Segovia article in Guitar Player
Sharon
which Segovia comments on Christopher Parkening as being
"one fo the most brilliant guitarists in the world."
If anyone would like a copy mailed or faxed to you, please
contact me by "un-munging" the address above.
Sharon
Secretary to Christopher Parkening
http://www.parkening.com
Matanya Ophee
>I have a copy of the June, 1971 issue of Guitar Player in
>which Segovia comments on Christopher Parkening as being
>"one fo the most brilliant guitarists in the world."
>
>If anyone would like a copy mailed or faxed to you, please
>contact me by "un-munging" the address above.
Thank you Sharon for faxing me this article as promised. I will now
concede that the quotation, as used in Parkening's biography, is
indeed as it was reported by Jim Crockett in 1971.
I have no reason to doubt that Crockett reported this quotation as he
heard it. What I do have reason to doubt is Crockett's general
competence as a historian, as apparent in this article. It is a
laughable piece of crude generalizations, pat inanities, repeated
propaganda with no basis. In view of the information contained in the
Segovia-Ponce Letters and in Peter Segal's Ph. D. dissertation on
Segovia, and even in some of the details in the Garno-Wade book, this
article says more about the time and place it was written, then about
the true biography of Andres Segovia.
Just a couple of obvious boo-boos: Segovia did not return to the US in
1943, but rather much later in 1948. Of course, he did not mention
here why he was absent for so many years. He did speak of it to Ponce.
I can understand him calling John Williams an Australian. But Jorge
Morel a Brazilian? Crockett should have known better than that. And of
course, repeating the blatant lie about the First Concerto of the 20th
Century being the one he commissioned from Mario Castelnuovo-Tedesco.
Again, I have no reason to doubt Crockett's reporting on _this_ issue
as well.
And before the rabid hound dogs of the Status-Quo-Don't-Rock-the-Boat
Holy Inquisition start chafing at the bit accusing me of manufacturing
information, just bear in mind that in February-March of 1933, when
the Adame Concerto was first performed, Andres Segovia was present in
Mexico City, and could not have possibly missed a gala event,
conducted by the most important mexican musician of the time, Julian
Carillo, and attended by the President of the Republic. In a
discussion with George Clinton, published in Guitar International
magazine _after_ my proof on the true identity of the First Guitar
Concerto was published in the rival Classical Guitar magazine, Segovia
confirmed that he was indeed in Mexico City at the time, and that he
spoke with Julian Carillo. He did not say what they spoke about.
Mr. Parkening, I suppose, will continue to use the quotation, now that
it is properly documented. That is his choice to make. I will continue
to regard using a 1971 endorsement as a propaganda device in 2001 a
most curious irrelevancy. I do not need the 30 year old saying of a
proven liar to tell me anything about the CURRENT qualities of
anybody. I usually make up my own mind, based on the _actual_
performance today.
Case closed.
Matanya Ophee
Editions Orphe'e, Inc.,
1240 Clubview Blvd. N.
Columbus, OH 43235-1226
614-846-9517
fax: 614-846-9794
http://www.orphee.com
Sharon
<m.o...@orphee.com> wrote:
>Thank you Sharon for faxing me this article as promised. I will now
>concede that the quotation, as used in Parkening's biography, is
>indeed as it was reported by Jim Crockett in 1971.
And thank you for your concession.
>Mr. Parkening, I suppose, will continue to use the quotation, now that
>it is properly documented. That is his choice to make. I will continue
>to regard using a 1971 endorsement as a propaganda device in 2001 a
>most curious irrelevancy. I do not need the 30 year old saying of a
>proven liar to tell me anything about the CURRENT qualities of
>anybody. I usually make up my own mind, based on the _actual_
>performance today.
Just can't let it go, can you?
Marie Bennett
like to pose a question. doesn't this concession by mr. ophee warrant a
public apology to mr. parkening? after all, he strongly suggested mr.
parkening's ethics were less than honorable!
sincerely,
marie bennett
"Matanya Ophee" <m.o...@orphee.com> wrote in message
news:88toltcp56gv4f41v...@4ax.com...
thomas
> I have a copy of the June, 1971 issue of Guitar Player in
> which Segovia comments on Christopher Parkening as being
> "one fo the most brilliant guitarists in the world."
Is that quote taken from a GP reporter's interview with Segovia?
Because if not, it's probably not a primary source.
Personally I have no dog in this race. I could not care less what
Segovia thought of Parkening one way or the other. But as a historical
researcher, I would be wary of this source unless it was from the
reporter's own interview.
Mark Westling
included this quote) was done by Jim Crockett, then-Managing Editor of
Guitar Player Magazine.
Regards,
Mark
"thomas" <tomb...@jhu.edu> wrote in message
news:7d424f23.01072...@posting.google.com...
William Jennings
Matanya Ophee
It isn't really an interview in the traditional sense of the word
where all the reporter does is give a short introduction and then goes
into a strict question and answer format. It is an article by Jim
crockett who says it is based on an interview with Segovia, though it
does not say when and where this even took place. What Crockett also
does not say, is if all the data presented in the article was given to
him by Segovia on the occasion of the interview, or it is based on
other (unidentified) sources. The bit about the First Guitar Concerto
could have well been repeated by Segovia on that occasion, as he had
repeated it many times before and since. OTOH, It could have been
something Crockett had lifted out of the 1954 interview with Bobri I
mentioned before. The 1943 date of return could have been a misprint,
or it could be an attempt to rewrite history. For those who are not
aware of that part of Segovia's career, he was banned from
concertizing in the US after his refusal to sign an anti-Franco
petition in 1937, the day after the battle of Jarama where 27,000
American volunteers were massacred by the fascists.
It is an interesting read and if Sharon is willing to share more
copies, I would recommend that you get one.
Matanya Ophee
You got it backwards, Sharon. It is you and Mark who can't let go.
Parkening, for all his past glories, is a minor third echelon
guitarist who happens to enjoy very good public relations services.
When I compare his playing, as I heard it in Charleston, to the
playing of Barrueco, Tanenbaum, Fisk, Escarpa, Lendle, Fernandez,
Yamashita, Marchione, Dyens, the Assads, Galbraith, Russell, to
mention just a few of the obvious top level people we have today, the
man is a so far behind, it is not even funny.
I said what I said back then, and it seems that some people are not
willing to forgive me for expressing such heretical thoughts in
public, and will bring up the subject, whenever they can.
Anytime you bring it up, I assure you I will respond. So the best
thing for you to do, as I suggested a couple of times already, is to
drop the subject. Killing the messenger does not make the message go
away.
Matanya Ophee
> i have watched from the sidelines as this ugly thread has unfolded but would
> like to pose a question. doesn't this concession by mr. ophee warrant a
> public apology to mr. parkening? after all, he strongly suggested mr.
> parkening's ethics were less than honorable!
I think YOU power me an apology for suggesting something like that!
All I said about this, in my review of the 1999 Charleston concert is
this:
"But the witless equivocation of the program's propaganda hit me once
again between the eyes. It started with this quote, presumably uttered
someplace by Andrés Segovia:
"Christopher Parkening is a great artist - he is one of the most
brilliant guitarists in the world."
I am not sure what is the relevance of a quote like that to a
performance by an artist 12 years after the death of the man who
pronounced it. Assuming it was actually said, and assuming that indeed
it reflected Segovia's true feelings about his protégé at the time it
was said, using it today as an endorsement is like asking Segovia to
restate his good words right from inside the grave, or
from Heavens Above. Excuse me while I go swing a dead chicken over my
head in a Kaparoth (Jewish Yom-Kippur penance ritual) for having
thought such evil thoughts." end of quote.
This has nothing which doubts the origin of the quote. It is still on
line and you can check it. It was in THIS NG that the subject was
brought up again by Mark Westling who accused me of making unfounded
allegations about Parkening. So I asked for a documentation on this
quote, and now I have it. Apparently, in some circles, the mere act of
asking a question is enough of a heresy to warrant the most severe
rebuke. You accept that too?
Marie Bennett
'made up' this endorsement when you first questioned its existance and its
origin! i certainly took it that way, so perhaps you should rethink the
effect of your writing style! in that sense alone, it would be most
courteous of you to offer an apology, if for nothing other than your
intentions being so poorly miscommunicated! it would be kind to do so.
it simply sounds like segovia liked mr. parkenings artistry and mr.
parkening would have foolish not to use it! i sure would if anyone ever
paid me such a nice compliment!
what do you mean by 'power me'?
no flames please!
marie
"Matanya Ophee" <m.o...@orphee.com> wrote in message
news:14b99c8.01072...@posting.google.com...
Lester Long
> I think YOU power me an apology
If this isn't a Freudian slip, nothing is.
Regards,
Lester
Dawn and Todd Tipton
I think you are on the mark. It was just a typo. Where's
RIB now?!?!
:-)
TTT
William Jennings
Matanya Ophee wrote:
For those who are not aware of that part of Segovia's career, he was banned from concertizing in the US after his refusal to sign an anti-Franco petition in 1937, the day after the battle of Jarama where 27,000 American volunteers were massacred by the fascists.
Get your damned facts straight, 750 Americans were killed in Jarama. There was an American contingent called, “The Abraham Lincoln Brigade,” which traveled from America to Spain to fight for the Republican Government, and the Communist cause. The brigade didn't amount to much more than 2,700 in total. Interesting thing is that America had not declared itself at war with either side in Spain. You will recalled the ALB were called something else by the American government at the time.
Ernest Hemingway wrote “For Whom The Bell Tolls.” about this time and events.
The bells will soon toll for you, the grave yawns for you. Your neatly cure carcass will shine Segovia's shoes in Hell with a great stampede of your lips directed towards his rear.
Matanya Ophee
>"Matanya Ophee" <m.o...@orphee.com> wrote:
>
>> I think YOU power me an apology
>
>If this isn't a Freudian slip, nothing is.
Freud? at this day and age? Just that my typing deteriorates rapidly
when I encounter stupidity.
John Wasak
news:9jiiti$3fi$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net...
Well, there was that _other_ Freudian slip...you know... the peach colored
one of Martha's...yeah, _that_one...the one that Siggy would try on when he
wanted just a little distraction.
A little leisure from all that work on the brain.
A little fantasy.
"You will remember how I have said [p.145 f.] that the day-dreamer carefully
conceals his phantasies from other people because he feels he has reasons
for being ashamed of them. I should now add that even if he were to
communicate them to us he could give us no pleasure by his disclosures. Such
phantasies, when we learn them, repel us or at least leave us cold. But when
a creative writer presents his plays to us or tells us what we are inclined
to take to be his personal day-dreams, we experience a great pleasure, and
one which probably arises from the confluence of many sources."
From "Creative Writers and Day-Dreaming" Sigmund Freud
JW
William Jennings
>"Matanya Ophee" <m.o...@orphee.com> wrote:
Just that my typing deteriorates rapidly
when I encounter stupidity.
