[RFD] Proposal to remove us.arts
Henrietta K. Thomas
active file for lack of meaningful traffic.
us.arts was originally created in 1992, rmgrouped in 1994, and
reinstated in the Fall of 1997 even though traffic was pretty low.
A charter was drawn up in February 1999 to have the group focus
on classical aspects of the fine and performing arts in the United
States. Several attempts to generate traffic failed, and the group
has mostly become a place to announce exhibits and web pages
for classical arts worldwide. After discussion in us.config, it was
suggested that the group be removed from the active file for lack
of meaningful traffic.
Procedure:
This proposal will remain on the table for 7 days, until Wednesday,
June 30, 1999, at which time it will be re-posted for another 7 days.
If at the end of 14 days, there are no serious objections, the group
will be removed.
Proponent:
Henrietta K. Thomas
us.* hierarchy coordinator
usa...@wwa.com
Henry Fung
>us.arts was originally created in 1992, rmgrouped in 1994, and
>reinstated in the Fall of 1997 even though traffic was pretty low.
>A charter was drawn up in February 1999 to have the group focus
>on classical aspects of the fine and performing arts in the United
>States. Several attempts to generate traffic failed, and the group
>has mostly become a place to announce exhibits and web pages
>for classical arts worldwide. After discussion in us.config, it was
>suggested that the group be removed from the active file for lack
>of meaningful traffic.
>
So announcing exhibits and web pages isn't meaningful traffic?
Huh?
(It's on topic, after all.)
Find a better reason.
I express my objection.
Henrietta K. Thomas
Fung) wrote:
Not really. Most are advertising sites and artists in the Netherlands,
rather than the United States. We are looking for some meaningful
traffic regarding US fine and performing arts.
>Find a better reason.
The only other reason is low traffic of only one or two articles a day.
>I express my objection.
Objection noted. Thank you very much.
Henrietta
Henrietta K. Thomas
In us.config, on 25 Jun 1999 01:14:38 GMT, hf...@smtp.as.csupomona.edu (Henry
Fung) wrote:
>In article <37723f8...@il.news.verio.net>, usa...@wwa.com (Henrietta K. Thomas) writes:
>>us.arts was originally created in 1992, rmgrouped in 1994, and
>>reinstated in the Fall of 1997 even though traffic was pretty low.
>>A charter was drawn up in February 1999 to have the group focus
>>on classical aspects of the fine and performing arts in the United
>>States. Several attempts to generate traffic failed, and the group
>>has mostly become a place to announce exhibits and web pages
>>for classical arts worldwide. After discussion in us.config, it was
>>suggested that the group be removed from the active file for lack
>>of meaningful traffic.
>>
>
>So announcing exhibits and web pages isn't meaningful traffic?
>Huh?
>(It's on topic, after all.)
But as I said before, most of it is nothing more than posting URLs
of websites for non-American artists. And I don't think posting URLs
is very meaningful. Nevertheless, you *do* have a point, and I'd like
to know what you think of the following idea:
What if we change the name to us.arts.announce, and write a new
charter to say specifically that we want certain types of announcements
about US arts and artists? A good example of an announcement for
a US artist's web site was just posted today -- see Subject: NEW WORKS -
Joanne Miller Rafferty. If we could get more announcements like this about
US art and artists, I'd be quite satisfied.
Other things can be announced in this new group:
Real world exhibits of US artists' work, including national tours.
New books featuring the work of US fine artists, past and present.
Auditions for plays and musicals in major US cities.
National tours for plays, musicals, and major US performing artists.
Creative writing and poetry competitions in the USA.
Grants offered by the National Endowment for the Arts and similar
organizations.
Do you think this would be a good idea? Can you add any more
to the list? And would you be willing to help promote the group by
browsing the web looking for good prospects to post announcements
here? If so, I'd be willing to work with you, and maybe we can make
this group a little more meaningful.
Please post your response online so that others can see, and maybe
they will have some ideas as well.
Henrietta K. Thomas
us.* hierarchy coordinator
usa...@wwa.com
Jim Kingdon
> charter to say specifically that we want certain types of
> announcements about US arts and artists?
Hmm, not sure that kind of thing has been tried (in my recollection)
without moderation.
I'm not sure I see enough demand (a few posts here and there which fit
the above description do not a newsgroup make, or so it seems to me).
