reaction to NDH
Julius
two evenings. As a long time Dylan aficianado, I was bothered by
particular things in this 225 min version that perhaps aren't as
apparent in the DVD version.
I thought the time shift between earlier years to 1966 was effective,
because I always thought 1966 for Dylan was like Elvis' last year
before going into the army, the year that the real Elvis "died" and the
fake "movie star" Elvis was born. That's not to say that Dylan after
'66 was fake, but admittedly, he evolved into an enigmatic changeling
light years from what came before. You never knew from that point on
who the "real" Dylan was.
The 1965/66 period missed a whole lot and seemed to be glossed over in
favor of focusing primarily on his folk/protest period, which seemed to
be covered in EXHAUSTIVE detail. What would this documentary have been
if not for the Pennebaker footage? No mention at all of the marriage to
Sara Lowndes, his relationship with the Beatles, the Rolling Stones,
Edie Sedgwick (only a passing mention of his Warhol Factory
encounters), and the growing influence of drugs on his creative output.
We would have never known that Dylan ever smoked pot if Ginsberg hadn't
mentioned it, or the fact that Dylan even knew the Beatles. It would
have been far more interesting to learn about his relationships with
other equally famous musicians besides those faded old folkies from
Gerde's. Thank God Al Kooper agreed to be interviewed! I was shocked
that no living member of The Band was interviewed (Mickey Jones was a
pinch hitter only in my book, there's only ONE Levon Helm). Aren't
Robbie Robertson and Martin Scorsese the best of friends?
The failure to discuss drugs was disingenuous. I mean, clearly, you
can't truly discuss the song "Mr. Tambourine Man" without some mention
of the amphetamine influenced imagery.
I was nice to see Suze Rotolo but why no mention of the fact that she
was Dylan's primary muse 63/64? They showed the clip of him performing
"All I Really Want to Do" but no mention of it being a song inspired by
her. Perhaps the filmmakers thought we knew this already. But it begs
the question, for whom is this documentary intended? The diehards or
the novitiates?
In fact, all his muses but one -- Joan Baez -- receieved short shrift
in this documentary, not receiving the credit they were due as major
influences on Dylan's work. If you are going to include Echo Hellstrom,
then why not cite that "Girl from the North Country" is about her?
Women certainly took a backseat in Dylan's life, didn't they, other
than being inspirations for songs?
Today, I have the impression that Martin Scorsese deferred heavily to
Dylan's preferences as to what aspects of his life would be featured in
this piece. If true, this documentary deserves to be placed in the
category of hagiography. There really needs to be an unauthorized
documentary that doesn't include Dylan's input but does include
Ramblin' Jack Elliot's, fer chrissakes. Dylan would still like us to
think, in a certain way, that he was raised in Gallup, Mew Mexico.
He's still trying to bullshit us, even after all these years.
Mr Jinx
Mr Jinx
Wilbur Slice
wrote:
>Mr Tambourine Man is not a drug song.
>
>Mr Jinx
Yeah.
Neither is Rainy Day Women #12 & 35.
It's just... it's... a PROTEST song! yeah, that's it! ALL of
Bob's songs are PROTEST songs.
Now I gotta be disappearin' through the smoke rings of my mind...
Wilbur Slice
It sounds like you wanted a definitive biography of Bob Dylan that
explained everything in his life. But I don't know that that's even
possible - especially not in a video format. I think that Dylan's
biography will be, like the biographies of most important famous
people, a body of work, not a single volume.
To understand Abraham Lincoln's life, you need to read many books and
articles and see many video presentations, etc. You can't get it from
one particular work, because no matter how precise and exacting it
might be, it will always have a point of view.
Same with Bob. If you want his biography, you have to read at least 6
or 7 books about him (and by him), lots of magazine articles, opinion
pieces, see some movies, listen to a lot of music (his and a lot of
other peoples'), etc. Any one piece - Scaduto's book, Don't Look
Back, the Lyrics collection, Shelton's book, Scorcese's film, etc.
will necessarily only be a slice, not the whole pie.
So I look at NDH for what it contains, not for what it leaves out. The
stuff it leaves out is available elsewhere, and NDH couldn't contain
EVERYthing. It's almost 4 hours long as it is - and it only covers
about 5 years. But what it DOES contain is GREAT - and it contributes
mightily to the other information that is already available.
Mr Jinx
definitive. What it does do, however, is give some hint at the scope
of what we are dealing with here. As you say, this is just a five year
chunk!
Imagine a similar film covering Rolling Thunder! Imagine the footage
of the backstage carnival there might be! Imagine seeing the whole
Hurricane episode as the central point of the film and the psychodrama
of Renaldo & Clara too.
Scorsese could made another 5 four hour films on Dylan and still not
cover it all.
Mr Jinx
WS Krispy
Good comments, Julius. I felt pretty much the same way. I mean, we know
Scorsese's a fan and that overall the documentary was going to be a
celebration of Dylan's genius. But I was surprised literally none of
the open questions or possibly negative goings-on made an appearance.
Scorsese certainly gave the standard buildup to the `66 crash, the
mounting pressures of stardom, the expectations of Bob's early backers,
the hostility of the folkies, etc.,. But it's pretty certain Bob's
alcohol/drug intake at the time was another major factor and any
definitive documentary would deal with it more than passingly. So, yes,
it's disappointingly close to hagiography and the need for a truly
definitive treatment remains.
Generally I was hoping for something with more of the deft touch of
"The Last Waltz". It seems Scorsese now trusts the Ken and Rick Burns
approach more than his own.
And yes, why nothing on the cross-fertilization that went on with the
Beatles? Maybe it was a matter of copyrights. All possible footage is
tied up with all kinds of ownership claims.. One would have hoped that
all parties would be cooperative because there's a pretty penny to be
made from DVD sales, which would certainly have been bolstered by a
meaty Beatles-related segment. Oh well..
And, for my part, a lot of it was dragged down by the extensive
interview time given to people I'm just not fond of. My distaste for
Ginsberg and Neuwirth is extreme and everything with Yarrow other than
his description of what happened at Newport should have been left on
the cutting room floor. I'd have been far more interested in a few
minutes with George Harrison and Al Aronowitz than in any of the people
shown, excepting Baez and Suze Rotolo. And, yeah, no mention of Sara???
--
wsk
Julius
Whose choice was it to prominently feature the folk protest period?
Scorsese's or Dylan's?
IMO, the film contains way too much of the folk protest period, not at
all as compelling as his 65/66 rock period. Was this film being made
for aging baby boom contributors to PBS who recall the Camelot years
with dewy eyed nostalgia for their "innocence lost, " with Dylan et al
providing the soundtrack?
This would be a curious POV for someone like Scorsese to adopt, since
as a veteran filmmaker, he has never been known to tackle subjects with
socially activist or progressive themes or to express any political
views, for that matter.
"It sounds like you wanted a definitive biography of Bob Dylan that
explained everything in his life. But I don't know that that's even
possible - especially not in a video format."
It certainly is in the hands of filmmakers seeking the warts and all
truth about their subject and not wishing to create a biased portrait
that intentionally omits key aspects. The Beatles Anthology certainly
proves that it can be done.