James Katzenberger
"William Jennings" <jou...@texas.net> wrote in message news:3B5CDB45...@texas.net...
Paul Barberton
Any time someone tries to do something creative or artistic there will be
someone who dislikes it for reasons of their own. Its quite depressing how
the world of music and art is controlled by the vented spleen of the least
creative of us. I've heard of quite a few art students who didn't crack at
university or college dropping out to become critics. Who has the right to
tear apart or destroy a creative process? If you don't like something or
someone, leave it at that. Don't go to the concert. Don't buy the CD's. Art
and music are personal things. How many times have you heard of and artist
or author or whatever saying that after all the criticism they received they
lost all desire to pursue their art. How will they "improve" or develop as
creative people if they don't create? It's ridiculous.
The vented spleen of
--
Paul B
Please reply to the newsgroup.
If you wish to email me, remove the spam protection from the address.
"James Katzenberger" <jam...@nc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:kF677.1469$7d2.1...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com...
Sharon
<m.o...@orphee.com> wrote:
>It is an interesting read and if Sharon is willing to share more
>copies, I would recommend that you get one.
As I mentioned before, I would be happy to fax or mail a
copy of the 4-page article to anyone who would like one.
William Jennings
You don't have to frequent this place or read my post. May I suggest Rec.music.milk.cookies&bullshit.
P.S. You misspelled Christopher.
John W. Blossick
>From: "Paul Barberton" pbarberton@y^a^h^o^o.com
>Date: 7/24/2001 1:14 AM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id: wrote:
>Critics kill art.
Would you consider some of Larry Flint's work as "art"...? Or a crucifix
immersed in a jar of urine..?
<snip>
>How many times have you heard of and artist
>or author or whatever saying that after all the criticism they received they
>lost all desire to pursue their art.
I can't think of any right off hand, can you..?.
Have you ever heard of critcism as a positive motivating factor..?..
>How will they "improve" or develop as
>creative people if they don't create?
Some things are meant for nourishment, others are meant for garbage....You
decide..
Regards,
JohnB
William Jennings
"John W. Blossick" wrote:
>
>
> Or a crucifix immersed in a jar of urine..?
So, what is art? What do you know about Robert Mapplethorpe? No, I don't
consider it art but I do not deny others
their view of his work. Some folks like Flint, so what, you don't have to read
the stuff. You are free to express your views
concerning Mapplethorpe, are you not?
http://www.ocaiw.com/mapple.htm
>
>
John W. Blossick
>Date: 7/24/2001 1:55 PM Eastern Daylight Time
>Message-id:wrote:
>
>So, what is art? What do you know about Robert Mapplethorpe? No, I don't
>consider it art but I do not deny others
>their view of his work. Some folks like Flint, so what, you don't have to
>read
>the stuff. You are free to express your views
>concerning Mapplethorpe, are you not?
>
Yes, I am free to express my opinion..
What is art..? From Webster:
First appeared 1834
1 : a product of one of the fine arts; especially : a painting or sculpture of
high artistic quality
2 : something giving high aesthetic satisfaction to the viewer or listener
You're right ...I am free to express my views, as others others are free to
express theirs....
I don't know a thing about Mapplethorp, nor does that fact change his
work.....Call it art.Calll Flint's work 'art"....I don't really care....
Like I said, Some things are meant for nourishment..some things are meant for
garbage....The crucifix "art" belongs with the latter. (freely expressing my
opinion)..
Regards,
John B
DSD
He sounds great to me.
John Johnson
compares all lose. Ranking guitar players is subjective entertainment but
there is no way to judge the artistic tastes although "sales" has been used
to qualify popularity; which isn't the same as skill or mastery.
jj
"Sharon" <mus...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:b9oolt0sj0olpc2f9...@4ax.com...
William Jennings
At that time I had a beautiful girlfriend who worked in a hat shop ( some 10 years younger than myself. ) I bring this up because she liked what is known as a "pearl necklace" and "golden showers". I knew this was "private art" as opposed to the "fine"arts, folk art or outside arts. O.K., you still with me here? I understood that urine could be a medium ( under the right circumstances ) but what the hell was the message in Andres Serrano's "Piss Christ". I also recalled another question of "What is--------" asked by a Roman general in another time. Being a simple ass cowboy I know you don't ask a horseman about sheep or a goat roper about fine gaited horses. I found these answers from those whom are considered experts regarding art. I don't claim to know anything myself.
According to William Rubin, director of the Museum of Modern Art in New York, "there is no single definition of art." The art historian Robert Rosenblum believes that "the idea of defining art is so remote [today]" that he doesn't think "anyone would dare to do it." Well, we know at least one who dared with his definition from a dictionary ( 1834 usage ).
Philippe de Montebello, director of the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York, states that there is "no consensus about anything today," and the art historian Thomas McEvilley agrees that today "more or less anything can be designated as art."
Arthur Danto, professor of philosophy at Columbia University and art critic of The Nation, believes that today "you can't say something's art or not art anymore. That's all finished." In his book, " After the End of Art", Danto argues that after Andy Warhol exhibited simulacra of shipping cartons for Brillo boxes in 1964, anything could be art. Warhol made it no longer possible to distinguish something that is art from something that is not.
What has finished, however, is not artistic production, but a certain way of talking about art. Artists, whoever they are, continue to produce, but we, non-artists, are no longer able to say whether it is art or not. But at the same time, we are no longer comfortable with dismissing it as art because it fails to fit what we think art should be (whatever that is). According to Dr. Christopher L.C.E. Witcombe Professor of Art History ( Sweet Briar, Virginia ) We struggle with this because we have been taught that art is important and we're unwilling to face up to the recently revealed insight that art in fact has no "essence." When all is said and done, "art" remains significant to human beings and the idea that now anything can be art, and that no form of art is truer than any other, strikes us as unacceptable.
These are just a few informed opinions. Frankly, I dislike
the term artist as it is used by guitarists ( playing the artist).
I cringe when I hear that word used in public. How in the world would
they know what high satisfaction and nourishment goes on behind closed
doors! I'm with you, I have no use for Flint but there have always
been strip
tease artist, remember Eve?
We are surrounded by *Art*: Space Fantasy Art, Fantasy Art, Sea Life Art , Animal Art, Southwestern Art, Cowboy At, Rodeo Art, Romantic Art, Spiritual Art, Indian Art, UFO Art, High Art, Fine Arts, Tramp Art. We even have Can Gogh, a real graffiti street guerilla spray paint artist and High Wire Art.
In our current national PC effort to include everyone, we exclude anyone who doesn't agree with us. We're big on tolerance, so long as we can choose whom we tolerate. In the arts as everything else political correctness has created a facade of getting along. You don't know what to say, how to say it or even if you should. So, mostly, you don't say anything. How that increases the level of understanding you all claim to seek, I'm not sure.
In summary, I sort of agree with what a famous French artist said when he was asked that question:
What is art? Prostitution.
__Charles Baudelaire
Being a simple ass cowboy with a few informed opinions, I said piss on it, call it what you want.
P.S. This past April ( 2001) Andres Serrano's work could be found just down the street from Columbia Un. at the Cathedral of St. John the Divine.
Andres Serrano http://www.gregkucera.com/serrano.htm
GuitarsWeB
>asked
>that question:
>
>What is art? Prostitution.
> __Charles Baudelaire
I agree! But, don't demand the "TAX PAYERS" pay the whore..
Paul McGuffin
William Jennings
Klaus Heim
John W. Blossick <jblo...@aol.com> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
20010724144043...@ng-md1.aol.com...
>
> What is art..? From Webster:
> First appeared 1834
>
> 1 : a product of one of the fine arts; especially : a painting or
sculpture of
> high artistic quality
Serrano's work undoubtably fits this definition. His 'Piss Christ' is indeed
a "product of one of the fine arts".
> 2 : something giving high aesthetic satisfaction to the viewer or
listener
Since tastes differ, I suppose the aforementioned work has given some
viewers "high aesthetic satisfaction".
So, thanks to your definition, it is proven without a doubt, that Serrano's
"Piss Christ" is indeed Art.
Klaus
John Wasak
The old "What is Art?" conundrum revisits us again!
It seems that, by and large, it's this typical tendency to speak of Art with
a capital "A" that is the first cause of the confusion. Art, it seems, is
not a homogeneous commodity, of which the need and use are self-evident.
What is offered in the name of Art to the public is an overwhelming plethora
of objects and performances that vary greatly in quality and and in kind.
Art may be prostitution but that answer might fall apart in the face of
something known as "Popular Art'. An art supplied by entertainers. An Art
not even thought of as so much as "Art" but as entertainment. These popular
entertaining artists thrive quite well without subsidy. They become the
"Gods" of the religion of popular culture, and as such are well supported
by their large and worshipful followings. Britney Spears doesn't need a
federal grant. (well, at least not at the moment). Stephen King doesn't need
a Guggenheim in order to write his next book.
Diametrically opposed to this rosy scenario of the successful popular
entertainer is the supplier of "High Art" or "Fine Art". This "high" Art is
relatively unpopular to the masses. It does, however, have a great
popularity with its devotees. The museums, concert halls, and theatres are
usually crowded with paying customers, but usually not crowded enough to
keep deficits at bay. High Art is expensive, and maintaining it and
displaying it is expensive as well. Unfortunately, "High Art" has really
never been profitable overall.
It's this difference between high and popular Art that I think prompts some
people to suggest that Art cannot be made to adhere to standards of any kind
any longer. To claim that everything and anything can be Art is a
wonderfully democratic concept and is an attempt to take away any specialist
knowledge required for the appreciation and understanding of any work of
Art. An attempt to make high and popular art seem as one could only be a
benefit for the keepers of high art institutions.
A recent example of this trend is the Jackie Kennedy exhibition at the Met
in NYC. This show was enormously popular and successful. A typical day
would find two hour waiting lines to get into the exhibition. Now,
something like this brings up the question: is someone's clothes art? I
doubt that question even troubled most of those who made a special effort to
see the Jackie show. They were there because it was an "event". An
entertainment. And a popular one at that.
It's interesting, I suppose, to mull over over the direction of the arts -
visual, musical, literate, performance - culture in general. Usually, when
my thoughts tend toward that direction, I often find myself agreeing with
Jacques Barzun in that what we'll most likely get is the culture we deserve.
JW
John W. Blossick
>Date: 7/25/01 6:30 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id:wrote:
>And piss-poor art at that.
>
>John Sloan
Ha..! Ha..! That's funny.! I agree..
JohnB
Alain Reiher
Art is Life, Life is a struggle, Art is a struggle. point.
Voilą!
Alain
John Wasak
> To much words! to much... way to much ....
> Art is Life, Life is a struggle, Art is a struggle. point.