Joe Bernstein
Jim Kingdon <kin...@panix7.panix.com> wrote, quoting Henrietta Thomas:
> > What if we change the name to us.arts.announce, and write a new
> > charter to say specifically that we want certain types of
> > announcements about US arts and artists?
>
> Hmm, not sure that kind of thing has been tried (in my recollection)
> without moderation.
Sure it has, albeit perhaps not in your recollection. I remember
net.general, the unmoderated precursor to what is now
news.announce.important; and in fact the reason I remember it is that
when an early version of a Serdar-Argic-precursor-to-spam posted a
20K rant there, I was foolish enough to object by posting rather than
by e-mail, resulting in my one and only e-mail chastisement from an
early net.god.
In other words, it didn't work. When Usenet was *much* smaller and
more courteous netiquette-wise than it is today. So I have profound
doubts, but as with most things with us.*, am willing to try it.
I do concur that having anyone vaguely resembling a host for us.arts,
to try to attract traffic and maybe stimulate discussion, would
probably help.
> I'm not sure I see enough demand (a few posts here and there which fit
> the above description do not a newsgroup make, or so it seems to me).
And here is where I think there's a more important consideration. Other
than geography, what makes a US artist?
There *are* areas where "American" is clearly meaningful. There are
specific literary traditions which are unequivocally American, or so
I *think* (science fiction, however, is often said to be one, and is
the only one I know well, and *that* say-ing is *wrong*)... There are
specific musical traditions which are certainly American, although
what is most characteristic of American music is instead its consistent
acquisitiveness and hybridisation, and although anyway we now seem to
be headed (as I'd hoped) for a separate us.music.*. I'm more ignorant
of the fine arts, but have the *impression* that "American art" usually
means, until the 2nd World War or thereabouts, "We're going to talk
about American artists now because people who talk about 'art' in
general never do" (although the WPA points to something different),
and after the 2nd World War, "Look at us! We're a thriving and
creative empire!" Dance: well. George Balanchine and Martha Graham
at least *hint* that there's something we can genuinely claim there...
Architecture: Um. Chicago's got a lot to brag about, and we're
certainly good at neo-classicism, but is there an *American*
architecture? Was Wright specific to this country?
My point is that I'm not sure what the use of the group is. What makes
an artist relevant to the US, rather than a local area or the whole
world? Here, I think, the answer is unequivocally geography; it's
putatively easier to travel within the country than outside it, at
least for most residents of the area east of the Rockies (but Texans,
Californians, Michiganders, Washingtonians, etc. might have different
opinions, as might frequent flyers...). This would argue in favour of
treating a us.arts.announce as essentially a group to post things in for
travellers' attention, and would imply that the group would be best
publicised on the travel newsgroups; which is, I submit, a rather bizarre
idea for an arts group, though not necessarily for that reason bad.
Well, this is probably enough flamebait. I will be considerably
reassured about the future of *anything* about the arts in us.*
if someone does in fact flame this intelligently.
Joe Bernstein
j...@sfbooks.com jos...@tezcat.com addresses in flux
Henry Fung
>
> But as I said before, most of it is nothing more than posting URLs
> of websites for non-American artists. And I don't think posting URLs
> is very meaningful. Nevertheless, you *do* have a point, and I'd like
> to know what you think of the following idea:
>
> charter to say specifically that we want certain types of announcements
> a US artist's web site was just posted today -- see Subject: NEW WORKS -
> Joanne Miller Rafferty. If we could get more announcements like this about
> US art and artists, I'd be quite satisfied.
>
Good idea.
Things I like about this proposal:
1. It keeps us.arts as a top-level hierarchy, available for use should
there be demand. The issue can then be brought up in, say, a year or so,
if there seems to be demand there. Currently, the demand seems to be
handled decently through other newsgroups in the Big Eight.
2. Also, I think this may head off future debates about "what is art" by
leaving it to announcements, and then sublevel groups as appropriate.
> Other things can be announced in this new group:
>
> Real world exhibits of US artists' work, including national tours.
> New books featuring the work of US fine artists, past and present.
> Auditions for plays and musicals in major US cities.
> National tours for plays, musicals, and major US performing artists.
> Creative writing and poetry competitions in the USA.
> Grants offered by the National Endowment for the Arts and similar
> organizations.
>
> Do you think this would be a good idea? Can you add any more
> to the list? And would you be willing to help promote the group by
> browsing the web looking for good prospects to post announcements
> here? If so, I'd be willing to work with you, and maybe we can make
> this group a little more meaningful.