1965/66 in Dylan's life was about a lot more than fielding dumb
questions from journalists and being booed at shows.
Carlos Serra
:-)
"Mr Jinx" <vernon_...@hotmail.com> escribió en el mensaje
news:1127922769.7...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Marston Moor
impossible for NDH to be the be-all, end-all. BUT there IS something to
be said about much very important trivia inexplicably left out, passed
over. There's a RIGHT way to assemble all of this info, however small.
Could've been so much more complete, but wasn't. Odd, that.
As remarkable as the film is, it does somehow falter from being a bit
too close to the rules of the "organization".
®
Julius
approach more than his own."
brilliantly stated! that's the PBS imprimatur, isn't it, the Burnsian
method?
I thought David Cohen and Paul Nelson ran out of things to say after
their first few nods. Nelson and Pete Seeger just came off as bitter
over a forty year old "betrayal." It would have been nice to hear
something from McGuinn or Crosby when mentioning the Byrds. I thought
the breadth of the "witnesses" included was a bit thin considering the
magnitude of this project. The Midnight at the Oasis gal reminded me of
a sister in law's best friend's cousin.
Al Aronowitz is still alive and publishing up a storm on his own
website.
Marston Moor
·.·´¨ ¨)) -:|:-
¸.·´ .·´¨¨))
R. Stevie Moore
((¸¸.·´ ..·´
-:|:- ((¸¸ ·.·
WS Krispy
Sadly, not anymore. Al recently died. There was a sort of eulogy thread
for him here a while ago, noting the rude treatment he got from some of
the self-appointed RMD Superhuman Crew when he tried to share his Dylan
experiences here.
--
wsk
maxenglish
Julius wrote:
> "It seems Scorsese now trusts the Ken and Rick Burns
> approach more than his own."
>
> brilliantly stated! that's the PBS imprimatur, isn't it, the Burnsian
> method?
Burns might actually have done a better job, because he'd have made it
longer, no doubt.
> Al Aronowitz is still alive and publishing up a storm on his own
> website.
Al is quite dead, RIP
Julius
http://www.bigmagic.com/pages/blackj/
Thanks for letting me know, kind sir.
AA was a giant among pygmies.
Julius
treated with a mixture of scorn and rapt fascination when posting at
rec.music.beatles, where a similar crew exists.
maxenglish
You talkin' about the whole 'Francie' business?
The Beatles newsgroup devolved into a looney bin by the year 2000 - it
didn't used to be that way. I guess that's bound to happen with a
defunct band's discussion group - not much new to discuss.
Wilbur Slice
So make your own movie.
Jeeze. They made a movie. You don't like some of the decisions they
made. I'm underwhelmed with sympathy for your discomfort. It's like
you're upset because Sonny shouldn't have been killed in the Godfather
and that Michael should have married an Italian woman. Whatever.
Julius
Dorwin Black
maxenglish wrote:
> Julius wrote:
> > "It seems Scorsese now trusts the Ken and Rick Burns
> > approach more than his own."
> >
> > brilliantly stated! that's the PBS imprimatur, isn't it, the Burnsian
> > method?
>
> Burns might actually have done a better job, because he'd have made it
> longer, no doubt.
>
Yeah, like that 10 hour snooze fest called "Jazz" a few years back. I
think it was a wise decision to limit the length and narrow the scope.
Furthermore, I don't think NDH looks anything like a Ken Burns
documentary. Ken Burns style is much more linear with separate chapter
titles (usually refering to the key phrase or "punch line" of that
chapter), and extensive narrator voice over. I'm sorry you found so much
to dislike about this one, but as a wise man once said, nobody can please
everybody all of the time.
-DCB
WS Krispy
Was "Jazz" that bad? Well, doesn't surprise me since so much Jazz since
1960 is fraudulent... I think Ken Burns is quite good, probably better
than his older brother. Ken's series on NYC was standout all around, I
thought... Really I wish neither the Burnses nor Scorsese had done
this. Really the ideal would have ben a consortium from RMD, led
perhaps by President Dudley (but excluding the Superhuman Crew cuz they
of course would round up everybody else and boot them out). Now *that*
woulda been cool.
--
wsk
WS Krispy
WS Krispy wrote:
>
> Was "Jazz" that bad? Well, doesn't surprise me since so much Jazz since
> 1960 is fraudulent... I think Ken Burns is quite good, probably better
> than his older brother. Ken's series on NYC was standout all around, I
> thought... Really I wish neither the Burnses nor Scorsese had done
> this. Really the ideal would have ben a consortium from RMD, led
> perhaps by President Dudley (but excluding the Superhuman Crew cuz they
> of course would round up everybody else and boot them out). Now *that*
> woulda been cool.
>
> --
> wsk
Correction-- I meant Ric Burns is quite good. Gotthe brothers' names
mixed.
--
wsk
Jeff Gower
"WS Krispy" <blas...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Was "Jazz" that bad?
Yep, sure was.
Jeff
Debra Lind
case, I'm sure he had a lot of influence on what stayed in and what
went.
I don't understand why both shows weren't the full two hours. Like many
have said, there is no shortage of material.
Julius
strange.
Jesse Jones
> Mr Tambourine Man is not a drug song.
>
> Mr Jinx
>
Wilbur Slice
But drugs wrote Dylan songs.
Bob Gill
> Imagine a similar film covering Rolling Thunder! Imagine the footage
> of the backstage carnival there might be! Imagine seeing the whole
> Hurricane episode as the central point of the film and the psychodrama
> of Renaldo & Clara too.
I was thinking that toward the end of this one, too. Dylan (who probably
still has control over what anyone gets to use, as others have pointed out)
might not want to cover his Woodstock years and the period when he moved
back to New York with Sara and the kids, because it's bound to get more
personal. But a film covering his return to the limelight _ from Planet
Waves and the 1974 tour through Blood on the Tracks, the two Rolling
Thunder tours, Renaldo and Clara and finally Street Legal and the 1978
world tour _ would be very interesting, and again there would be a lot of
footage available.
That would set up another film on the born-again days and afterward. To
be continued ....
-- Bob G.
Julius
Julius
a work of fiction (The Godfather) to a work of non-fiction (a
documentary about Bob Dylan).
Tell me, you aren't one of these fans that elevates the icon to an
untouchable status where everything said or done in their name is
beyond reproach, are you?
Seriously, your comment is very anti-productive, as if anyone has no
call to criticize something seen or heard about said beloved icon in
the mass media.
hey, I like Bob Dylan, too, but he's just another guy in history that
was very good at writing songs. George Gershwin and Chuck Berry wrote a
lot of great and memorable songs, too, so Dylan is not exclusive in
that regard. There were many great songwriters in history so let's
maintain some perspective here. He just happens to be one of the
cultural symbols of a certain generation so he's accorded special
preference in your mind. That's fine, knock yourself out, but please
don't defend him or a film about him like I've attacked someone of your
own flesh and blood. You don't have to personalize criticisms of Bob
Dylan or attacks on films about him. What would be the point of that?
Is this response an example of the Crew mentality I've heard mention of
today?