>
Ah! but these words spawn more words. :-)
Art is not Life. Art is a _part_ of Life. True enough, Life is a struggle.
True enough, Art is a struggle. But they are not the same struggle. The
struggle of life is for self-preservation. The struggle of art is for
transcendence. Life is the ordinary. The everyday, the ho-hum, the
same-old same-old, day-in-day-out's of our existence. Brushing our teeth
over the sink in the morning is Life. Brushing our teeth with a size 8
round red sable brush will not turn Life into Art. Life asks for nothing
but sustenance, for maintenance. Art seeks to transform, to inform, to
transmogrify, to transubstantiate, to turn inside-out and outside-in. Art
seeks to trandscend our daily lives whichever way it can.
But oddly enough, Art also nourishes us, sustains us as it takes us away
from ourselves. What to make of this?....
Who knows...anyway...hey, it's mid-summer...it's damn HOT out...maybe we
should all just forget about Art and just read something nourishing.
Preferably by someone dead, someone no longer alive, like Shakespeare, or
Keats, or Whitman.
See if their Art has transcended their Life.
JW
> John Wasak wrote:
>
> > William Jennings wrote:
> > Yep, we are free to express our opinions be they informed or not. In
1979
> > when the Mapplethorpe brouhaha broke out I had to answer that question
for
> > myself. Opinions were everywhere regarding Andres Serrano's "Piss
Christ ",
> > I wondered why someone would do something like that and call it art.
> > At that time I had a beautiful girlfriend who worked in a hat shop
Sam Culotta
subject title on this thread
from :
"Segovia Article in Guitar Player" to,
" Re: Piss Christ and..." to
" Re: Piss Chris ..." (hmmmmm) to
" Re: Piss...."
Amazing how everything finds it's level eventually.
Just call it the musings of summer afternoon.
Sam
"John Wasak" <mr...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:WsG77.164$SU4....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
GuitarsWeB
>"Piss Christ" is indeed Art.
>
>Klaus
Yes, You're right Klaus! But, don't ask the Taxpayers to fund it.
Paul McGuffin
Nazodesu
In article <3B5E35DE...@texas.net>, William Jennings
<jou...@texas.net> wrote:
> Yep, we are free to express our opinions be they informed or not. In
> 1979 when the Mapplethorpe brouhaha broke out I had to answer that
> question for myself. Opinions were everywhere regarding Andres
> Serrano's "Piss Christ ", I wondered why someone would do something
> like that and call it art.
Precisely what they said about rock and roll when it first reared it's
head. As well as jazz. And almost every major shift in styles in
popular music.
> At that time I had a beautiful girlfriend who worked in a hat shop (
> some 10 years younger than myself. ) I bring this up because she
> liked what is known as a "pearl necklace" and "golden showers". I
> knew this was "private art" as opposed to the "fine"arts, folk art or
> outside arts. O.K., you still with me here?
No, as I've never heard the act of love-making referred to as art,
whether high or low.
> I understood that urine could be a medium ( under the right
> circumstances ) but what the hell was the message in Andres
> Serrano's "Piss Christ".
I don't know what his message was, but am sure our understanding of the
what we believe an artist's *intent* is, can't have much of anything to
do with defining it as art, does it? "Oh--well if that's what you mean
then it is [is/is not] art."
Paints are made from many kinds of minerals, biological material
(flowers, fruit) etc., but I don't think you have any difficulty with
piss the medium; you have a difficulty with the concept of piss when
mixed with the concept of Christ, no? Provocation, particularly of the
Brechtian variety, has long been a staple of the arts. it has nothing
to do with materials, which I'm sure you know. Additionally, it
doesn't make it art simply to provoke. I don't know that Piss Christ
has anything about it that makes it art in my personal conception, but
that has nothing to do with either piss or Christ.
> According to William Rubin, director of the Museum of Modern Art in
> New York, "there is no single definition of art." The art historian
> Robert Rosenblum believes that "the idea of defining art is so remote
> [today]" that he doesn't think "anyone would dare to do it." Well, we
> know at least one who dared with his definition from a dictionary (
> 1834 usage ).
Here's a few more: any politician trying to gather some support based
on affiliation with populist principles like Christianity, "morality",
"common-sense" or anything else that sells this week. Giuliani used his
knowledge of art to stump for his political career, and though you may
not know the definition of art, you seem to exclude Piss Christ from
the participants, no?
> Philippe de Montebello, director of the Metropolitan Museum of Art
> in New York, states that there is "no consensus about anything
> today," and the art historian Thomas McEvilley agrees that today
> "more or less anything can be designated as art."
McEvilley doesn't state who is doing the designating.
Falwell/Robertson/Dobson don't believe anything can be art. And they
count for plenty. Neither do most rationale UnitedStatesian, and they
count for nothing.
> Arthur Danto, professor of philosophy at Columbia University and art
> critic of The Nation, believes that today "you can't say something's
> art or not art anymore.
Preposterous. Our sorting between these two buckets will never end,
whether for reasons artistic, political, financial or academic.
> These are just a few informed opinions. Frankly, I dislike the term
> artist as it is used by guitarists ( playing the artist). I cringe
> when I hear that word used in public.
I can't imagine why. It's not better or worse than "Doctor" or
"Professor" or "assistant". They mean what we want them to mean. I
always hear musicians divorce themselves from the word and when I
quibble about it they say, "Oh, I'm not that good". Like somehow only a
"good" artist is an artist. All the others aren't artists at all. I
don't get it.
> In our current national PC effort to include everyone, we exclude
> anyone who doesn't agree with us.
Whereas the non-PC effort to exclude at one's whim allows the
exclusion, also, of those who don't agree with us. Why label one or
the other PC--for exclusion purposes?
> We're big on tolerance, so long as we can choose whom we tolerate. In
> the arts as everything else political correctness has created a
> facade of getting along. You don't know what to say, how to say it or
> even if you should. So, mostly, you don't say anything. How that
> increases the level of understanding you all claim to seek, I'm not
> sure.
These are just cliches. Before PC became a political bludgeon (by
either of the two vague marketing categories), there were still people
who took no eagerness in offending others, others who didn't consider a
other folks feelings, and yet another group who relished offending
others. NOTHING has changed in this regard.
Now the intent to avoid offending others is somehow a morally bankrupt
form of liberal fascism. That being the case it seems like Piss Christ
is a statement for all those whose view is the highly popular non-PC.
--
The storm starts when the drops start dropping. When the drops stop dropping
the storm starts stopping.
Alain Reiher
John Wasak wrote:
> Alain Reiher wrote:
> > To much words! to much... way to much ....
> > Art is Life, Life is a struggle, Art is a struggle. point.
> > Voilà!
> >
>
> Ah! but these words spawn more words. :-)
>
> Art is not Life.
It is if you live your life with Art.
> Art is a _part_ of Life.
View from that lens I have no difficulty to concede that, Ok!, Art is a way of
life ... but make an art work of it [life] [who needs to know, anyway!] an
then there you go Art = Life.
> True enough, Life is a struggle.
> True enough, Art is a struggle. But they are not the same struggle. The
> struggle of life is for self-preservation.
on an animalistic point of view, yes ... of course the law of the fittest, the
big fish eat the small fish business and all that ...but ... the real struggle
in life I think is to have faith in it! we all going to get there anyway no? [
the death point] ... the power of life is always echoed in your actions ...
> The struggle of art is for
> transcendence. Life is the ordinary. The everyday, the ho-hum, the
> same-old same-old, day-in-day-out's of our existence. Brushing our teeth
> over the sink in the morning is Life. Brushing our teeth with a size 8
> round red sable brush will not turn Life into Art. Life asks for nothing
> but sustenance, for maintenance. Art seeks to transform, to inform, to
> transmogrify, to transubstantiate, to turn inside-out and outside-in. Art
> seeks to trandscend our daily lives whichever way it can.
Well John I understand your point but I would say that our divergence starts at
that point of brushing your teeth! Now If you do consider my point tomorrow
morning listen to the rhythm made by your 8 round sable brush there maybe an
hidden symphony in there! :>)
>
>
> But oddly enough, Art also nourishes us, sustains us as it takes us away
> from ourselves. What to make of this?....
>
> Who knows...anyway...hey, it's mid-summer...it's damn HOT out...maybe we
> should all just forget about Art and just read something nourishing.
Well .. yes it is and you are right maybe as you say we should {he! what is that
word 's doing here!} just [like life] forget about Art and just live it!
I sweat from the plexus practising during summer time!
>
> Preferably by someone dead, someone no longer alive, like Shakespeare, or
> Keats, or Whitman.
> See if their Art has transcended their Life.
> JW
>
Yeah! Rembrant is in town! at the Vancouver Art Museum, I will pay a visit to
his transcended life/Art work!
Alain
P.S. Now this whole discussion came about a crucifix swimming in urine if I am
not mistaken ... well ... the problem [according to the situationist point of
view] is that Art, because of economics reason has been disseminated widely,
great up to there [even if it is not in its purest form, but as a fake like
posters, post card, printed on cups,plates etc..) but this great intention
[again based on economy] brought a certain kind of inertia, indeed the public
[according to them] had stopped to react towards any kind of Art being proposed
, creating thus this step in the "avand-garde" mvt reacting to this inertia with
the intention to provoke. Now I better stop! talking like that is not Art at
all! Got to go artistically drive my daughter to see her friend.
GuitarsWeB
>should all just forget about Art and just read something nourishing.
>Preferably by someone dead, someone no longer alive, like Shakespeare, or
>Keats, or Whitman.
Or even Mark Twain!
Paul McGuffin
William Jennings
Nazodesu wrote:
Forgive me, a few snips made for brevity...
<jou...@texas.net> wrote:
I wondered why someone would do something
> like that and call it art.Precisely what they said about rock and roll when it first reared it's
head. As well as jazz. And almost every major shift in styles in
popular music.
Who is " They"?
No, as I've never heard the act of love-making referred to as art,
whether high or low.
Not a goat roper but young and inexperienced, my guess, a very intense student more into electronics than the classical guitar. I'll cut to the chase: Start with the Tantra Kama Sutra. There's a whole new world waiting for you to explore.
One thing you mentioned does interest me:
I don't know what his message was, but am sure our understanding of the what we believe an artist's *intent* is, can't have much of anything to do with defining it as art, does it?
I think intent or Purpose is everything and defines
the work we do. One of the big lessons I learned was to
have specific purpose every time I picked up the guitar.
You now hear the results of that "purpose" in everything I do. Every
single phrase, each nuance of color and dynamic shading is a result of
my purpose. Expressive playing demands this sure understanding of
what I am doing. There is a paradox involved, I must let go
and enjoy complete freedom for all the details of specific purpose to manifest
what some call art. In other words, my specific purposes in
daily effort defines a signature sound and music I make or re-create.