>
I could moderate this group. My online postings tend to be in the areas of
transportation (my expertise), but I do lurk in some of the other art
groups. This would be visual arts, right?
---oo00o----oo00o---//////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\-----------------
Hank Fung hf...@csupomona.edu
"Commentary for the way we live" (tm)
http://www.cyberspace.org/~fungster Cal Poly Pomona, USA
Darlene Sue Marquardt
I'd like the newsgroup to stay.. I am not extra interested in the posting
of ads for artists.. but I am not opposed either.. and there are some
interesting other things "art" related sometimes.. I just would like the
group to stay.
there ... my 2 cents
__
/ ) _ _ / _ _ /|/| _ _ _ _ _ / _/
/(_/ (/ / ( (- /) (- / | (/ / (/ (/ (/ / (/ /
/_
On Tue, 29 Jun 1999, Henrietta K. Thomas wrote:
> Date: Tue, 29 Jun 1999 06:11:20 GMT
> From: "Henrietta K. Thomas" <usa...@wwa.com>
> Newsgroups: us.config, us.arts
> Subject: Re: [RFD] Proposal to remove us.arts
>
> [posted and mailed]
>
>
> In us.config, on 25 Jun 1999 01:14:38 GMT, hf...@smtp.as.csupomona.edu (Henry
> Fung) wrote:
>
> >In article <37723f8...@il.news.verio.net>, usa...@wwa.com (Henrietta K. Thomas) writes:
> >>us.arts was originally created in 1992, rmgrouped in 1994, and
> >>reinstated in the Fall of 1997 even though traffic was pretty low.
> >>A charter was drawn up in February 1999 to have the group focus
> >>on classical aspects of the fine and performing arts in the United
> >>States. Several attempts to generate traffic failed, and the group
> >>has mostly become a place to announce exhibits and web pages
> >>for classical arts worldwide. After discussion in us.config, it was
> >>suggested that the group be removed from the active file for lack
> >>of meaningful traffic.
> >>
> >
> >So announcing exhibits and web pages isn't meaningful traffic?
> >Huh?
> >(It's on topic, after all.)
>
> But as I said before, most of it is nothing more than posting URLs
> of websites for non-American artists. And I don't think posting URLs
> is very meaningful. Nevertheless, you *do* have a point, and I'd like
> to know what you think of the following idea:
>
> What if we change the name to us.arts.announce, and write a new
> charter to say specifically that we want certain types of announcements
> about US arts and artists? A good example of an announcement for
> a US artist's web site was just posted today -- see Subject: NEW WORKS -
> Joanne Miller Rafferty. If we could get more announcements like this about
> US art and artists, I'd be quite satisfied.
>
> Other things can be announced in this new group:
>
> Real world exhibits of US artists' work, including national tours.
> New books featuring the work of US fine artists, past and present.
> Auditions for plays and musicals in major US cities.
> National tours for plays, musicals, and major US performing artists.
> Creative writing and poetry competitions in the USA.
> Grants offered by the National Endowment for the Arts and similar
> organizations.
>
> Do you think this would be a good idea? Can you add any more
> to the list? And would you be willing to help promote the group by
> browsing the web looking for good prospects to post announcements
> here? If so, I'd be willing to work with you, and maybe we can make
> this group a little more meaningful.
>
Henrietta K. Thomas
<hf...@csupomona.edu> wrote:
>On Tue, 29 Jun 1999, Henrietta K. Thomas wrote:
>>
>> But as I said before, most of it is nothing more than posting URLs
>> of websites for non-American artists. And I don't think posting URLs
>> is very meaningful. Nevertheless, you *do* have a point, and I'd like
>> to know what you think of the following idea:
>>
>> What if we change the name to us.arts.announce, and write a new
>> charter to say specifically that we want certain types of announcements
>> about US arts and artists? A good example of an announcement for
>> a US artist's web site was just posted today -- see Subject: NEW WORKS -
>> Joanne Miller Rafferty. If we could get more announcements like this about
>> US art and artists, I'd be quite satisfied.
>>
>
>Good idea.
Glad you think so.
>Things I like about this proposal:
>
>1. It keeps us.arts as a top-level hierarchy, available for use should
>there be demand. The issue can then be brought up in, say, a year or so,
>if there seems to be demand there. Currently, the demand seems to be
>handled decently through other newsgroups in the Big Eight.