I'm sorry, but no celebrity or pop icon is worthy of escaping my
scrutiny or criticism. They put their socks on one foot at a time just
like everyone else. I worship nothing or no one.
This newsgroup does not belong to you or anyone else, so please, refute
my opinions about Bob Dylan constructively without this puerile "then
make your own film" nonsense. Attacking me gets you nowhere.
I'm sorry if I seem direct, but I don't have patience for this fascist
nonsense on newsgroups from people who can't tolerate unpopular
opinions on their beloved celebrity icons.
MFalc1
Was "Jazz" that bad? Well, doesn't surprise me since so much Jazz since
1960 is fraudulent...
I've only seen a portion of the film and it was watchable to me. My
only difficulty was that Burns trusted people like Stanley Crouch and
adapted the "West Coast jazz is worthless" dictum, meaning that a full
portrait of post-1950 jazz just didn't occur.
Mark L. Falconer-film and video links at
http://hometown.aol.com/mfalc1/links.html
Tim Herrick
In a message dated 9/29/2005 12:01:01 AM Eastern Standard Time,
LIST...@LISTSERV.BUFFALO.EDU writes:
reaction to NDH
Mr Jinx wrote:
I was playing a fantasy game in my head, how best to divide the rest of
dylan's career to the NDH sequeals. Now, it might be a challenge to do it in six
year batches, have to stretch that time span some. But like, basement tapes to
come back tour? Blood on the tracks to Infidels? Or should it it be basement
tapes to christian era, the infidels to never ending tour?
You get the idea, but I have this feeling that dylan wouldn't want that,
cause you can't explain his post basement tapes career without getting personal.
His reclusiveness has an easy story, in that he was burned out by celebrity.
But, the other side is, he was into starting a family and being a dad, at
least for a while. When the marriage went awry, he made his greatest record
ever. How could anyone explain the making of those songs, like baez talking about
what inspired when the ship comes in, without talking about Sara?
Also, the christian era, those songs were really personal. He did have a
touch of true faith? Was it sincere or was it just a means for him to explore
gospel music, or as a musical expeditionary, he knew the only way to explore
that music was to get the faith?
You get my point, if indeed, one of the hallmarks of NDH, that dylan spoke
honestly and directly, yet was able to explain that music without getting into
the personal, the relationship with rozoto and baez was glossed over--what
inspired it aint me babe, or rather, who, sue--and didn't get into the drug
use. You can get away with that when you have great footage of the great march
or dylan singing on TV and a historical context that tied directly into his
environment and songs.
You start getting into blood on the tracks era, you need to look at the
divorce court records. Or interviews with his grown children.
Me, hell I would pay good money to see it. I just don't think that will be
documented. Sad for me, cuase i'm kind of had it with 60s dyaln. I loved NDH,
don't get me wrong, but when all is said and done, I am more into the later
career songs. Infidels is such a great record. It woudl be nice to see that
documented. My favorite chapter in Chronicles is oh mercy, maybe i'm getting
older and middle age stories have more appeal, but lets face it, there are many
stories about young artists finding their voice and talent, how many stories
do we have a middle age artist regaining his muse? The Oh Mercy chapter in
Chronicles tells a story that really is uncommon.
So, while the other periods may not sadly be covered in NDH sequels,
Chronicles Volume two is another story isn't it.
Wilbur Slice
>Your response, Wilbur, is puzzling, since you are attempting to compare
>a work of fiction (The Godfather) to a work of non-fiction (a
>documentary about Bob Dylan).
There are creative decisions to be made in making a movie, whether it
be a work of fiction or a documentary. All this complaining is merely
second-guessing the creative decisions of the filmmaker. And yeah, I
can engage in it, too - I would like to have seen some references to
Ramblin' Jack, the Beatles and an interview of at least Robbie
Robertson, more explanation of the influence of drugs, more in-depth
discussion of his social and political effect on the US, etc.. I
personally would have liked to see something more along the lines of
the 11-hour Beatle Anthology, covering Dylan's whole career.
But I stop WAY short of saying the film is deficient or a travesty or
a waste or whatever. It is what it is. And for me, the bottom line
is: what is in it is great. I wouldn't have left anything that is in
it out. So the only complaint I can see is that various things were
left out - and I think we all have a different list. Well, big deal.
This isn't the only film or book or whatever that exists - it doesn't
ALL have to be in NDH. That other stuff can be covered elsewhere as
well. I think NDH is great for the amazing footage it DOES contain.
>
>Tell me, you aren't one of these fans that elevates the icon to an
>untouchable status where everything said or done in their name is
>beyond reproach, are you?
Not even remotely close.
>
>Seriously, your comment is very anti-productive, as if anyone has no
>call to criticize something seen or heard about said beloved icon in
>the mass media.
Anti-productive? What, exactly, have I prevented from being produced?
Sheesh!
>
>hey, I like Bob Dylan, too, but he's just another guy in history that
>was very good at writing songs. George Gershwin and Chuck Berry wrote a
>lot of great and memorable songs, too, so Dylan is not exclusive in
>that regard. There were many great songwriters in history so let's
>maintain some perspective here. He just happens to be one of the
>cultural symbols of a certain generation so he's accorded special
>preference in your mind. That's fine, knock yourself out, but please
>don't defend him or a film about him like I've attacked someone of your
>own flesh and blood.
Huh? What? Jeeze... now you're drifting into foaming-at-the-mouth
twilight zone material...
>You don't have to personalize criticisms of Bob
>Dylan or attacks on films about him. What would be the point of that?
???
>
>Is this response an example of the Crew mentality I've heard mention of
>today?
>
>I'm sorry, but no celebrity or pop icon is worthy of escaping my
>scrutiny or criticism. They put their socks on one foot at a time just
>like everyone else. I worship nothing or no one.
>
>This newsgroup does not belong to you or anyone else, so please, refute
>my opinions about Bob Dylan constructively without this puerile "then
>make your own film" nonsense. Attacking me gets you nowhere.
Wow. It's amzing to me that you construed that as some sort of
personal attack on YOU. I don't know you, and I couldn't care less
about you. The point is, if you (or anyone) wants to sit in your
armchair and criticize the creative efforts of an artist, you are free
to do so, but perhaps it would be more "productive" for you to go
create whatever it is you think should be created.
Ever heard the phrase, "Everyone's a critic"?
>
>I'm sorry if I seem direct, but I don't have patience for this fascist
>nonsense on newsgroups from people who can't tolerate unpopular
>opinions on their beloved celebrity icons.
ROTFL!! "I can't tolerate people who can't tolerate... blah blah
blah" LOL!!
Well, anyway, I can tolerate the whining about NDH just fine. In
fact, as I said, I have my own wish list of stuff I would have put in
it. But I say again, it is what it is, and it's great. That it
doesn't match up to MY vision of perfection is a very minor
disappointment in my life, it does not in any way prevent me from
being thrilled with what IS there.