It's rather difficult to explain. I know why I do it, I know how
to do it, but to convey the process eludes me.... it's just hard
to nail down.
It is the reason I play and sets the demands on myself for exquisite tone an articulations. If it's not a beautiful or an appropriate tone..... what's the purpose?
You are a smart kid. Instead of taking on the whole enchilada
you might want to investigate what your real
purposes are, see if you really agree with your statement.
Look around your area and see if you can hook up with an Instinct archer.
I have found the very best examples of awareness and specific purpose in
nature.
Are you in a room most of the time with a lot of electronics besides
the usual computer and tape recorders?
Into much multi-tasking etc.?
wdj
Klaus Heim
Nazodesu <22...@home.com.nospam> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
250720011528292840%22...@home.com.nospam...
>
> > I understood that urine could be a medium ( under the right
> > circumstances ) but what the hell was the message in Andres
> > Serrano's "Piss Christ".
>
> I don't know what his message was, but am sure our understanding of the
> what we believe an artist's *intent* is, can't have much of anything to
> do with defining it as art, does it? "Oh--well if that's what you mean
> then it is [is/is not] art."
For me this may be the definition of Art. Namely if there is an 'artistic'
intent behind it. Like with Warhol's "Brillo Boxes", Duchamp's "Readymade",
or even Cage's "4.33". A Brillo Box in a supermarket is definitely not Art,
because it has no artistic intent, but if an artist takes the self-same box
and displays it in a museum, then it surely is. Researching these three
artists, I find that the concept of these works of art were not found
over-night, but were indeed a laborious process. The artist wants to convey
a message and the work of art is only used as a vehicle for this message.
On the other hand, using this definition, I would doubt that many works of
art are indeed such. Take the film *industry*, the music *industry*. Often
we find products tailored for a specific mass-market, the main intent not
being to convey any artistic message, but to simply make money.
I think provocation is an important aspect of art, it has always been,
because artists like to over-step boundaries, or to take drastic measures to
get their message across. I recently discussed an 'event', which took place
last week - an artist threw a dead cow from a helicopter. While this, like
Serrano's "Piss Christ", may not be a work of art of high quality, it
provokes. Like with the work of Serrano, people think more about works of
art like these. Nobody is impressed by a painting of sun-flowers any more,
using a vehicle like this to convey an artistic message, is superfluous. On
the other hand, people are impressed by Serrano - John W. Blossick, for
example, so much that he got this whole thread going, based on Serrano's
"Piss Christ". What more could an artist want?
Klaus
Nazodesu
<klh...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > I understood that urine could be a medium ( under the right
> > > circumstances ) but what the hell was the message in Andres
> > > Serrano's "Piss Christ".
> >
> > I don't know what his message was, but am sure our understanding of the
> > what we believe an artist's *intent* is, can't have much of anything to
> > do with defining it as art, does it? "Oh--well if that's what you mean
> > then it is [is/is not] art."
>
> For me this may be the definition of Art. Namely if there is an 'artistic'
> intent behind it. Like with Warhol's "Brillo Boxes", Duchamp's "Readymade",
> or even Cage's "4.33". A Brillo Box in a supermarket is definitely not Art,
> because it has no artistic intent, but if an artist takes the self-same box
> and displays it in a museum, then it surely is. Researching these three
> artists, I find that the concept of these works of art were not found
> over-night, but were indeed a laborious process. The artist wants to convey
> a message and the work of art is only used as a vehicle for this message.
Though I may agree with your assessments it only underscores my point
that whether you like or dislike the art you STILL don't know (can't
know) what an artist's intent is. You can offer your opinion on that
intent, but no more. If the work is to be judged art/not art based on
intent it will instead have to be judged based on what somebody THINKS
their intent was. That's far different, and allows art historians and
city council members they same vantage point.
> On the other hand, using this definition, I would doubt that many works of
> art are indeed such. Take the film *industry*, the music *industry*. Often
> we find products tailored for a specific mass-market, the main intent not
> being to convey any artistic message, but to simply make money.
True, but within the context of making art for money remains,
nonetheless, the art.
> I think provocation is an important aspect of art, it has always been,
> because artists like to over-step boundaries, or to take drastic measures to
> get their message across.
Additionally they get to shock people and giggle about it.
> I recently discussed an 'event', which took place
> last week - an artist threw a dead cow from a helicopter. While this, like
> Serrano's "Piss Christ", may not be a work of art of high quality, it
> provokes. Like with the work of Serrano, people think more about works of
> art like these. Nobody is impressed by a painting of sun-flowers any more,
> using a vehicle like this to convey an artistic message, is superfluous. On
> the other hand, people are impressed by Serrano - John W. Blossick, for
> example, so much that he got this whole thread going, based on Serrano's
> "Piss Christ". What more could an artist want?
I'm unsure what more or less they want here or there, nor or then.
That's kind of the point. My opinion is that the artist wants to evoke
something in a audience member; maybe it's a "good" response like joy
or sadness or pathos, or maybe it's a "bad" emotion revulsion or
titilation or anger.
I think some have decided that an artist *should* be providing art that
only appeals to "good" responses and emotions. And of course "good"
depends on who's running for office.
Klaus Heim
John Sloan <jsl...@telusplanet.net> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
uJV77.2324$b_3.2...@news0.telusplanet.net...
> "Klaus Heim" <klh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:9joi79$nsfk$1...@ID-89355.news.dfncis.de...
> >
> > Nobody is impressed by a painting of sun-flowers any more,
>
If you or I like it or not, was not my point. It is if we are impressed in
such a fashion, that the artistic message is transported, or, as this is not
always possible or even wanted, that we are so impressed that we construct
an intent for ourselves.
> > using a vehicle like this to convey an artistic message, is superfluous.
>
> Superfluous in what sense? Because it appeals to one's sense of beauty,
> instead of one's sense of disgust?
I thought we had decided, that art cannot be judged simply from one's own
personal tastes.
This raises another question though. Who said art has to be beautiful?
> The former is much harder and takes far
> more talent and creativity than the latter. Artists who throw cows from
> helicopters or piss in bottles
> just don't have much imagination, IMO. Anybody could do that.
This is a misconception. I have seen many more pictures of flowers, than
cows flying from helicopters. So, it would seem that painting flowers is
what "anybody could do", whereas pissing in bottles is a highly individual
artistic act. And since, as it seems, an artist can become quite notorious
by presenting such art, I ask myself why this path is not chosen more often.
If we are discussing art in theory, as I believe we are doing here, then it
is not conducive to the discussion, to enter into it any personal
prederelictions. If something is or is not art, even if something is of
quality or not - this cannot be decided on the grounds of personal likes or
dislikes. People rip artists to shreds, simply on the basis, that the artist
does not move inside their narrow concept of art. What is actually being
done, is that these debunkers renounce the fact that the artist is in fact
an artist, thus they do not have to deal with the artist and his art on this
basis.
Klaus
Klaus Heim
Nazodesu <22...@home.com.nospam> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
With intent I only mean the intent of the artist, not the intent the viewer
or listener perceives. Personally I have little interest in trying to deduce
the artist's original intent, simply from viewing a work of art. Because an
intent is expected, so many people have difficulties with art, which does
not blatantly show this intent. On the other hand, what sort of intent can a
painting of sun-flowers have?
> I think some have decided that an artist *should* be providing art that
> only appeals to "good" responses and emotions. And of course "good"
> depends on who's running for office.
Exactly.
Klaus
Klaus Heim
> >
> > John Sloan <jsl...@telusplanet.net> schrieb in im Newsbeitrag:
> > uJV77.2324$b_3.2...@news0.telusplanet.net...
> > > "Klaus Heim" <klh...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > > news:9joi79$nsfk$1...@ID-89355.news.dfncis.de...
> > > >
> > > > Nobody is impressed by a painting of sun-flowers any more,
> > >
> > > Speak for yourself, Klaus. I like pictures of flowers.
> >
> > If you or I like it or not, was not my point. It is if we are impressed
in
> > such a fashion, that the artistic message is transported, or, as this is
> not
> > always possible or even wanted, that we are so impressed that we
construct
> > an intent for ourselves.
>
Not
> all pictures of flowers, of course; but, I have seen some that impressed
me.
> When you say "nobody is impressed by a patining of sun-flowers," you *are*
> saying "nobody," when, in fact, some people are. Be careful with blanket
> generalities.
I must ask again, are you impressed by an artistic message, when you see
sun-flowers, or by a beautiful picture?
> > > > using a vehicle like this to convey an artistic message, is
> superfluous.
> > >
> > > Superfluous in what sense? Because it appeals to one's sense of
beauty,
> > > instead of one's sense of disgust?
> >
> > I thought we had decided, that art cannot be judged simply from one's
own
> > personal tastes.
>
> Interesting. Are you now arguing that there are objective standards for
> judging art?
Certainly not by personal taste. One person likes strawberry ice-cream, the
other chocolate. This doesn't make one flavor better than the other.
> > This raises another question though. Who said art has to be beautiful?
>
> Who cares? What does it matter?
It doesn't, but many care.
> > If we are discussing art in theory, as I believe we are doing here, then
> it
> > is not conducive to the discussion, to enter into it any personal
> > prederelictions. If something is or is not art, even if something is of
> > quality or not - this cannot be decided on the grounds of personal likes
> or
> > dislikes.
>
> Since I never said that pissing into a bottle *isn't* art, why do you feel
> the need to argue against what I never said?
I am not arguing with you, I am just elaborating my arguments. I don't think
we generally disagree.
> > People rip artists to shreds, simply on the basis, that the artist
> > does not move inside their narrow concept of art. What is actually being
> > done, is that these debunkers renounce the fact that the artist is in
fact
> > an artist, thus they do not have to deal with the artist and his art on
> this
> > basis.
>
> You simply cannot demand that everyone take these artists seriously, even
if
> they are artists; just as I cannot demend that you take pictures of
> sun-flowers seriously. It's purely a matter of personal taste, so don't
get
> so upset if, in my opinion, a bottle of piss with a religious icon in it
is
> not worth much of my attention.
I just raised the thought, if my own feelings on an artist can be the basis
for judging the artists state of being an artist or not. Actually, I was
very careful of not entering my own personal judgments into the discussion.
I had never seen Serrano's work, before doc posted the link. Never said what
I think about it.
Klaus
John W. Blossick
>From: "Klaus Heim" klh...@hotmail.com
>Date: 7/26/01 8:09 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id:wrote
>
>With intent I only mean the intent of the artist, not the intent the viewer
>or listener perceives
>On the other hand, what sort of intent can a
>painting of sun-flowers have?
It depends upon how the sunflowers are depicted in the work of art..
.A reasonable assumption of intent can be derived from just _looking_ at a
piece of art.. Art speaks, so to speak..
