pioneers like Jackson Pollock.
His most famous paintings were "about" Dutch Masters cigar boxes,
deriving imagery that sent up Rembrandt along with the 60s style of
advertising. He was an outspoken rebel.
When he came to "lecture" the Painting majors, he said, "If you're really
serious about painting, get out of here. Go paint. You can't be taught."
Picasso dropped his formal studies at about age 15.
I'm not trying to "get over" on anyone here, but I have fairly strong
opinions in this area, having nothing to do with John Lennon's erotic
drawings in particular.
But I do think that rock&roll is a large umbrella having to do with
stagecraft (Rolling Stones being the best craftsmen of the mega show) as
well as musical principles of composition and theory -- in the case of
the Beatles, the craft was supplied by George Martin. Individually, the
four boys each became self-taught craftsmen by playing constantly and by
listening to the masters of their respective instruments and vocal
styles.
It's a whole nother discussion, really.
On *this* thread, though, I yield to no one, especially not the odious
Cyberfloyd, and because I have been going to museums since I was four
years old (at which time I could tell Degas from Renoir without looking
at the name plate) and studied art history (specialty 20th Century) for
three solid years.
Lennon's erotic drawings were not "bad art" by any standard.
Controversial, yes, raw and intimate, yes, but bad? Never.
Having seen four of the major lithographs in a private home, I can attest
to their power and sensitivity. The London police and the press coverage
of the 1970 show were in the wake of John & Yoko's drug bust and their
move to New York - where their art was welcomed and enjoyed.
Francie
PS: The Museum of Modern Art had a major Picasso show in the late 70's
which included some of his pornographic pencil drawings and a
particularly wonderful golden ram with an enormous human erection coming
out of its chest. John's drawings compare quite favorably... and cost a
helluva lot less to own!
lstoll
>
> I would love to post about the fact that what the Beatles did was play and
> write and play and write. There was no training in the sense of lessons
> or studies in the craft of writing songs.
There were no lessons, but Lennon and McCartney, and
later Harrison studied the craft of songwriting by
listening to what others had written.
> But I do think that rock&roll is a large umbrella having to do with
> stagecraft... as well as musical principles of composition and theory --
> in the case of the Beatles, the craft was supplied by George Martin.
>
> Individually, the four boys each became self-taught craftsmen by playing
> constantly and by listening to the masters of their respective instruments
> and vocal styles.
They acquired their songwriting and arranging skills
the same way -- by a combination of listening and
doing. As invaluable as he was, Martin certainly
didn't provided all of the craft they exhibited
outside of their singing stlyes and the playing of
their instruments. -laura
Strabbo
> >
> I was arguing with yesterday's troll about John Lennon's art. His tangent
> about the Beatles "honing their craft" in Hamburg wasn't relevant, but I
> would love to post about the fact that what the Beatles did was play and
> write and play and write. There was no training in the sense of lessons
> or studies in the craft of writing songs.
Okay, well I don't think we're disagreeing here. Formal training, or
'official' training is certainly not necessary. I was under the impression
that you were saying that physical skill and expertise is not necessary to
create rock and roll (or art I guess). In Hamburg the Beatles didn't take
lessons, but they worked their asses off to practice and become what they
were.
I guess we're on the same page.
> >
> When he came to "lecture" the Painting majors, he said, "If you're really
> serious about painting, get out of here. Go paint. You can't be taught."
Good quote. Did you leave?
: )
CYBERFLOYD
about the Beatles "honing their craft" in Hamburg wasn't relevant, >>
My point about the Beatle's craft was hardly tangental to the discussion and
was more relevant that whatever you post on any given day. You're hardly in a
position to discern what is relevant or otherwise in a conversation like this
because it's clear you have less than a passing understanding of the concepts
involved. Craft, whether it comes from formal lessons or self taught is
essential in any discipline.
Now that you've had a chance to refer to your educational credentials once
more (I believe other posters have had some skepticism over that?) and do some
quick research and throwing in a few biggies like Pollack for good measure, you
still come across as less than a dilettante. And your previous pronouncements
on the nature and methods of art and so forth are truly some of the funniest
gaffes I've seen. You have no manners, and your less rehearsed utterings from
yesterday on the subject seem to be warmed over Yokoisms.
Also, while I had no intention of getting into a pissing contest with a
madwoman, the intensity of your spewings made me sufficiently curious to
actually click on your website. I must say for all your declarations of taste
you seem to have no sense of aesthetics whatsoever. The page is truly ghastly.
It looks like something a Jr. High student would throw up on a bored afternoon.
Any mediocre design student could put something together much better for you.
If you really want to pass yourself off as some kind of professional something
or other, you should try and present yourself better. If the cd you did is
anything like the site, it's strictly amateur hour in Francieland.
NoFliesonFrank
fhs
In article <20010130173051...@ng-mp1.aol.com>,
--
Wisdom is like electricity. There is no permanently wise man, but men
capable of wisdom, who, being put into certain company, or other
favorable conditions, become wise for a short time, as glasses rubbed
acquire electric power for a while. ~Ralph Waldo Emerson~
CYBERFLOYD
>>
Yeah..I wondered if you'd get around to using your envy ploy. I've seen you
try that one a few times. When all else fails,"They're all envious of me !" But
I guess now we're talking a subject you know something about. Wasted Anger and
Envy. Good title for your next book?
Jazz233090
> When all else fails,"They're all envious of me !"
> But I guess now we're talking a subject you know something about.