Julius
Wilbur, how is is someone supposed to take such a blunt and dismissive
comment like "then make your own film?"
is this how you react to all criticism of music, film, literature, or
any of the other arts? We as consumers have the right to demand what we
want. Art is another consumable good to be bought and sold, just like
everything else. I'm sure Dylan would feel the same way. Why else would
he have released Nashville Skyline if not for purely commercial
reasons? Self-Portrait, and then turn around and release New Morning?
"but perhaps it would be more "productive" for you to go
> create whatever it is you think should be created."
Do you attack every critic you read in a similar manner?
"Ever heard the phrase, "Everyone's a critic"?
Of course, the world needs even more criticism of art and artists.
This attitude you harbor is very strange. Please just be honest and
admit that the film meant something to you personally, perhaps because
of its overly nostalgic evocations of the 60s social movements, and you
can't bear to have someone criticize it. The 60s are over, Wilbur, move
on. They weren't *that* great to begin with, and I'm saying that as
someone that survived that decade with mind and body intact.
Wilbur Slice
>
>Wilbur Slice wrote:
As a suggestion, maybe? It's certainly not a personal "attack".
Especially not within the usenet milieu. Lighten up, it wasn't meant
personally.
>
>is this how you react to all criticism of music, film, literature, or
>any of the other arts?
Only when it gets excessive to the point of whining. Or if it gets
obsessive to the point of proclaiming that consumers have a right to
demand that artists cater to their will.
> We as consumers have the right to demand what we
>want.
Ooops... <chuckle>
> Art is another consumable good to be bought and sold, just like
>everything else.
I disagree strongly there. Some art is, some isn't. Most is a mix.
IMHO, the greatest art is not created for commercial purposes, but is
just created because the artist must create it. If it then sells,
great, but that's just gravy. Vincent Van Gogh did not paint for
commercial purposes.
> I'm sure Dylan would feel the same way. Why else would
>he have released Nashville Skyline if not for purely commercial
>reasons? Self-Portrait, and then turn around and release New Morning?
Huh?
>
>"but perhaps it would be more "productive" for you to go
>> create whatever it is you think should be created."
>
>Do you attack every critic you read in a similar manner?
Yipes! You sure take everything personally, don't you. A little
sensitive, I'd say. I don't know anything about you - I can't
possibly attack you. But I do disagree with much of what you've
written in this thread. If that's what you consider an "attack", then
perhaps usenet is not a good forum for you to participate in.
>
>
> "Ever heard the phrase, "Everyone's a critic"?
>
>Of course, the world needs even more criticism of art and artists.
Let me guess. You're not an artist, are you?
>
>
>This attitude you harbor is very strange. Please just be honest and
>admit that the film meant something to you personally, perhaps because
>of its overly nostalgic evocations of the 60s social movements, and you
>can't bear to have someone criticize it. The 60s are over, Wilbur, move
>on. They weren't *that* great to begin with, and I'm saying that as
>someone that survived that decade with mind and body intact.
Jeepers...
Julius
"If that's what you consider an "attack", then
> perhaps usenet is not a good forum for you to participate in."
Perhaps usenet isn't the place for someone that can't stomache attacks
on their beloved pop icons and the films about them.
> > I'm sure Dylan would feel the same way. Why else would
> >he have released Nashville Skyline if not for purely commercial
> >reasons? Self-Portrait, and then turn around and release New Morning?
>
> Huh?
You don't get this? Hmmm, perhaps you aren't as Dylan savvy as I
thought.
mcis...@umich.edu
Well, that degenerated nicely.
Julius
> Well, that degenerated nicely.
It wouldn't have had to if wilbur hadn't dismissed my critique with a
silly knee jerk "if you didn't like something go out and make own" type
of comment. In my experience, people that dismiss someone with a
comment like that cannot refute their contentions constructively.
mcis...@umich.edu
Wilber seems a pretty intelligent guy to me. I was agreeing with just
about everything he said.
I have to say, you don't know the first thing about being an artist and
why artists make art.
Julius
> I have to say, you don't know the first thing about being an artist and
> why artists make art.
And you do? Do tell. So you possibly subscribe to the accepted
romanticized notion of what motivates artists? Let's put it this way,
the motivations ascribed by dilettantes aren't always as pure and noble
as some would like to think.
mcis...@umich.edu
Oh please. I am an artist. It's an inner drive to create. You
clearly don't know much about it.
Julius
Good for you, but how is that germane to this discussion? I don't
subscribe to the lame philosophy "you have to be a certain thing to
understand it."
"It's an inner drive to create. You
clearly don't know much about it."
I know enough to recognize a dilettante's romanticized definition of
artistic motivation when I read it.
Julius
Good for you, but how is that germane to this discussion? I don't
subscribe to the lame philosophy "you have to be a certain thing to
understand it."
"It's an inner drive to create. You
clearly don't know much about it."
I know enough to recognize a dilettante's romanticized definition of
Julius
geometrically on parchment and put a frame around it and hang it on the
wall, would I then be, by your defintion, and artist, since I was
motivated to create?
mcis...@umich.edu
Julius wrote:
> "Oh please. I am an artist."
>
> Good for you, but how is that germane to this discussion? I don't
> subscribe to the lame philosophy "you have to be a certain thing to
> understand it."
You're understanding of an artist appears to be based on pure monetary
desire. Do you honestly believe that people decide to make art in
order to make money?
>
> "It's an inner drive to create. You
> clearly don't know much about it."
>
> I know enough to recognize a dilettante's romanticized definition of
> artistic motivation when I read it.
Do you? You really believe that I'm a dabbler in the arts and that I
have romantic notions about it based on that sentence? That's
fascinating!
mcis...@umich.edu
No, you'd be the complete idiot that you're proving yourself to be.
Julius
about everything he said."
I can extrapolate from that statement that your criteria for
intelligence depends on whether or not you agree with someone.
Perhaps I should ask you the same question that Wilbur dodged ... are
you of the thinking that your beloved celebrity icons and books, films,
etc, about them are exempt from harsh commentary from critics?
Julius
have romantic notions about it based on that sentence?"
Absolutely, there can be no other way to interpret it.
Mr Jinx
Mr Jinx
Wilbur Slice
>
>Julius wrote:
>> > Well, that degenerated nicely.
>>
>> It wouldn't have had to if wilbur hadn't dismissed my critique with a
>> silly knee jerk "if you didn't like something go out and make own" type
>> of comment. In my experience, people that dismiss someone with a
>> comment like that cannot refute their contentions constructively.
>
>Wilber seems a pretty intelligent guy to me. I was agreeing with just
>about everything he said.
Thanks. And I don't mean to put Julius down, particularly, because I
think we all have our own list of wishes that NDH would have included,
and we always have our own criticisms of pretty much all art. I do
think some of the criticism of NDH has spilled over into excessive
whining though, and that's what made me suggest that maybe he should
do his own work, if he thought he could do better.
>
>I have to say, you don't know the first thing about being an artist and
>why artists make art.
I get that feeling about Julius as well. The worst critics are
usually the ones who can't create their own art. And that's what kind
of galls me about some of this criticism - if you think you can do
better, fine - go do it. But if you can't, then sitting around
finding fault with true artists seems a tad, well, hollow.