Also, from a historical perspective,in retrospect, artwork has had clearly
defined lines as to the intent, or the philosophical underpinning for a
particulsr style, spoken by the artists themselves..
Art has always,, and is, a reflection of man and the times, of the world, in
which he lives, seen through the artists eyes.
.Artistic movements have always been defined by artists with half a brain. For
example:
"Dada" ..born out of disgust over turn of the century events..
Surrealism..To capture the subconscience mind, and dreams, to put them on
canvas.
The list goes on. Impressionism, classical, neo impressionism, realism..All
with a defined purpose in the way the artist perceives the world around them,
based on their philosophical view of the world.
I see it very simply like this...
Sunflowers, depicted in their natural setting, in a field, being held by a
little girl, in a vase...or whatever, seeks to show us the beauty of the world
in which we live in. The intent is simply derived by looking at the piece..
On the other hand, sunflowers depicted springing out of someones, protruding,
spread rectum, is meant to shock and disgust..
The reasons for art and its creation have been laid out through the centuries.
There's nothing new here. All that remains is for the artist to choose a reason
for the "artwoks" existiece..
.It's a waste of time to intellectualize a jar of piss, or a dead cow
splattered on the ground..It is cleary meant to shock..
Regards,
JohnB
.
Matanya Ophee
>> Interesting. Are you now arguing that there are objective standards for
>> judging art?
>
>Certainly not by personal taste. One person likes strawberry ice-cream, the
>other chocolate. This doesn't make one flavor better than the other.
I beg to disagree, most vociferously. Anyone who even entertains the
thought that strawberry ice cream is even in the same food category as
the chocolate one, must be a neanderthal degenerate whose taste buds
have been surgically removed. Chocolate ice cream is ice-cream.
Strawberry ice-cream is a poor excuse for a chilled vegetable.
Unless of course, it is Argentinian Strawberry ice cream.
Unfortunately, that is not available around here and it will be a
while before I get back to Buenos Aires. Either way, I can't eat any
of that stuff...:-(
Matanya Ophee
Editions Orphe'e, Inc.,
1240 Clubview Blvd. N.
Columbus, OH 43235-1226
614-846-9517
fax: 614-846-9794
http://www.orphee.com
Alain Reiher
the Strawberry one, must be a neanderthal degenerate whose taste buds
have been surgically removed. Strawberry ice cream is ice-cream.
chocolate ice-cream is a poor excuse for a chilled sweet craving.
Unless of course, it is Belgian Chocolate ice cream.
Alain
Alain Reiher
:>)
Alain
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
Was just looking over the transcription of Debussy's "Berceuse Heroique" that
Richard wrote about in the last Soundboard, and I was thinking of a rather idiotic
list I saw posted on the telecast of the semifinal match at Wimbledon between
Venus Williams and that young Belgian woman--a list of famous Belgians, or things
Belgian. I remember Jean-Claude Van Damme ahead of Eddy Merckx, but no mention of
chocolate--an egregious omission!
Steve
Alain Reiher wrote:
--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
Brooklyn, NY
718-258-5001
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
Steve
Matanya Ophee wrote:
--
Larry Deack
> .It's a waste of time to intellectualize a jar of piss, or a dead cow
> splattered on the ground..It is cleary meant to shock..
Clearly art of various cultures shocks those of other cultures without any
intent. The Spanish were shocked at the art of the native Americans who used
sex and drugs in their spiritual rituals which were reflected in their
'art'. Music, art, drugs, sex (and fertility) , spirituality are tied
together in many cultures but the idea that they can be related seems to be
repugnant to the religious sensibilities of the Western European world
dominated by Judeo Christian beliefs.
Perhaps the intent is not to shock as much as to change the view of
reverence for icons and the accepted values of the culture we live in.
Perhaps some artists feel they are culturally not part of the accepted value
system and are simply expressing their angst at finding that their culture
does not want what they work so hard to create and that is an alternative
value system.
Matanya Ophee
>I beg to disagree, most vociferously. Anyone who even entertains the
>thought that Chocolate ice cream is even in the same food category as
>the Strawberry one, must be a neanderthal degenerate whose taste buds
>have been surgically removed. Strawberry ice cream is ice-cream.
>chocolate ice-cream is a poor excuse for a chilled sweet craving.
>
>Unless of course, it is Belgian Chocolate ice cream.
Even here, I'd put the porteño ice cream on top of the list. There is
simply nothing on the planet that even comes close to it.
Alain Reiher
A post card of the dropped cow? the 33 million sun flower canevas of Van
Goh? nue descendant un escalier? les montres molles? or la fameuse et non
moins célèbre Mona Lisa ... [oh lala ...this list could be long!]
Alain
Alison Causton
>
...
> Unless of course, it is Belgian Chocolate ice cream.
>
Haha! I *knew* there was a reason I kept reading this ng!
chocolatechocolatefudgefudgechocolatefudgemantramantramantra
just add raspberries &/or blackberries that have been drenched with GrandMarnier.
Then go practice your cg, chocolate rushes and all.
How's that for quelque chose de OT.
;-)))))))))
Alison
Alison Causton
> Even here, I'd put the porteño ice cream on top of the list. There is
> simply nothing on the planet that even comes close to it.
>
¿Qué es porteño?
Is it compatible with cg? (Note the OT touch ;-))
Alison
Matanya Ophee
>But which Art work would you put beside the porteño ice cream!!!
There is only one possible choice. The statue of Alfonsina on the
shores of the Rio de la Plata.
Matanya Ophee
>Matanya Ophee wrote:
>
>> Even here, I'd put the porteño ice cream on top of the list. There is
>> simply nothing on the planet that even comes close to it.
>>
>
>
>¿Qué es porteño?
>
>Is it compatible with cg?
Absolutely. A porteño, or porteña, is a native resident of Buenos
Aires, Argentina, or anything which is related to that port city, like
Verano Porteño by Astor Piazzolla, thick bife de lomo for breakfast,
yerba maté all day long, tango, milonga, and some of the most
wonderful people I have had the good fortune to know.
William D Clinger
> Artists who throw cows from
> helicopters or piss in bottles
> just don't have much imagination, IMO. Anybody could do that.
On the other hand, catapulting a cow from behind the castle
walls is high art. Literally.
Will
William D Clinger
> Clearly art of various cultures shocks those of other cultures without any
> intent.
Another example: Although I regard the Taliban's destruction of ancient
Buddhist statues as reprehensible, I believe that they were sincerely
offended by that art.
Is it shocking that I express a negative moral judgment on those who seek
to destroy that which offends them?
Will
edchait
> Absolutely. A porteño, or porteña, is a native resident of Buenos
> Aires, Argentina, or anything which is related to that port city, like
> Verano Porteño by Astor Piazzolla, thick bife de lomo for breakfast,
> yerba maté all day long, tango, milonga, and some of the most
> wonderful people I have had the good fortune to know.
>
I don't know of any Argentine that would eat bife the lomo for breakfast.
The Argentine breakfast is very light, typically a cup of cafe con leche and
maybe a croissant or something along those lines.
Lunch and dinner, on the other hand, are an entirely different matter:).
Ed Chait
William Jennings
Inflation!
Homesick Ed?
William Jennings
William D Clinger wrote:
> On the other hand, catapulting a cow from behind the castle
> walls is high art. Literally.
>
> Will
Try it yourself. Since we don't have many castles in Texas we use
barns. I guess this makes it low art. Literally.
On second thought, maybe higher art, these don't smell
http://www.cowtown.net/download.htm
wdj
edchait
"William Jennings" <jou...@texas.net> wrote in message news:3B610B1D...@texas.net...
Steaming hot maté con leche with cajeta de mango and cheese for breakfast, cabrito asada for lunch. The small tucumana empanadas freshly baked in clay outdoor ovens.
Inflation!
Homesick Ed?
I am now!
Ed
John W. Blossick
>Date: 7/26/01 2:13 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <9jq18h$qoc$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>
>
Wrote:
>Perhaps some artists feel they are culturally not part of the accepted value
>system and are simply expressing their angst at finding that their culture
>does not want what they work so hard to create and that is an alternative
>value system.
>
This may be very true also..A point I had not considered...
Sure, Europeans were shocked at the artwork of primitive cultures, however, the
works were _integral_ to their culture..I think therein lies the rub..There is
a big difference when you are an outsider peering in..
Although the artist may consider themselves as outside of their present
cultural value system, I'm sure they're aware of the value system around them
and what others may hold as sacred..Otherwise, a work like Piss Christ would
be pointless..
My disdain for a work like Piss Christ has nothing to do with the attempt to
tear down revered icons, and their religous connotations...
It has everthing to do with the fact that the work exhibits no artistic talent
whatsoever..and, was taxpayer funded.
It is synonomus with my guitar recital consisting of turning my guitar face
down on my lap, and stabbing the back with an ice pick.
That gives me an idea..! I shall call the work..uh,..."New Technique"..What do
you think..? Admission will be cheap too, only 10 bucks a head. MO can document
it in his archives denoting JohnB as the first performer of this avant guard
work..Perhaps he could publish the score too..! I'll need taxpayer grant to
fund the work too..
I can see the lines forming already...:)
Regards,
JohnB
John Wasak
news:3B60E2DB...@qnci.net...
Holy flying cow! Cowtapulting...this is the Holy Grail!
"...and now for something completely different."
JW
John Wasak
> Although the artist may consider themselves as outside of their present
> cultural value system, I'm sure they're aware of the value system around
them
> and what others may hold as sacred..Otherwise, a work like Piss Christ
would
> be pointless..
> My disdain for a work like Piss Christ has nothing to do with the attempt
to
> tear down revered icons, and their religous connotations...
> It has everthing to do with the fact that the work exhibits no artistic
talent
> whatsoever..and, was taxpayer funded.
>
It might be very helpful to this whole discussion to read Andres Serrano's
explanation about the work in question.
Serrano has explained his work saying, "My intent was to aestheticize
Christ. Beautiful light, I think, aestheticizes the picture. Visually, it
doesn't denigrate Christ in any way." "I think it's charged with electricity
visually. It's a very spiritually, I would say, comforting image, not unlike
the icons we see in church, you know? There is, I think, a very reverential
treatment of the image. At the same time, the fact that you know there's a
bodily fluid involved here. it's meant to question the whole notion of what
is acceptable and unacceptable. There's duality here, of good and evil, life
and death."
Several years later, the artist remarked that "Piss Christ" was ". not a
critical or angry work in the least. I think the best way for me to explain
it is in the simplest terms, because some people think that 'Piss Christ'
was a pivotal point or some sort of profound statement that I was trying to
make. But it is not true. It was just one of many images that were done in
rapid succession without any content or anything else, not intended to
provoke. I decided to make an image that would combine the abstract quality
of the 'Fluids' with the religious images that I was doing before. 'Piss
Christ' is just a coming together of two or three different directions of my
work in one image" (May 1997).