> Wasted Anger and Envy. Good title for your next book?
I don't think there's much of a market for this subject matter.
NoFliesonFrank
cyber...@aol.com (CYBERFLOYD) wrote:
> << Poor little cybercreep. All that wasted anger and envy - to no avail!
> >>
>
> Yeah..I wondered if you'd get around to using your envy ploy. I've seen you
> try that one a few times. When all else fails,"They're all envious of me !"
>
I didn't say "they're all envious", I said *you* are envious.
Or to quote Shakespeare: Oh, what a bitter thing it is to look into
happiness through another man's eyes.
Francie
--
To avoid criticism, do nothing, say nothing, be nothing.
~Elbert Hubbard~
CYBERFLOYD
You've called about everybody envious at one time or another. It seems to be
one of your pet rationalizations.
<< Or to quote Shakespeare: Oh, what a bitter thing it is to look into
happiness through another man's eyes.
>>
Yes, indeed, you're the picture of happiness. A bitter old woman in some weird
Beatles fantasy haze typing up hate mail all day. Oh, what a boat I've missed..
the walrus was Danny
> expressionists,
He touched upon it early on but ultimately LR was a pop artist. You really
are a fucking ignorant tosspot sometimes Franks. Go back to constructing you
dreadful dreadful web sites. You really have absolutely no idea, I wonder
why you do it sometimes I really do. The Nieveness is astounding. I can hear
your farts and I'm not only over the other side of America, but I have the
Atlantic in the way too.
I dunno whether it's because you come up with this crap in such an
authoritarian air, it probably is. You really have *no* idea about Art
whatsover, degree my fot, yes Degree my *Fot* not even worthy of the extra
"O".
Advice: Get a copy of the Bumper Book of Art and Design and read it, that
might help you. You're welcome.
Danny
the walrus was Danny
> If you really want to pass yourself off as some kind of professional
something
> or other, you should try and present yourself better. If the cd you did is
> anything like the site, it's strictly amateur hour in Francieland.
She really hasn't a clue has she? It's amazing.When it comes to Art she need
to shut the fuck up, she's an embarassment.
Danny
In Love With Izzard
"the walrus was Danny" <thewalru...@totalise.co.uk> wrote:
> > Larry Rivers, one of the finer second generation of abstract
> > expressionists,
>
> He touched upon it early on but ultimately LR was a pop artist.
Wrong. When you've got a degree from a certified art institute, you might
have something to tell me about LARRY RIVERS or Pop Art. In this case
you're talking out your distended asshole.
You really
> are a fucking ignorant tosspot sometimes Franks.
You're the one who has to get drunk to belly up to this ng, Fuckhead.
Buy a copy of Jansen's History of Art. Turn to the Expressionist section.
Then take out that pencildick of yours and piss all over yourself.
You're quite welcome to keep your remedial ideas about modern art to
yourself from here on in, Danny. Same for graphic design (my major, for
which I was honored with two separate scholarships)
Now kindly shut your ugly arrogant mouth before someone shuts it for you.
Francie
--
Wealth establishes a man as a hero, and so does poverty. Virtually any
circumstance in a man's life will make him a hero to some group of people
and has a mythic rendering in the culture -- in literature, art, theater,
or the daily newspapers. ~ Andrea Dworkin ~
_Frannie's Boot_
Best of the Beatle Anecdotes & More!
http://sites.netscape.net/Fabe9131944
the walrus was Danny
Go on then Franks.
A) your Web Site is artisically *poor*
B) Larry Rivers was essentially a Pop Artist. As featured In th RA
exhibition Sept - Dec 1991 "Pop Art" I went, bought the t-shirt (and the
catalogue). He was inspired in the fifties by Jasper Johns, but then I
suppose you consider old Jasper to be a photo-realist eh?
End
Danny
robertandrews
Any relation to Joan, Johnny or Mickey?
Strabbo
news:CPae6.107$Yl6....@paloalto-snr1.gtei.net...
> "the walrus was Danny" <thewalru...@totalise.co.uk> wrote:
> >Larry Rivers was essentially a Pop Artist
>
> Any relation to Joan, Johnny or Mickey?
>
(obscure Top Secret reference.....)
Captain Colgate
"Strabbo" <str...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:t7j4s2m...@corp.supernews.com...
dr nick riviera?
Strabbo
news:95c4sp$9ap$0...@dosa.alt.net...
> > > > >Larry Rivers was essentially a Pop Artist
> > >
> > > Any relation to Joan, Johnny or Mickey?
> > >
> > How about Nick?
> >
> > (obscure Top Secret reference.....)
>
> dr nick riviera?
>
(Top Secret the movie, not Top Secret the...uh...form of secrecy)
Mister Charlie
"Strabbo" <str...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Captain Colgate <ver...@interesting.com> wrote in message
> news:95c4sp$9ap$0...@dosa.alt.net...
> > > > > >Larry Rivers was essentially a Pop Artist
> > > >
> > > > Any relation to Joan, Johnny or Mickey?
> > > >
> > > How about Nick?
> > >
> > > (obscure Top Secret reference.....)
> >
> > dr nick riviera?
Hi everybody!!!
> >
> Nick Rivers! Don't you remember 'Skeet Surfin'?
>
> (Top Secret the movie, not Top Secret the...uh...form of secrecy)
ah yes, the wacky Val Kilmer flick, ala Elvis. Good one.
>
>
--
"...I've had a and I ,
There's no in if ..."
http://members.aol.com/tensevenfiftytwo