I am an artist, though - I do my own creating. I write songs and
record them and publish them myself. And I think doing that gives you
a HUGE appreciation of any other artist - even those whose work you
don't care for. It's hard to create art, and it takes a lot of guts
(or a lot of stupidity) to put it out there for others to criticize.
Especially if it's a personal form of art like many of Dylan's songs.
And I don't do my music for any commercial reasons - I have made just
about nothing off my music. But I do it anyway. I do it because I do
it. For the art's sake. For sanity's sake. And I suspect that if
Bobby Zimmerman had never gone to New York and become a professional
musician, he'd be plinking away at a guitar in Minneapolis doing open
mic nights from time to time. Artists do that just because artists do
that - even if their art sucks and they don't make any money from it.
Again, though, I don't mean to put down Julius - he's entitled to his
own opinions. And I'm entitled to my opinions about his opinions. I
even agree with some of his opinions - I would have LOVED to see NDH
be 6 hours long, or even longer. It's just that I understand that I
didn't make the movie, and those who did made their artisitc decisions
for their own reasons, and it's not "productive" to sit around and
whine about how you didn't like some of those decisions.
And I decidedly DISagree with Julius' contention that the public has a
right to demand ANYthing of an artist. Request, maybe. Demand... no.
(especially Dylan)
Now excuse me, I need to go suck my glasses...
mcis...@umich.edu
Julius wrote:
> "Wilber seems a pretty intelligent guy to me. I was agreeing with just
>
> about everything he said."
>
> I can extrapolate from that statement that your criteria for
> intelligence depends on whether or not you agree with someone.
Well, actually, he presented some well reasoned comments to try to
explain to you that your cynical whining was not actually criticism and
the film really needed to be put into context. When something is being
created, there are necessary boundaries that need to be taken into
consideration. Everything cannot be included. I happen to agree with
him. His intelligence and my agreement with him are two different
things.
>
> Perhaps I should ask you the same question that Wilbur dodged ... are
> you of the thinking that your beloved celebrity icons and books, films,
> etc, about them are exempt from harsh commentary from critics?
My 'beloved celebrity icons'? You know absolutely nothing about me and
so far you've accused me of being a dilittante and someone who panders
after celebrities. You've also accused Wilber of exactly this.
Interesting.
Temporary Like Achilles
year batches, have to stretch that time span some.
Maybe it could be done in 7-year batches. Think of the titles: "Bob
Dylan's Lustre 1" and so on. Is the American-English spelling "luster"?
Even better: "Lusters Of Dylan" "Lusters After Dylan"
:-)
Temporary
Julius
ONLY because I have a desire to create. I'm certainly not doing so with
the expectation of making money.
Did you know that a mural depicting religious iconery was created in
Africa using ELEPHANT DUNG and displayed in the Brooklyn Museum a few
years back? There is an example of bodily excretions being used and I'm
sure you have no problem with that.
The point is that I am assaulting the prevailing romantic notion of
what artists are "supposed to be." Your reaction is sounding rather
staid and conservative, not at all what I would expect a true artist to
sound like.
Julius
"When something is being
created, there are necessary boundaries that need to be taken into
consideration."
When during the evolution of western art was that edict ever handed
down and expected to be treated as gospel?
mcis...@umich.edu
Wilbur Slice wrote:
> >I have to say, you don't know the first thing about being an artist and
> >why artists make art.
>
> I get that feeling about Julius as well. The worst critics are
> usually the ones who can't create their own art. And that's what kind
> of galls me about some of this criticism - if you think you can do
> better, fine - go do it. But if you can't, then sitting around
> finding fault with true artists seems a tad, well, hollow.
Yeah, even the artists I know who work as critics to make money say
that critics are often the people who can't make the art...
>
> I am an artist, though - I do my own creating. I write songs and
> record them and publish them myself. And I think doing that gives you
> a HUGE appreciation of any other artist - even those whose work you
> don't care for. It's hard to create art, and it takes a lot of guts
> (or a lot of stupidity) to put it out there for others to criticize.
> Especially if it's a personal form of art like many of Dylan's songs.
> And I don't do my music for any commercial reasons - I have made just
> about nothing off my music.
I vary between making work for sale and just making it because if I
don't I start going a bit nuts. I've tried to commercialize, but it's
like taking a dagger and driving it slowly into my heart. Right now
I'm building up a portfolio for gallery work and working on
Bauhaus/American Craft Movement/Native Crafts inspired fiber arts. I'm
considering going back to school. That's been postponed to try to get
the fiber arts going. I don't sleep at much as I should. I'm just
sick of having to make money with a boring job. I turned against
galleries when it was clear that I'd have to kiss ass more than I
though sanitary, but I'm rethinking that. Dylan's actually been a
major inspiration for me lately. I'm actually studying his approach.
> But I do it anyway. I do it because I do
> it. For the art's sake. For sanity's sake.
That is the most often stated reason for making art that I hear from
other artists. The sanity bit, included. Other people watch TV, I
guess...
> And I suspect that if
> Bobby Zimmerman had never gone to New York and become a professional
> musician, he'd be plinking away at a guitar in Minneapolis doing open
> mic nights from time to time. Artists do that just because artists do
> that - even if their art sucks and they don't make any money from it.
Exactly...
>
>
> Again, though, I don't mean to put down Julius - he's entitled to his
> own opinions. And I'm entitled to my opinions about his opinions. I
> even agree with some of his opinions - I would have LOVED to see NDH
> be 6 hours long, or even longer. It's just that I understand that I
> didn't make the movie, and those who did made their artisitc decisions
> for their own reasons, and it's not "productive" to sit around and
> whine about how you didn't like some of those decisions.
>
> And I decidedly DISagree with Julius' contention that the public has a
> right to demand ANYthing of an artist. Request, maybe. Demand... no.
> (especially Dylan)
Not to mention the futility of it.
>
> Now excuse me, I need to go suck my glasses...
Yup.
Julius
have had a problem.
However, as a consumer, I have a right to demand anything. I may not
get what I demand, but it is my right a paying consumer to try and get
what I demand. If my demands fall short, then I have a right to
complain about the product(s) or service(s) I did not recieve. The
product (the PBS show on Dylan) did not meet my demands so I am
complaining about it. I have a right to complain because my tax dollars
(and yours) went into the funding of that show.
Although now, our friend from the University of Michigan is exhibiting
some contradictions of what is and what is not art by HER definition.
Julius
usually the ones who can't create their own art."
That's rubbish and a myth created by people who don't have the will to
stridently confront and expose all that is substandard and mediocre in
the world, no matter what or where it is or who's doing it.
If I criticize politicians for their work I shouldn't complain but
instead become a politician myself? If I criticize the construction of
my home, I shouldn't complain and become a carpenter myself?
Mr Jinx
Mr Jinx
Julius
being a carpenter.
Mr Jinx
He had the patience of a saint, that man.
The mediocrity of the world might be necessary. I don't think I'd want
a world where everything was perfect. I like dog-eared books and
things that don't quite tie-up perfectly. I'm a Bob Dylan fan.
Mr Jinx
mcis...@umich.edu
It's part of reality. What kind of art do you create?