Yes, I know, but I hope it won't take a year for someone to want to
create new sub-groups under us.arts.
>2. Also, I think this may head off future debates about "what is art" by
>leaving it to announcements, and then sublevel groups as appropriate.
Yeah, I guess "what is art" is a matter of personal opinion, something
very hard to agree on for newsgroup purposes.
>> Other things can be announced in this new group:
>>
>> Real world exhibits of US artists' work, including national tours.
>> New books featuring the work of US fine artists, past and present.
>> Auditions for plays and musicals in major US cities.
>> National tours for plays, musicals, and major US performing artists.
>> Creative writing and poetry competitions in the USA.
>> Grants offered by the National Endowment for the Arts and similar
>> organizations.
>>
>> Do you think this would be a good idea? Can you add any more
>> to the list? And would you be willing to help promote the group by
>> browsing the web looking for good prospects to post announcements
>> here? If so, I'd be willing to work with you, and maybe we can make
>> this group a little more meaningful.
>>
>
>I could moderate this group. My online postings tend to be in the areas of
>transportation (my expertise), but I do lurk in some of the other art
>groups. This would be visual arts, right?
Plus whatever is described as "art" on the web site for the National
Endowment for the Arts -- both fine and performing arts, and US
literature as well -- if and when there is demand. No comic books,
though -- just the conventional arts.
I would like very much, btw, to have a working definition for "visual
arts".
Check with your school first on the moderation, and if they say OK,
then I think we have a deal.
Thanks for responding,
Henrietta
Joe Bernstein
Henrietta K. Thomas <usa...@wwa.com> wrote:
> Plus whatever is described as "art" on the web site for the National
> Endowment for the Arts -- both fine and performing arts, and US
> literature as well -- if and when there is demand. No comic books,
> though -- just the conventional arts.
>
> I would like very much, btw, to have a working definition for "visual
> arts".
Um. One that excludes comic books?
Seriously, I don't understand why exclusions should be an issue before
the group even exists. We know the existing group has very little
traffic; this implies that the new group would also start out with
very little traffic. Under such circumstances, I should think a
broad mandate would be a Good Thing. (Quite apart from the fact
that American art routinely tends to the outre - Modern Dance,
Abstract Expressionism, and, yes, underground comics, are among
the things that make us famous; and none were accepted instantly
as "conventional", heaven knows, though ironically underground
comics were the *quickest* to gain that acceptance...)
In particular, recalling my previous query about what makes an
artist's work specifically "American", perhaps I was looking at
it wrong. There are books available in the US but not elsewhere,
due to the way the book market works, and I assume the comics
market is the same way. From this point of view, a us.arts.announce
could be a way for people to find out what they're missing...
Still having trouble getting my head around this idea, but hey,
if someone's willing to moderate (and not just host) it, I see
no harm in giving him a try. I will reiterate my belief from
another post which nobody's followed up to, so perhaps it's been
unread for its length: if a us.arts.announce attracts readers at
all, I think it'll be people planning to visit the US (or Americans
planning to vacation widely within the country) and wanting to know
what's going on where for them to see while they're here; this would
imply that the group ought to be advertised on the travel newsgroups.
Joe Bernstein jos...@tezcat.com j...@sfbooks.com
Henrietta K. Thomas
wrote:
>In article <377af649...@il.news.verio.net>,
>Henrietta K. Thomas <usa...@wwa.com> wrote:
>
>> Plus whatever is described as "art" on the web site for the National
>> Endowment for the Arts -- both fine and performing arts, and US
>> literature as well -- if and when there is demand. No comic books,
>> though -- just the conventional arts.
>>
>> I would like very much, btw, to have a working definition for "visual
>> arts".
>
>Um. One that excludes comic books?
One that excludes comic books.
>Seriously, I don't understand why exclusions should be an issue before
>the group even exists. We know the existing group has very little
>traffic; this implies that the new group would also start out with
>very little traffic. Under such circumstances, I should think a
>broad mandate would be a Good Thing. (Quite apart from the fact
>that American art routinely tends to the outre - Modern Dance,
>Abstract Expressionism, and, yes, underground comics, are among
>the things that make us famous; and none were accepted instantly
>as "conventional", heaven knows, though ironically underground
>comics were the *quickest* to gain that acceptance...)