Personally, I think the image has an interesting luminosity. To me, it
certainly seems to evoke a more mystical, religious quality than merely
photographing a plastic crucifix freestanding in ordinary light conditions
would have. I also think that if Serrano didn't make us aware of the
material elements of the image, and if he gave the work a different title,
the resulting brouhaha over the work would have been virtually non-existent.
> It is synonomus with my guitar recital consisting of turning my guitar
face
> down on my lap, and stabbing the back with an ice pick.
> That gives me an idea..! I shall call the work..uh,..."New
Technique"..What do
> you think..? Admission will be cheap too, only 10 bucks a head. MO can
document
> it in his archives denoting JohnB as the first performer of this avant
guard
> work..Perhaps he could publish the score too..! I'll need taxpayer grant
to
> fund the work too..
> I can see the lines forming already...:)
>
The problem with "Art" these days is not so much caused by its quality but
rather its quantity. We are everywhere bombarded by image and sound.
People who regularly spend quite a bit of their time viewing and listening
to great art eventually become anesthetized by it. Art, too often seen or
performed, loses its power and becomes nothing more than an article of
consumption instead of an object of contemplation. Art delivered without
respite eventually often overwhelms and cripples the critical faculties to
judge new art. The resulting effect being that anything shocking or odd
will seem interesting. Interesting enough to gain short celebrity. When
that point is reached, it is cleverness, and not Art, that gets winds up
getting rewarded. Cleverness, and not Art, that will seem to have some
weight.
JW
Larry Deack
> I'm sure they're aware of the value system around them
> and what others may hold as sacred..Otherwise, a work like Piss Christ
would
> be pointless..
Exactly. It is an expression of their pain living in this oppressive,
puritanical culture and they are attacking one of the icons of their
oppression which is much better in my mind than attacking the people
personally.
> It has everthing to do with the fact that the work exhibits no artistic
talent
> whatsoever..
Only in your opinion. Others find is a perfect metaphore for their life and
a valid artistic expression.
>and, was taxpayer funded.
Ah, here is your political agenda. Tax payers are also flaming liberals who
would rather see THEIR tax dollars go to art than to war. We differ in how
we see our collective money being used but that is simply politics. Liberals
can not stop the enormous spending on programs they don't like either. The
amount of our tax dollars going to art is probably about as much as the tax
dollars of the people who support art in this country so none of YOUR
dollars are going to programs you don't like since it's just the people who
support programs like the NEA who have their tax dollars spent on those
programs, a very small piece of the pie compared to programs like the star
wars crap which even some Republicans think is a much larger misuse of OUR
tax dollars.
I really don't understand this idea of YOUR tax dollars. The money is
spent on programs that get political support from people in the country.
Most of us find some programs a huge waste of our money but we cannot do
anything about it since other people find that same program valuable enough
to support it. If you want to get rid of support for the arts then you may
need to respect the idea that someone else wants to get rid of support for
the military where the really big bucks are spent. Shoot, one tiny military
program uses way more than all the art funding since the inception of taxes
in the US. Go after the really big wastes of our money and forget about the
tiny amounts wasted on art if misuse of tax dollars is really your concern.
>I'll need taxpayer grant to fund the work too..
I think this is about politics for you and the tax issue specifically.
Personally, I think this government should pull out of ALL art programs
including our national museums, people in the US don't know art and don't
deserve it. I think this country gets the art it wants and deserves. If
folks want 'artists' like Britney then that's want they get.
John W. Blossick
>Date: 7/27/01 8:10 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id:Wrote:
>It might be very helpful to this whole discussion to read Andres Serrano's
>explanation about the work in question.
<snip>
Thanks for posting that up..
We now have the artist's true intent with this work..
.I was also wrong in my assumption that the work was created to shock, (people
were still shocked), but seen as a "reverential treatment of the image."...
I would question his title of the piece, and the medium used. Not many would
consider Serrano's choices condusive to reverence.
> I also think that if Serrano didn't make us aware of the
>material elements of the image, and if he gave the work a different title,
>the resulting brouhaha over the work would have been virtually non-existent.
I think so too..
>The problem with "Art" these days is not so much caused by its quality but
>rather its quantity. <snip>
Interesting "back door" sort of take on the subject.
.Do you think that those not seeking to be "clever" have to work harder to
overcome great work from the past, (in the traditional sense), making it more
difficult today.. just to be noticed?
Regards,
JohnB
I
John W. Blossick
>Date: 7/27/01 8:13 AM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: wrote:
> Exactly. It is an expression of their pain living in this oppressive,
>puritanical culture and they are attacking one of the icons of their
>oppression which is much better in my mind than attacking the people
>personally.
Dang Larry, that's pretty thick.."opressive puritanical culture"..Have you ever
been to Vegas..?
What do you want?.. BJ's on every corner..?
Check out JW's post about Serrano's work. Piss Christ has nothing to do with
what you mention above.
> Only in your opinion. Others find is a perfect metaphore for their life and
>a valid artistic expression.
Sure, its my opinion. Like an asshole, everyone has one...But, at least, I have
one..
Serrano pointed out that his work was not a symbol for opression, as you
mention, but reverential.
>>and, was taxpayer funded.
>
> Ah, here is your political agenda. <snip>
I have no desire to take this subject down the politico road like you have.
Let's just say tax dollars should be spent wisely..
> I really don't understand this idea of YOUR tax dollars
Easy one here.
I pay it. You pay it.
It's_ my_ money..._your money_.
The Government has no money. They must take it from someone's pocket to pay for
piss in a jar
>If you want to get rid of support for the arts then you may
>need to respect the idea that someone else wants to get rid of support for
>the military where the really big bucks are spent.
I never said I wanted to get rid of support for the arts.
.I just have a problem with the money paying for piss in a bottle, and having
it called"art"
The amount of money spent on DOD programs is a drop in the bucket,( around 3%
of the GNP) when compared to the amount spent on social programs.
I wonder if you have been faced with the prospect of fighting a foe with
equipment that's 25+ years old, or flying in a C-141 with cracks in the wing
spars, SO BAD, you can't load it more than half full for fear of it falling out
of the sky..
Or better yet, fly an airplane that's older than you are...
Your attitude would surely be different..
And just for your info...The military isn't some obtuse machine.
.It's people..
That live and work, and have a family just like you..
When they cut those "big bucks", the first to get slammed are the people that
make up the military, their dependents, and the retirees..
> I think this is about politics for you and the tax issue specifically.
Partly perhaps...Call me a concerned citizen..and a lover of "fine art".
>Personally, I think this government should pull out of ALL art programs
>including our national museums, people in the US don't know art and don't
>deserve it
No you don't...Not really..
I sure don't..
I don't like you, or me, paying for piss in a jar...It's that simple..
>If
>folks want 'artists' like Britney then that's want they get.
Fortunatly, for us..she can earn her own way..
Regards,
JohnB
KevinM23
>The amount of money spent on DOD programs is a drop in the bucket,( around 3%
>of the GNP) when compared to the amount spent on social programs.
You pick some very odd slants to the facts...
Only Social Security has a larger budget line than National Defense. Is that
the "social program" you mention?
Fact: National Defense is over 16% of our federal budget. How much of that
will be "pissed" away on wildly speculative projects? Pissed away on wasteful
contracts?
The money paid for "Piss Christ" is insignificant in relation to the other
wastes in national spending.
>No you don't...Not really..
>I sure don't..
>I don't like you, or me, paying for piss in a jar...It's that simple..
With art, with research, with business, with life, sometimes you have to "kiss
a few frogs" (or pay for a little piss...) to get to the really good stuff.
So it goes.
-Kevin Munday
Alain Reiher
This exact point you made bellow expresses the situationist point of view,
point of view that I 'have tried to summarize in an earlier post. There is an
excellent remark in JohnB post that constitute a very common, nonetheless valid,
argument in the [anti modernist] discourse. " It has everything to do with the
fact that the work exhibits no artistic talent ". The counter argument to that
[presented by the avant garde] is that modern Art has done just that, breaking
with the tradition, and that include a break in the use of traditional technique
[ manifestation of expressed talent through technique], in order to free the
artistic inclination and represent [whatever medium is used] the concepts of
the mind.
Thus the idea becomes the Art work and its life in eternity does not matter as
much anymore. Its documentation, yes. The process of its birth and the multiple
discussion that follows also, because those polarized opinions becomes part of
that generative idea that has amplified its repercussions to reach all the
anaesthetized mind of all European and American descent to stimulates a dialogue
that once again bring them back to the ultimate gift of being human, to think.
Is it not pondering about the value of Art just that?
Alain
Larry Deack
> Dang Larry, that's pretty thick.."opressive puritanical culture"
Not really if you read about other cultures. I have been reading about
Inca, Maya, Aztec, Fang, Mochica, Nazca... well, 11 cultures to be exact.
Vegas is not exactly how most of these other cultures use sex, drugs, and
spirituality. Vegas is exactly the creation of a western culture of self
gratification on the short term and massive investments in escape from the
feeling of loss of control over our lives. Vegas is a blow hole for people
in LA so they don't go postal in a culture that continues to dehumanize us
and place value on us solely as it fits with the current power structure.
The way this culture really uses drugs and sex is hidden beneath layers of
hypocrisy beginning with our leaders who refuse to admit the level of drug
and sex use in their own lives.
> Check out JW's post about Serrano's work. Piss Christ has nothing to do
with
> what you mention above.
Sure it does. Serrano is not an idiot even if his public statements indicate
that he was not consciously aware of the negative interpretation that some
people would have to this work it is silly to think that any member of this
culture does not know about the religious hot buttons in their world.
> Serrano pointed out that his work was not a symbol for opression, as you
> mention, but reverential.
That may be his naive reaction to his own work but it is obvious now how
perhaps his unconscious was conspiring against him or he is trying to move
away from a position of controversy. In any case we all know now how
threatening the image is for those of deep Christian faith.
> I have no desire to take this subject down the politico road like you
have.
> Let's just say tax dollars should be spent wisely..
I am responding to your comments on how tax dollars are spent. This is a
political road.
> It's_ my_ money..._your money_.
Exactly. You get your art and I get mine or we stop funding all of it.
> The Government has no money. They must take it from someone's pocket to
pay for
> piss in a jar
Yep. So let's get rid of all art funding since I cannot abide the idea of
state sponsored, politically correct art. If you do not want art that
offends you then this is the only other answer I can see. What you suggest
is censorship of art if it is state sponsored instead of the current system
of funding all art with our tax dollars. I cannot see a choice where art
does not become the instrument of the power structure if we accept
censorship in any form so I see the only alternative as the complete
separation of art and state much like we have for religion and state.
> I never said I wanted to get rid of support for the arts.
No, just the removal of art you don't like.
> .I just have a problem with the money paying for piss in a bottle, and
having
> it called"art"
See.