Julius
your personal principles of what constitutes artistic expression to all
instances. It's an all or nothing proposition. I believe your
definition is borne out of an idealized notion of what it should be,
based on what you were taught in school, perhaps.
If you REALLY want to emulate Dylan, you'd forget about school
entirely. School is really a waste of time.
see? I have no artistic pretensions and I know that already. It comes
from living life, not studying it in a classroom.
mcis...@umich.edu
Julius wrote:
> How so? BY YOUR DEFINITION, I am mounting those snot-filled kleenexes
> ONLY because I have a desire to create. I'm certainly not doing so with
> the expectation of making money.
You certainly can do it, but I don't have to respect you for using this
as an example.
>
> Did you know that a mural depicting religious iconery
Iconery?
> was created in
> Africa using ELEPHANT DUNG and displayed in the Brooklyn Museum a few
> years back? There is an example of bodily excretions being used and I'm
> sure you have no problem with that.
Yes, and that is a traditional material, like cow dung is used in India
to build various things.
>
> The point is that I am assaulting the prevailing romantic notion of
> what artists are "supposed to be." Your reaction is sounding rather
> staid and conservative, not at all what I would expect a true artist to
> sound like.
Assaulting the prevailing notion of what artists are "supposed to be"?
So far all you've done is make some cynical statements and assumptions.
Is it at all possible that you notion of a 'true artist' is one of
those assumptions?
mcis...@umich.edu
Julius wrote:
> You can't call yourself a true artist unless you can consistently apply
> your personal principles of what constitutes artistic expression to all
> instances.
You're assuming that I don't.
> It's an all or nothing proposition. I believe your
> definition is borne out of an idealized notion of what it should be,
> based on what you were taught in school, perhaps.
You're misinterpreting what I said.
>
> If you REALLY want to emulate Dylan, you'd forget about school
> entirely. School is really a waste of time.
I was going to go to school to become a Religious Historian. I'm not
tryng to imitate Dylan. I'm not the same person as Dylan, nor do I
want to be like Dylan. What I'm gaining from him is a sense of
self-trust and determination to follow through with my goals regardless
of obstacles.
>
> see? I have no artistic pretensions and I know that already.
But you've based all of that on a mininterpretation and on assumption.
I don't think you really understand, but so what...
> It comes
> from living life, not studying it in a classroom.
Oh, thanks for that!
Julius
tell that to an abstract expressionist, or a dadaist, or a surrealist.
You sound more like a practictioner of art than a true artist, because
you seem to be hung up over rules and established pre-defined criteria.
Being an artist is not just about being a conduit of product, its about
abandoning all rules and convention and defying societal norms.
"What kind of art do you create?"
You ask the wrong questions.
Pilgrim
--------
"It's part of reality."
tell that to an abstract expressionist, or a dadaist, or a surrealist.
---------
Well, as abstract expressionist would be limited by the colors she/he
chose, the size of the canvas, or whatever surface they were using, and by
the limitations of any other material. There would be the limitations
caused by choices to use lines, color fields, texture, etc..
Are there still Dadaists?
Surrealists are limited in similar ways that the A.E. would be limited by,
but they also make use of coherent subject matter, which, while taking it
out of 'the realist norm' would still retain recognizable forms.
----------------
"You sound more like a practictioner of art than a true artist, because
you seem to be hung up over rules and established pre-defined criteria.
Being an artist is not just about being a conduit of product, its about
abandoning all rules and convention and defying societal norms."
__________
Man, when you pull out the cliches, you really pull them out. This isn't
some romantic notion of what a 'true artist' is, is it?
--------
"What kind of art do you create?"
You ask the wrong questions.
-------
I wasn't expecting an answer. What I got was another attempt from you to
sound really cool and smart.
Julius
I'm not assuming anything incorrectly. Your own words indict you.
" "It's an inner drive to create."
You wrote that.
I made the claim, based on your own defintion of art, that affixing
soiled kleenexes to mounted parchment is the product of my inner drive
to create.
I gave you an example of personal artistic expression and you pissed
on it, because it didn't fit your personal criteria of what constitutes
art (a clear violation of artistic principle-- true artists don't make
such value judgments)
You put forth these theories of what artists and artistic expression
are supposed to represent, yet to seem to not be able to embody them in
your own life.
"I'm not
tryng to imitate Dylan. I'm not the same person as Dylan, nor do I
want to be like Dylan."
Yet you claim to have been inspired a lot by him lately. Again, you
seem to want to play it very safe from the center. You'll cop whatever
you can from the Dylan example but you don't, again, want to commit
entirely. What did I say elsewhere about art being an all or nothing
proposition?
You'll never truly be the artist you wish you could be. You'll always
be the practitioner, the good worker bee cranking out product with no
expectation of immortality or achieved greatness.
I think you are enamored with the notion of calling yourself an
artist, but you can't fully commit to truly be one in every sense of
the word.
That's why I also suggested that you were like a dilettante. You
haven't said anything to compel me to abandon that contention.
Julius
India
to build various things."
Vey interesting, so now the intrinsic value of the material used to
create artistic works must be based on tradition.
"but I don't have to respect you for using this
as an example."
You certainly don't, because I'm not citing this example to earn your
respect, far from it. I'm citing it to illustrate the hypocrisy of your
views on what it means to be an artist and what constitutes artistic
expression.
"So far all you've done is make some cynical statements and
assumptions."
Couldn't the very same be said of you?
You wrote:
"You
clearly don't know much about it. "
I learned long ago to beware of people that have to trot out their
resumes and list of accomplishments to gain credibility.
Pilgrim
Julius wrote:
> "You're assuming that I don't. "
>
> I'm not assuming anything incorrectly. Your own words indict you.
>
> " "It's an inner drive to create."
>
> You wrote that.
>
> I made the claim, based on your own defintion of art, that affixing
> soiled kleenexes to mounted parchment is the product of my inner drive
> to create.
I never gave you my definition of 'art'. That's a tall order! I
explained why artists create. If somehow you extrapolate a definition
from that, mazal tov, but it has nothing to do with what I said.
It was a fairly simple way of explaining it, I admit, but at this point,
the conversation has deteriorated to a very strange head trip which tells
me that you're really only interested in your own opinion and verbally
manhandling the conversation, which is fun to play with, but it's starting
to get old.
> I gave you an example of personal artistic expression and you pissed
> on it, because it didn't fit your personal criteria of what constitutes
> art (a clear violation of artistic principle-- true artists don't make
> such value judgments)
So now there are rules! Well, Julius, I guess I'm just being a radical.
>
> You put forth these theories of what artists and artistic expression
> are supposed to represent, yet to seem to not be able to embody them in
> your own life.
I've put forth theories, hunh? Damn I'm good. I'm making up theories and
not even knowing it!
>
> "I'm not
> tryng to imitate Dylan. I'm not the same person as Dylan, nor do I
> want to be like Dylan."
>
> Yet you claim to have been inspired a lot by him lately. Again, you
> seem to want to play it very safe from the center. You'll cop whatever
> you can from the Dylan example but you don't, again, want to commit
> entirely.
What are you saying? I would be a true artist if I imitated Dylan?