Three points:
1. My very vague understanding of 'visual arts' is that it is some kind of
code phrase for the types of things you see in museums. Mainly paintings
and sculptures. I had some long discussions with a young lady here, and
she gave up trying to explain it to me. So I'm hoping Henry will have better
luck. I need a definition *I* can understand and transmit to others just as
clueless as I am when it comes to 'the arts'.
2. Comic books would come under the general heading of 'illustrations'.
I had a big long argument with (IIRC) the very same young lady as to
whether or not Norman Rockwell should be considered an 'artist'. I
said yes, she said no. We could not agree. End of thread.
3. I want to get a grip on the conventional fine and performing arts,
as defined by the NEA, before I even *try* to deal with anything else.
We have a 200 year history behind us; there is plenty of 'art' to talk
about.
>In particular, recalling my previous query about what makes an
>artist's work specifically "American", perhaps I was looking at
>it wrong. There are books available in the US but not elsewhere,
>due to the way the book market works, and I assume the comics
>market is the same way. From this point of view, a us.arts.announce
>could be a way for people to find out what they're missing...
Let them go to rec.arts.comics; that's where the action is. And I
have no intention of competing with them.
>Still having trouble getting my head around this idea, but hey,
>if someone's willing to moderate (and not just host) it, I see
>no harm in giving him a try. I will reiterate my belief from
>another post which nobody's followed up to, so perhaps it's been
>unread for its length: if a us.arts.announce attracts readers at
>all, I think it'll be people planning to visit the US (or Americans
>planning to vacation widely within the country) and wanting to know
>what's going on where for them to see while they're here; this would
>imply that the group ought to be advertised on the travel newsgroups.
To some extent, perhaps. But I think most readers will be ordinary
people who want to know what's going on with 'the arts' nationwide,
the same people who read the 'arts and entertainment' section of
their local newspapers, plus people involved with 'the arts' as part
of their professional or personal lives. Note that tour announcements
are included in my list. These announcements aren't just for travelers;
stay-at-homes would like to know as well when Barry Manilow will be
coming to their city on tour, or when the Jeoffrey Ballet will be coming
to town.
I don't think you and I are on the same page. :-(
Henrietta
Joe Bernstein
(if only because it establishes that to a considerable extent I'm
repeating myself, so if Ms. Thomas still disagrees, and anyone else
agrees with what I'm saying, it might be worth someone else trying...)
In article <377c5a01...@il.news.verio.net>,
Henrietta K. Thomas <usa...@wwa.com> wrote:
> In us.arts, on 1 Jul 1999 22:10:21 -0500, j...@sfbooks.com (Joe Bernstein)
> wrote:
>
> >In article <377af649...@il.news.verio.net>,
> >Henrietta K. Thomas <usa...@wwa.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Plus whatever is described as "art" on the web site for the National
> >> Endowment for the Arts -- both fine and performing arts, and US
> >> literature as well -- if and when there is demand. No comic books,
> >> though -- just the conventional arts.
> >>
> >> I would like very much, btw, to have a working definition for "visual
> >> arts".
> >
> >Seriously, I don't understand why exclusions should be an issue before
> >the group even exists. We know the existing group has very little
> >traffic; this implies that the new group would also start out with
> >very little traffic. Under such circumstances, I should think a
> >broad mandate would be a Good Thing. (Quite apart from the fact
> >that American art routinely tends to the outre - Modern Dance,
> >Abstract Expressionism, and, yes, underground comics, are among
> >the things that make us famous; and none were accepted instantly
> >as "conventional", heaven knows, though ironically underground
> >comics were the *quickest* to gain that acceptance...)
>
> Three points:
>
> 1. My very vague understanding of 'visual arts' is that it is some kind of
> code phrase for the types of things you see in museums. Mainly paintings
> and sculptures. I had some long discussions with a young lady here, and
> she gave up trying to explain it to me. So I'm hoping Henry will have better
> luck. I need a definition *I* can understand and transmit to others just as
> clueless as I am when it comes to 'the arts'.
This is a good but probably hopeless argument. The core of it, as I
understand it, is that you want a definition you can use in dealing
with people in your role as hierarchy administrator. The biggest
problem with that is that defining the arts is a notoriously long-
runningly difficult problem. Generally when people try, the great
art of the next generation or so is that created in direct contradiction
of the definition.