> The amount of money spent on DOD programs is a drop in the bucket,( around
3%
> of the GNP) when compared to the amount spent on social programs.
Social programs, not art. I agree we should stop all social programs and
the art funding. We cannot select programs some folks like and others don't
so let's just stop playing politics and let us decide where our money goes
once and for all without giving it to a government first. Social Security is
a joke and something I will never see and yet I have to pay for it. Screw
the old folks and let their kids pay for them like I have to.
> I wonder if you have been faced with the prospect of fighting a foe with
> equipment that's 25+ years old, or flying in a C-141 with cracks in the
wing
> spars, SO BAD, you can't load it more than half full for fear of it
falling out
> of the sky..
Well, duh. of course I want the best. Star wars is not about military
hardware for the working military person. The common grunt in the military
gets crap and most of the money lines the pockets of the folks who run the
military industrial complex that sell guns to all the players in any war on
this globe.
> Your attitude would surely be different..
> And just for your info...The military isn't some obtuse machine. .It's
people..
Yep, and I've been up close and personal with many of them. They are getting
screwed by the industrialists and politicians who take the bulk of the
profits from their blood and people die all over this globe every day
believing the lies of their governments about how holy they are for giving
their lives for the cause.
> That live and work, and have a family just like you..
You bet. They deserve better than the lies they get like my cousin who was
flying over Cambodia as he heard the lie over armed services radio that we
were not bombing.
> When they cut those "big bucks", the first to get slammed are the people
that
> make up the military, their dependents, and the retirees..
Yep, not the star wars crap. Folks who really need it get reamed while
those in power just regroup.
> Partly perhaps...Call me a concerned citizen..and a lover of "fine art".
Most who post here would like to consider themselves likewise despite our
different approaches.
> >Personally, I think this government should pull out of ALL art programs
> >including our national museums, people in the US don't know art and don't
> >deserve it
>
> No you don't...Not really..
> I sure don't..
Sure I do. I see no other solution to the problem. Complete separation of
art and state. Art is too tied to culture and values to be funded by
institutions and not have the funding institutions become targets of the
artistic commentary. Corporate art is very much the same way. Tainted by who
funds you, how can you create art that is not 'acceptable' to the culture of
your time? Perhaps the only true art is art that has no profit motive on the
part of the artist and only exists because the artists bring it into this
world despite the protests to the controlling power group.
> I don't like you, or me, paying for piss in a jar...It's that simple..
You have no say in how I spend my money. It's that simple.
> Fortunatly, for us..she can earn her own way..
T & A will always sell, and what does this have to do with art?
John W. Blossick
>Date: 7/27/01 12:50 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id:
>John Blossick wrote:
>
>>The amount of money spent on DOD programs is a drop in the bucket, (around
>3%
>>of the GNP) when compared to the amount spent on social programs.
Kevin23 wrote:
>You pick some very odd slants to the facts...
>
Let me clairify the facts here.
Defense spending when compared to the GNP_ is_ around 3- 3.5%..
My comparison of Social Programs vs. Defense spending to the GNP was
incorrect....
Social programs do not comprise any part of GNP figures...
Defense and social spending are part of the federal budget, and should be
compared accordingly..
>Only Social Security has a larger budget line than National Defense. Is that
>the "social program" you mention?
Social Security is considered "Off Budget"..Which means, Social Security has a
separate source of funding (a trust fund), than the Federal Budget, and is
_not_ considered part of the Federal budget..
Never mind the fact that Congress has already spent it.. So, to answer your
question, no..
Health and Human Services takes the largest chunk of the Federal budget, about
375 billion for FY00 and 425 Billion projected for FY 01.
Interest on the national debt swaggers in at about a cool 380 billion for FY
00.
Defense Spending was about 310 billion for FY 00 and about the same amount
projected for FY 01 respectivly..
>Fact: National Defense is over 16% of our federal budget.
More like 17%...By the way..What's your source for your figures..?..
Now we have 87% of the Federal Budget funds remaining to buy everything else
the Government needs..
Still, I consider 17% of the budget a reasonable price to pay to keep bombs out
of my living room.
>How much of that
>will be "pissed" away on wildly speculative projects? Pissed away on
>wasteful
>contracts?
Not much I suspect.
I work with people that buy for the Federal Government every day.
They make sure they can obtain the best price, (and are bound by law, FAR
regulations...) for goods and services by bidding them out between competing
companies..and in many cases, negotiate prefered pricing contracts before they
even purchase certain products or services.
>The money paid for "Piss Christ" is insignificant in relation to the other
>wastes in national spending.
So.?
Perhaps you would have prefered to pay the artist directly form your own
checking account..?
>
>With art, with research, with business, with life, sometimes you have to
>"kiss
>a few frogs" (or pay for a little piss...) to get to the really good stuff.
>
>So it goes.
>
Yeah, But I don't buy it, nor do I care to pay for it.
New furniture for the guys and gals on an aircraft carrier is a far better
investment in my book.
My source for the FY budget figures was Nationalbudget.com..Which will take you
directly to the GAO website..if you care to look..
Regards,
JohnB
John Wasak
>John Wasak wrote:
> >The problem with "Art" these days is not so much caused by its quality
but
> >rather its quantity. <snip>
>
> Interesting "back door" sort of take on the subject.
> .Do you think that those not seeking to be "clever" have to work harder to
> overcome great work from the past, (in the traditional sense), making it
more
> difficult today.. just to be noticed?
>
> Regards,
> JohnB
>
Certainly. Most of the Art of the Twentieth Century was a conscious search
for the "new". In most ways Art has run out of things to be new about.
Not out of things to say necessarily, but out of things new.) Where do we
go today to be 'new' about any traditional art form? It is getting harder
to be an originator. Doesn't it seem as if it's all been done before by now?
Klaus' recent remark about no one being impressed about a painting of
sunflowers anymore grows out of this. It would now be quite difficult really
to say about music what the phoenix once said in Voltaire's 'The Princess of
Babylon': "Sir, it is twenty seven thousand nine hundred years and seven
months that I have been on earth; I have never before seen anything quite
similar to what you make me hear." So to that end, some, I think, in an
effort to rise above the crowd and be noticed, have found a flirtation with
the bizarre the easier route.
"Decadence was brought about by doing work too easily and being too lazy to
do it well, by a surfeit of fine art and a love of the bizarre."
- Voltaire: "The Princess of Babylon"
JW
Curt Simon
>John Blossick wrote:
>
>>The amount of money spent on DOD programs is a drop in the bucket,( around
3%
>>of the GNP) when compared to the amount spent on social programs.
>
that
>will be "pissed" away on wildly speculative projects? Pissed away on
wasteful
>contracts?
Well, probably more than optimal from a strictly "production" point of view.
The Congress devotes a fairly large amount of money to pork barrel spending:
maintaining unnecessary military bases and producing unnecessary
equipment --
in other words, representing their constituents' interests. Of course, this
is
wasteful only if we can compare it with some meaningful alternative -- the
crux
of the biscuit. In other words, can we imagine some better means of deciding
the level and allocation of funds for national defense?
>The money paid for "Piss Christ" is insignificant in relation to the other
>wastes in national spending.
The question really is whether there is some better use of those resources.
Federal spending on the arts may or may not increase the total quantity
produced, depending on the degree to which it crowds out private spending.
It almost certainly alters the mix of what is produced. Whether the level
and
compositional changes are desirable is an open question. Of course,
there is a cost to rooting out waste (leaving aside the question of the
value of the specific expenditure in question).
>With art, with research, with business, with life, sometimes you have to
"kiss
>a few frogs" (or pay for a little piss...) to get to the really good stuff.
>
>So it goes.
>
Gribbit.
Curt Simon
John Wasak
news:9jsk58$t7g$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net...
> "John W. Blossick"
Well, we're sure tackling the big subjects here....no lazy Summer days to be
had at RMCG! ;-)
Let's take a ride in our Time Machine. A very quick, very compressed romp
through history shows us that in the beginning Art and Religion were
aligned. The architecture was a Temple; the statues were Gods, and rituals
involved poetry, music and dance. Oh yeah, and Religion and State were also
aligned. So Art was essentially Religious and /or public. The artist was
in service to the state and the gods. No problem supporting the Arts then.
Probably not too much criticism then from the hoi-polloi either. Probably
no one said, "ya know, that Parthenon has too many columns....that's not my
idea of architecture...I don't want to support it." Didn't happen...they
just put up the Parthenon and that's the way it was.
Eventually (don't forget this is very quick, very compressed) this started
to change. A rich aristocracy developed and began to support Private Art.
This led to the egotistical "Artist" in search of a patron. Eventually the
Artist developed into Artist- Genius-Seer-Prophet who knew and proclaimed
the ultimate truths.
Eventually (remember: very quick; very compressed) this Artist found
him/herself in open conflict with the society at large. But, wait a
minute!.... The State still needed or wanted Public Art. But the whole
concept of who and what an artist was had changed since the days of the
Parthenon! Oh-oh.... The result?.... Conflict.
Now, getting out of our time machine, (whew, what a relief!) we look around
today and we see that nothing's really changed since that last change. We
still have the conflict about 'who's going to support the Arts?' Everyone
feels justified in their opinion. I don't think there's any solution to the
modern dilemma of suporting the arts save taking a sort of step back and
designating something called Public Art and having the artists do the
bidding of the state and having Private Art supported by private patrons who
are entirely comfortable with having their art created for them by the
Artist-Genius-Seer-Prophet.
I'm not so sure that's such a great idea either.
Hmmm....maybe I'll just go for a swing on the hammock!
It's Summer after all!
JW
John Wasak
> John,
{SNIP}
> Is it not pondering about the value of Art just that?
>
It's an art in itself.
JW
Lester Long
> In other words, can we imagine some better means of deciding
> the level and allocation of funds for national defense?
AND
> The question really is whether there is some better use of those
resources.
Here's one proposal:
Return it back to the people who paid it.
Regards,
Lester
Larry Deack
> We still have the conflict about 'who's going to support the Arts?'
Everyone
> feels justified in their opinion.
There is a truth. The arts are supported in the same way anything is
supported and that is by the efforts of a few people who do a lot of work
and many people who do a little. The degree of support is directly related
to the value a culture places on art and in Orange County that value is
mostly as a token of wealth with few of the wealthy having anything but a
beginners understanding of the art they buy, if that. They do recognize that
it is not something they can do and therefore they tend to have a kind of
respect for it but they do not really understand how difficult it is to make
a living as an artist compared to the same level of effort in most any other
field.
> Hmmm....maybe I'll just go for a swing on the hammock!
>
> It's Summer after all!
Yeah, sounds good to me too.