Honestly, I have been inspired by Dylan lately, but somehow it's just not
fitting into your particular conception of how I'm supposed to manifest
that inspiration. I sure do feel bad about that, Julius, but there's not
much I can do about it.
> What did I say elsewhere about art being an all or nothing
> proposition?
I forgot already.
>
> You'll never truly be the artist you wish you could be.
I am already, it's just that I now want to sell my work and not have to do
a day job. This of course, includes the fact that I'll still be evolving
within my work.
> You'll always
> be the practitioner, the good worker bee cranking out product with no
> expectation of immortality or achieved greatness.
You're not on some kind of ego trip, are you? Does this make you feel
better about yourself to say things like this to people you don't know? I
mean, it kind of sounds like a bad father trip.
>
> I think you are enamored with the notion of calling yourself an
> artist, but you can't fully commit to truly be one in every sense of
> the word.
Do I have to use your definition?
>
> That's why I also suggested that you were like a dilettante. You
> haven't said anything to compel me to abandon that contention.
Um, that might be because you have a very romantic idea of what artists
are.
Julius
the limits would be self-imposed, not by any outside authority or
pre-established criteria.
"but they also make use of coherent subject matter"
haven't studied much max ernst, have you?
" Man, when you pull out the cliches, you really pull them out. This
isn't
some romantic notion of what a 'true artist' is, is it?"
I defy you to interpret the true definition differently. Go ahead,
try. Name one artistic genius that followed the established rules and
conventions set forth by others working in their craft.
Pilgrim
Well, you see, Julius, I don't think there is a true definition of
'artist' or 'art'. I just think yours is one of the latest - and one of
the more romantic, quite frankly. Each time period, and really, each
artist, establishes it's/their own definition - and often unconsciously,
in response to what is necessary at that time period and for that person.
Generally, the more perceptive the artist, the more likely they are to
anticipate the needs of the near future. This may appear to be 'breaking
all the rules', but only in the view of the people who are unable to 'see'
or anticipate the future that artist is intuiting.
Wilbur Slice
>If I take all my soiled snot-filled kleenexes and arranged them
>geometrically on parchment and put a frame around it and hang it on the
>wall, would I then be, by your defintion, and artist, since I was
>motivated to create?
What color would these kleenexes be? And would they be the kind from
the long boxes, of the vertical-format pop-up boxes? And what color
would the snot be?
Wilbur Slice
>How so? BY YOUR DEFINITION, I am mounting those snot-filled kleenexes
>ONLY because I have a desire to create. I'm certainly not doing so with
>the expectation of making money.
>
>Did you know that a mural depicting religious iconery was created in
>Africa using ELEPHANT DUNG and displayed in the Brooklyn Museum a few
>years back? There is an example of bodily excretions being used and I'm
>sure you have no problem with that.
Elephant dung has indeed been used in African art for thousands of
years - it was an honorable and sacred reference made by an indigenous
African artist (named Chris Ofili, IIRC). That you don't understand
the significance and the meaning of this traditional African
experession does not detract at all from the art work, and it says a
lot about you.
Pilgrim
He might also have to consider how he was mounting these snotrags. What
kind of adhesive will he use, how will that effect the shape of the
kleenex, will it have a chemical reaction with the tissue? Another issue,
connected to the possible chemical reaction of the adhesive, and perhaps
more important, is the rate of deterioration of the tissue naturally.
Tissues are not archival quality (whereas the parchment may be). Will
this become part of the piece or should steps be taken to preserve the
tissue from acidification and the rather quick destruction of it's fibers.
If the deterioration is to be part of the piece, then should it be
documented, and how? I'm not sure what snot does to kleenex, over the
long term, as I usually throw them out soon after use, but it strikes me
as leaning more towards a contributing factor to the tissues somewhat
quick journey into becoming lint and dust.
Julius
artist, establishes it's/their own definition "
Nonsense. Universal constants in human behavior have been in place for
centuries. Artists will always be of the same basic mindset. They'll
never change, but don't confuse behavior with rules put in place by
authoritative bodies. Those will most certainly change These
'definitions' you speak of are relatively peripheral and do not
significantly effect behavior over time.
"I just think yours is one of the latest - and one of
the more romantic, quite frankly."
More nonsense. I abhor nostalgia. There are no better times than the
present.
Temporary Like Achilles
Absolutely -- my mother always warned me against that kind of thing.
:-)
Temporary
Julius
Nasal discharge has been excreted by animals for hundreds of millions
of years of years. It can be tested for a variety of viruses that cause
respiratory ailments.
Obviously, you fail to understand its significance as well, preferring
to adhere to established traditions, no matter how primitive, as long
as it supports your shaky thesis.
Wilbur Slice
>You can't call yourself a true artist unless you can consistently apply
>your personal principles of what constitutes artistic expression to all
>instances. It's an all or nothing proposition.
What? ROTFL!! Well, Julius, you have now officially become a Waste
of Time.
>I believe your
>definition is borne out of an idealized notion of what it should be,
>based on what you were taught in school, perhaps.
>
>If you REALLY want to emulate Dylan, you'd forget about school
>entirely. School is really a waste of time.
Takes one to know one, eh? Actually, if he wanted to emulate Dylan
he'd join a Jewish fraternity, go to college for a semester but never
go to class and thendrop out.
Pilgrim
> "Each time period, and really, each
> artist, establishes it's/their own definition "
>
> Nonsense. Universal constants in human behavior have been in place for
> centuries. Artists will always be of the same basic mindset.
So, maybe you should define them. I'll do the art, you do the defining.
I'll be sure to forget what your definition is. Take is as a compliment.
> They'll
> never change, but don't confuse behavior with rules put in place by
> authoritative bodies.
Okee dokee.
> Those will most certainly change These
> 'definitions' you speak of are relatively peripheral and do not
> significantly effect behavior over time.
Yup.
>
> "I just think yours is one of the latest - and one of
> the more romantic, quite frankly."
>
> More nonsense. I abhor nostalgia. There are no better times than the
> present.
OK man. It's all nostalgia.
Hey, what color of underwear do you have on? Mine are white today. I
know, kind of boring...
Marston Moor
"If I take all my soiled snot-filled kleenexes and arranged them
geometrically on parchment and put a frame around it and hang it on the
wall, would I then be, by your defintion, andy's artist, since I was
motivated to create?"
I'D BUY THAT! DO YOU ACCEPT PAYPAL, PAL? I NEED A COVER FOR MY NEXT
ALBUM, BUM...
·.·´¨ ¨)) -:|:-
¸.·´ .·´¨¨))
R. Stevie Moore
((¸¸.·´ ..·´
-:|:- ((¸¸ ·.·
Wilbur Slice
>"Wilber seems a pretty intelligent guy to me. I was agreeing with just
>
>about everything he said."
>
>I can extrapolate from that statement that your criteria for
>intelligence depends on whether or not you agree with someone.
>
>Perhaps I should ask you the same question that Wilbur dodged ... are
>you of the thinking that your beloved celebrity icons and books, films,
>etc, about them are exempt from harsh commentary from critics?