*But*. Ultimately, if it's a moderated group, it's not going to be much
of an issue. We certainly ought not be in the business of second-guessing
the moderator as to what is an "art". In this regard, my previous post
as well as yours should at most be some kind of indication to him that
he should consider these matters in writing his charter and laying plans
to run the group. And I certainly hope that in the event someone
complains that he rejected a post about a major crackdown on graffiti
in Houston, or that he accepted a post about a basket-weaving business,
your first impulse as hierarchy administrator will *NOT* be to side with
the complainer, and *NOT* even be to say "Then we must clarify the
charter", but be to say "Well, he's the moderator, and art is a fuzzy
concept..." If a perfect charter could be formulated for this kind
of thing, the group could be *moderated* mechanically; the problems are
essentially equivalent.
Anyway, I was unaware that this was going to be visual and performing
arts only. No books then, I gather. (Although as my previous post
noted the book industry in America is considerably more isolated than
some other arts' markets, notably for example architecture!) Then too,
what's a "performing art"? Music, of course, has its own sub-hierarchy,
but what about dance? Theatre? Performance art? (Which is, of course,
*notoriously* funded by the NEA; as are each of these others, even, I
think, including occasional comic books...) My point here is that while
defining "visual arts" may be tough, defining "arts" in general will be
even tougher, which is why rec.arts.* has become the wasteland it is.
It's good that we got rid of the "rec" level. I do think the "arts"
level serves a purpose. But I am made very uneasy by the notion that
the "arts" level should cover only "high culture", leaving "low culture"
at *best* to get stuffed into random niches elsewhere in the hierarchy...
On which more below.
> 2. Comic books would come under the general heading of 'illustrations'.
Um, no. They're two totally different art forms. Many of the same
people do them, but then, many of the same people also do canvases
and murals.
> 3. I want to get a grip on the conventional fine and performing arts,
> as defined by the NEA,
If you want gov.*, you know where to find it.
(No, I *couldn't* resist, but I do find it ironic that you are using
the NEA as a criterion for advancing a significantly more conservative
idea of what "art" is than the NEA itself has. Do remember that the
NEA is unlikely, by and large, to fund arts that are self-supporting.
Jazz became an NEA area to some extent precisely when it stopped having
large audiences; I devoutly hope you aren't going to argue that whether
a given movie is "art" depends on whether it can get an NEA grant. Does
this mean that the musicals of the 30s only became "art" when they were
so decayed that the NEA had to help fund restoration efforts?)
> before I even *try* to deal with anything else.
> We have a 200 year history behind us; there is plenty of 'art' to talk
> about.
This isn't a discussion group being chartered.
> Let them go to rec.arts.comics; that's where the action is. And I
> have no intention of competing with them.
Um. There are science fiction groups in many national hierarchies.
I have no reason to think us.* will ever have one, and I'm not really
sure why the other hierarchies *do* have them, but are you saying
that in this regard us.* should for example defer to rec.arts.sf.*?
I do agree that creating a us.* comics group could be horrible precisely
because rec.arts.comics.* is so very much its own tightly defensive
little world. (Did you catch any of the Superman debate on news.groups?
Interestingly enough they ended up *in* rec.arts.sf...) What I'mn
still totally unclear on, though, is why, in chartering a single
announcement group, there's any reason to say in advance "No comic
books". Why not wait and see? If the moderator never gets comic
books posts, no harm done. If he gets them and rejects them, well,
that's his business, and if people complain we can *then* sort out
whether there's a us.* group that could be created to accommodate
comics-related announcements. If he gets them and accepts them,
he will presumably hear from people whether they like or dislike
this aspect of the traffic. And frankly a moderator is considerably
more immune to the wrath of the rec.arts.comics.* netcops than any
person involved in newsgroup creation.
> >if a us.arts.announce attracts readers at
> >all, I think it'll be people planning to visit the US (or Americans
> >planning to vacation widely within the country) and wanting to know
> >what's going on where for them to see while they're here; this would
> >imply that the group ought to be advertised on the travel newsgroups.
>
> To some extent, perhaps. But I think most readers will be ordinary
> people who want to know what's going on with 'the arts' nationwide,
> the same people who read the 'arts and entertainment' section of
> their local newspapers,
Well, I read the local paper, which focuses mainly on what's going on
locally or in the national mainstream (movies, music, books), and
secondarily on stuff going on wherever else - primarily within the US,
but sometimes further afield.