Alain Reiher
cela se passe de commentaire {déją un de trop!}
no need to comment {one too many already}
Alain
Richard Jernigan
> >Subject: Re: Piss Christ and Art
> >From: "Larry Deack" cg...@mindspring.com
> >Date: 7/26/01 2:13 PM Pacific Daylight Time
> >Message-id: <9jq18h$qoc$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net>
> >
> It is synonomus with my guitar recital consisting of turning my guitar face
> down on my lap, and stabbing the back with an ice pick.
> That gives me an idea..! I shall call the work..uh,..."New Technique"..What do
> you think..? Admission will be cheap too, only 10 bucks a head. MO can document
> it in his archives denoting JohnB as the first performer of this avant guard
> work..Perhaps he could publish the score too..! I'll need taxpayer grant to
> fund the work too..
> I can see the lines forming already...:)
>
> Regards,
> JohnB
This is mere banality. You should stab the icepick through the guitar
and into your thigh. Take a bow with rigid upper lip, betraying no
pain. Limp away leaving bloody tracks and collapse just before your
exit. That would be Art.
I have spoken.
RNJ
(insert irony icon here)
P.S.: In the transcribed version, a Kevlar thigh shield and fake blood
would be used.
KevinM23
>Defense Spending was about 310 billion for FY 00 and about the same amount
>projected for FY 01 respectivly..
I get slightly different figures from the Office of Management and Budget:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2002/budiv_13.html
But not significantly so
.>More like 17%...By the way..What's your source for your figures..?..
According to the OMB figures, it's closer to 16, but you may well have better
numbers.
>Still, I consider 17% of the budget a reasonable price to pay to keep bombs
>out
>of my living room.
Fundamentally, I agree. But I also think that $176 million/year (the highest
amount ever budgeted for the NEA) is a pittance to pay to support art that
would have a tough time finding funding. I'm willing to accept that not all
the works produced will be of great cultural value. I'm similarly willing to
accept that not all military research will reach fruitful results.
>I work with people that buy for the Federal Government every day.
>They make sure they can obtain the best price, (and are bound by law, FAR
>regulations...) for goods and services by bidding them out between competing
>companies..and in many cases, negotiate prefered pricing contracts before
>they
>even purchase certain products or services.
I disagree. History has *shown graphically* that money is wasted--big
money--in government contracting. I think you're naive to believe otherwise.
Seranno was to receive a $15,000 grant--not all of which was NEA money. I
think this is insignificant in relation to the big picture. Do you hunt down
and criticize every $15,000 wasted by government? If so, you are a busy man
indeed.
>New furniture for the guys and gals on an aircraft carrier is a far better
>investment in my book.
Always? Any aircraft carrier?
I would wager that within the expenses to furnish any *one* aircraft carrier,
there are more than $15,000 wasted. Do you scoff similarly at that waste?
>My source for the FY budget figures was Nationalbudget.com..Which will take
>you
>directly to the GAO website..if you care to look..
>
I've cited my source--for better or worse. The url you cite doesn't seem to
work, FYI.
-Kevin Munday
John W. Blossick
>Message-id:Wrote:
> Not really if you read about other cultures. I have been reading about
>Inca, Maya, Aztec, Fang, Mochica, Nazca... well, 11 cultures to be exact.
What exactly is your point?..
.Do you find virtue in cultures that engaged in savage acts like human
sacrifice.?
You want us to go back to the "good ol' days"?
>
>Sure it does. Serrano is not an idiot even if his public statements indicate
>that he was not consciously aware of the negative interpretation that some
..<snip>
Incredible..The guy explains what he meant by the piece, and you surmise he was
not consciously aware...C'mon, give me a break..Prove it.
> That may be his naive reaction to his own work but it is obvious now how
>perhaps his unconscious was conspiring against him or he is trying to move
>away from a position of controversy.
No...It isn't obvious. A naive reaction?.You have decided to disregard
Serrano's explanation and invent your own..
>I cannot see a choice where art
>does not become the instrument of the power structure if we accept
>censorship in any form ..
Ok, Larry...How do you feel about your picture immersed in a jar of piss..?
>No, just the removal of art you don't like.
I never considered it art in the first place..
>The common grunt in the military
What exactly is a "common grunt".?
>gets crap and most of the money lines the pockets of the folks who run the
>military industrial complex that sell guns to all the players in any war on
>this globe.
I presume you have the evidience to support this claim and not just ranting
some neo 60's chatter.? I would like to see the evidence
>They are getting
>screwed by the industrialists and politicians who take the bulk of the
>profits from their blood and people die all over this globe every day
>believing the lies of their governments about how holy they are for giving
>their lives for the cause.
Yup. It sure sounds like more neo 60's rethoric, unless you have evidence to
substantiate another claim.
You better watch out here..
I took an oath for 20 years of my life to uphold and defend the USA from all
enemies, foreign and domestic..
You have a problem with that?.
What the hell have taken an oath to die for?
I was willing to die for YOUR right to swng in a hammock and barbecue your
steaks in the back yard.
Don't tell me about "holy" fucking causes..You don't know jack about "holy"
causes.
> Yep, not the star wars crap. Folks who really need it get reamed while
>those in power just regroup.
Star wars crap..? If it keeps an ICBM out of your back yard, isn't it worth
it...?
What do you mean.."those in power regroup"? I'm sure you you have more evidence
to support that claim too.
>Art is too tied to culture and values <snip>.
No shit...Go find a culture with no morals or values..You can then ogle
anything you want..and pay for it too.
>T & A will always sell, and what does this have to do with art?
I don't know..Why don't you ask the "controlling power group"...
Regards,
JohnB
John W. Blossick
>Date: 7/27/01 5:05 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: wrote:
>Let's take a ride in our Time Machine. A very quick, very compressed romp
<snip>
Nice compressed tour..that was fun..:)
JohnB
John W. Blossick
>Date: 7/27/01 8:03 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: wrote:
>You should stab the icepick through the guitar
>and into your thigh. Take a bow with rigid upper lip, betraying no
>pain. Limp away leaving bloody tracks and collapse just before your
>exit. That would be Art.
Sounds good..
But how can I put all that on a musical score..? I would have to invent new
markings, no?
JohB
JohnB
AMA 586059
District V
John W. Blossick
>Date: 7/27/01 8:44 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: wrote:
>According to the OMB figures, it's closer to 16, but you may well have better
>numbers.
Actually, I did some more checking, it's closer to 19 per cent.
>I disagree. History has *shown graphically* that money is wasted--big
>money--in government contracting. I think you're naive to believe otherwise.
I am not naive.
There is tremendous waste within the federal government, in all areas.
Money can always be used more effectivly..The government has pulled some real
boners in the past, and they still do..Like the recent Army beret issue..DLA
pissed away about 2 million...
The system is designed, by _law_, for the government to obtain the BEST price
(due dilligence) .
Does a Congressman need a $1,500 chair when a $400 dollar one will work just as
well..? No he doesn't..But the 1,500 chair retails for 2,500..At least they
got a good price on the chair..!
I would like to see your historical graphs depicting waste in contracting..I
don't deny that it can, and has occured, but which branches are the greatest
violators.
>Do you hunt down
>and criticize every $15,000 wasted by government? If so, you are a busy man
>indeed.
No, only the ones that make headlines..
>Always? Any aircraft carrier?
Yes, any..
>I would wager that within the expenses to furnish any *one* aircraft carrier,
>there are more than $15,000 wasted. Do you scoff similarly at that waste?
An assumpttion on you part. How is the money wasted..?
There are 5,000 people aboard the USS Enterprise..
Do you consider the fact that much of the furniture must be constructed out of
stainless steel because of the harsh sea evnviroment a waste..? No Wal-Mart
garbage here. Each piece must be hand made, to specific specs, and have
provisions to be bolted or secured to the deck so it stays put in high seas,
making it very expensive.
It costs millions to furnish an enterprise class ship..Do you consider gym
equipment onboard the ship a waste, or a ping pong table for recreation a
waste..? TV's in the recreation room..?
15K will buy you about 7 three man berths.There's over 250,00 dollars worth of
ovens in the galleys alone..
There is no room on a ship for anything that doesn't belong there.
You tell me where they waste the money, then I'll scoff.
Regards,
JohnB
Larry Deack
> What exactly is your point?..
Lost...
No sense in going on now, you are a better person than me sir, I am just a
child who knows very little.
Klaus Heim
"John W. Blossick" <jblo...@aol.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:20010728003043...@ng-fq1.aol.com...
>
> > Yep, not the star wars crap. Folks who really need it get reamed while
> >those in power just regroup.
>
> Star wars crap..? If it keeps an ICBM out of your back yard, isn't it
worth
> it...?
As an European I am all for the US spending billions and billions of dollars
for BMD, especially at the moment, amidst economic recession. I think you
should spend much more money on defense, instead of using it for sensible
causes. Also, it's great, that at the same time Europe unites, the US votes
for Isolationism. All this can only strengthen Europe's economical and
political position. Right on, USA!
If you look closely at what BMD General Ronald Kadish said before a Senate
hearing on July 12, then the real (short-term) motivation behind BMD becomes
much clearer. I think you should ask yourself, if this is also in your best
interest.
Has everybody forgotten the Safeguard debacle? Remember who was Secretary of
Defense at the time? Odd, isn't it? Maybe we should ask what personal
reasons these cold warriors may have in trying to sell us a second missile
defense system - a quarter of a century later.
Klaus
William Jennings
"John W. Blossick" wrote:
What exactly is a "common grunt".?
> Precisely, the Haemulon Plumieri. or white grunt.
Slang term for infantrymen or groundpounder.
. If it were not for the Common Grunt, Larry would have written in German or
Japanese from Sighpan.
Sighpan ( All sighs )
http://www.ibiblio.org/173abn/kia.html
wdj
x grunt
>
>
William Jennings
Klaus Heim wrote:
Something to sit on and twist about. Better late than never.
William Jennings
Here is an example: http://bornmag.com/projects/linesofhand/
Playing the concert guitar is solitary, contemplative, misanthropic,
scientific in some hands,
poetic in others, and laced with conflicting aesthetic considerations.
It's not even clear if
music is actually the point.
__ I said that!
sigh
x grunt
Nazodesu
<jou...@texas.net> wrote:
> Maybe we should ask what personal reasons these cold warriors may
> have in trying to sell us a second missile defense system - a quarter
> of a century later
I may be going out on a limb here, but perhaps it's the billions in
wealth accrued by the people who design, manufacture, and sell these
weapons back to government. Then all the people that will have to be
hired to operate attendant systems etc.
Where ever there is this much money involved I assume we can consider
it primarily a matter of money. Certainly chest thumping about our
babies and the little businessman and providing for the future and any
other one-size-fits-all appeal to home and hearth (or better, fears and
hatred), will help sell this the the UnitedStatesian people. Or a
watch-fob to a beagle.
--
The storm starts when the drops start dropping. When the drops stop dropping
the storm starts stopping.