Actually, Julius, I didn't dodge the question at all. In fact, I
said: "Not even remotely close." I don't know how much more direct I
could be.
I was cutting you a lot of slack, giving you a huge benefit of the
doubt, but you're really getting tiresome and combative.
Pilgrim
Yeah, I hear that Wilbur writes all his songs with elephant dung.
Traditional forms are frowned upon by real artists.
Wilber, stop doing that, don't you want to be a true artist?
mcis...@umich.edu
Regard how I've broken the spelling rule of Wilbur's name. True
artists are radical breakers of rules.
Wilbur Slice
wrote:
>
>Julius wrote:
>> You missed the point entirely, Wilbur.
>>
>> Nasal discharge has been excreted by animals for hundreds of millions
>> of years of years. It can be tested for a variety of viruses that cause
>> respiratory ailments.
>>
>> Obviously, you fail to understand its significance as well, preferring
>> to adhere to established traditions, no matter how primitive, as long
>> as it supports your shaky thesis.
>
>Yeah, I hear that Wilbur writes all his songs with elephant dung.
I do. But I'm fascinated by this animal snot thing. Perhaps I'll try
writing a love song in dog snot.
>
>Traditional forms are frowned upon by real artists.
>
>Wilber, stop doing that, don't you want to be a true artist?
Just goes to show that an artist CAN learn something even from a
critic like Julius.
Wilbur Slice
wrote:
>Oranj Julius spake:
>
>"If I take all my soiled snot-filled kleenexes and arranged them
>geometrically on parchment and put a frame around it and hang it on the
>wall, would I then be, by your defintion, andy's artist, since I was
>motivated to create?"
>
>I'D BUY THAT! DO YOU ACCEPT PAYPAL, PAL? I NEED A COVER FOR MY NEXT
>ALBUM, BUM...
>
Speaking of which... <sniff><sniff> I smell snot... <sniff><sniff>
Does anybody else smell snot?
mcis...@umich.edu
...and yet another consideration is brought up. Thanks Temporary.
Mounting position, very important, and a subject that may involve
controversy with religious authorities and, here in the States, certain
Republican politicians. I'd go with the most controversial, maybe with
some very young kleenexes while wearing priestly garb. This is good
example of the necessity of documentation while creating the art. Art
is the process.
Wilbur Slice
Yer a wild man! Wild!!
Julius
>
> Hey, what color of underwear do you have on? Mine are white today. I
> know, kind of boring...
One takes a grave risk trying to make sense to the college student
mentality.
J Buck
As Lone wrote earlier in this thread, 'this has degenerated nicely'
Lmao
Julius
place, to expose the fraudulent nature of the little college student
from Michigan's claim that art must have boundaries.
They can accept elephant dung over nasal discharge as an art supply
because some pygmies in Africa did it first. So that makes this art
legitimate, someone has to have done it first Wow. So the now the world
of art must turn only on established precedent, according to them.
There can't be innovation. We must conform, conform, conform, right?
Some art is more legitimate than others based on his/her narrow
criteria.
Elephant dung IN, boogers OUT, right?
Dylan would be ashamed to have you as a fan.
The college student from Michigan seems very confused and unsure of
their craft. First they want to be inspired by Dylan and then they
don't. Then they suggest that art should have boundaries then they
don't. This is always the problem when your primary life experience is
only what you've learned in a classroom.
Julius
Excuse me Wilbur, let's not forget who initiated the combat--YOU and
your remarks about my "whining" as if every one of your posts and rants
are like spun gold cloth. What a load of self-pretension! But this
always seems to be the case with certain newsgroup regulars, as they
cultivate a little fiefdom where their opinions about the newsgroup's
primary topic reign supreme.
You did dodge my question because you never answered it. You're
twisiting away from the issue because you couldn't refute my contention
that you worship Bob Dylan too much to allow a certain level of
criticism of him to pass in this newsgroup.
Julius
is this another Superhuman Crew ploy? Make fun of someone's name?
J Buck
<The college student from Michigan seems very confused and unsure of
their craft.>
Why are you picking on Lone? Sheesh, don't be a dick.
Julius
of Time. "
in your feeble estimation, sure. Perhaps you need to hear more
viewpoints that counter your own tender preconceptions about the
creative process, as if it's akin to splitting the atom, according to
you and the other dilettantes here.
But since I don't sit at home spending time composing and recording
music that will never be sold, I am not qualified to even utter the
word 'artist' in your presence, right?
It's either that or first being a celebrity pop icon to qualify, right?
It's no wonder that many so-called artists aren't taken seriously. They
maintain very inflated views of their own self-importance.
Julius
tells
me that ..."
TRANSLATION: "I am not accustomed to being spoken to this way at RMD. I
prefer more breezy inconsequential blather with an occasional bon mot
thrown in to keep things on the light side for me. I am not interested
in strident discussion with anyone who is competitive and dogmatic. I
don't want to debate philosophical subjects or be intellectually
challenged because that would require me to truly think and use my
brain for something more than a repository for random images and
sounds."
Julius
his/her posts today?
How am I to respond to a comment of:
"you don't know the first thing about being an artist and
why artists make art." ?
That's throwing down the gauntlet where I come from.
Wilbur Slice
Okay, Jules. Whatever you say.
Somebody sure got up cranky today, huh?
J Buck
<I'M being a dick?>
No, but you're on the verge. Brush up on your reading comprehension. I
didn't say, "you're being a dick." I said, "don't be a dick." Guess I
should've said 'please'.
<How am I to respond to a comment of:
"you don't know the first thing about being an artist and why artists
make art." ?>
After reading some of what you posted today, I'd say it's a fair
question.
<That's throwing down the gauntlet where I come from>
Well, you _could_ go back there. Since you mentioned gauntlet, consider
this...I don't know how other newsgroups work, and I could be wrong, but
I get the sense here that one has to earn one's stripes before taking an
arrogant tone. Not that there's anything wrong with that...ya just gotta
pay some dues :)
Welcome to rmd.
Julius
critic like Julius."
Which artist? Where? There aren't any here that I can tell. I note some
dilettantes, but that's it.
Julius
an
arrogant tone."
If true, I say "bullshit" to that. I don't have to earn any stripes or
gain anyone's approval. This is America, so I don't have to earn
stripes to do anything unless I'm enlisted in the armed forces.
And for the record, I was attacked first, so I had to respond in kind.
"Welcome to rmd."
Thank you, but some of your compatriots here need to stop asserting
themselves as the arbiters of what can and what can't be said about Bob
Dylan or the products documenting his work. It's offensive, quite
honestly, and anyone that tries that bullshit on me will get it back in
spades. They don't own this bandwidth or this newsgroup, so they can
go fuck themselves if they think they can dictate the tone of the
comments or the attitude expressed about Bob Dylan.
"Not that there's anything wrong with that...ya just gotta
pay some dues :)"
No, you don't. This is the internet, not a street gang or a secret
society. The internet is free and relatively unregulated. Any attempts
to regulate will be met with defiance from me. I pay my ISP fee each
month so that pretty much gives me the license to do or say fuck-all if
I wish short of breaking the law.
Welcome to MY world.