And I read the <New York Times>, which does pretty much the same thing,
only obviously New York has more going on locally than Milwaukee, and
unobviously (but this is of course one reason I read the thing) they
do more stories about stuff further afield. This is still relatively
conservative - stories about non-Western topics are almost invariably
related to exhibitions opening in or near New York, while stories about
the London stage are routine.
(Oh, and just for fun, I'll point out that in the world of the <New
York Times>, fashion is among the "arts". Which would *not* be
problematic to many art historians but would probably cause some
gastrointestinal upsets among arbiters of high culture today...)
I think, though, that what both of these examples illustrate is that
newspapers offer what their readers are *likely* to have access to,
by and large. A smidgen of wider interest for Milwaukee, because
it *is* a local paper; a lot of it for New York, not because New
Yorkers are less provincial heaven knows, but because that paper isn't
local, and is heavily read by jet-setters everywhere. The London
stage is covered in New York because its shows often land there,
and in Chicago because it's competition with the Chicago stage for
New York space (at least as Chicago sees things), but not in Milwaukee
because London shows are not usually going to land here before going
through either New York or Chicago anyway. Et cetera.
My point is that the spheres of interest of the hypothetical average
reader of such a paper are not national in scope; the practical one
is local, while the speculative one is (to varying degrees) international,
and the balance between the two is determined by the paper's readership.
> plus people involved with 'the arts' as part
> of their professional or personal lives. Note that tour announcements
> are included in my list. These announcements aren't just for travelers;
> stay-at-homes would like to know as well when Barry Manilow will be
> coming to their city on tour, or when the Jeoffrey Ballet will be coming
> to town.
>
> I don't think you and I are on the same page. :-(
Um, certainly not if Barry Manilow is an artist but Art Spiegelman
isn't. Sheesh. Note that Barry Manilow's tours could be announced
in us.music.* anyway. Whereas if a bunch of independent comic book
creators go on tour (this has happened the past several summers,
I'm not making this up), there's no place for them here?
Anyway. I do think that no us.arts.announce is ever likely to be
useful to me personally for finding out what's going to happen in
Milwaukee, or within reach of Milwaukee. All of the major venues
in this city, Madison, and Chicago - the realistic day-journey
destinations - have well publicised schedules. It's perfectly
possible that in reading us.arts.announce faithfully I would
*occasionally* find out about something within reach that I wouldn't
otherwise have heard of, but I don't think it would be anything like
common. In contrast, I'm hoping to get out to the East for a long
trip sometime next year, and for *that*, I could see turning to a
thriving us.arts.announce to see what's happening in a lot of
different cities, to save having to dig around for information
about each.
So no, we're not on the same page at all. If I were going to
moderate this group, I would probably want to start with a fairly
liberal moderation policy, but since I'm not going to, I definitely
don't want to push the actual projected moderator too hard; you *seem*
to be requiring the moderator to do things as you wish (though I
certainly hope I'm misunderstanding you). Separately, we disagree
about the potential audience for the group (though I do suppose that
people with broad interdisciplinary artistic interests - presenters,
granting organisations, random artists with wide reaches - will as
you say be a core of that audience).
Oh, well. Win some, lose some.
I do wonder why we haven't heard lately from either the person offering
to moderate us.arts.announce or the person offering to host us.politics.
*Please* tell me it's not because you're insisting on charter
provisions they don't like.
Joe Bernstein j...@sfbooks.com jos...@tezcat.com
Henry Fung
charter or anything like that. The delay is for me to read up on what
moderation requires and to make arrangements for Plan B of moderation. I
expect something to be started up by Labor Day of this year. (That's
American Labor Day, for those of you in Rio Linda. :-) This is due to the
technical difficulties involved in me packing up and moving somewhere else
in a month or two.
On 7 Jul 1999, Joe Bernstein wrote:
> > 1. My very vague understanding of 'visual arts' is that it is some kind of
> > code phrase for the types of things you see in museums. Mainly paintings
> > and sculptures. I had some long discussions with a young lady here, and
> > she gave up trying to explain it to me. So I'm hoping Henry will have better
> > luck. I need a definition *I* can understand and transmit to others just as
> > clueless as I am when it comes to 'the arts'.
>
> This is a good but probably hopeless argument. The core of it, as I
> understand it, is that you want a definition you can use in dealing
> with people in your role as hierarchy administrator. The biggest
> problem with that is that defining the arts is a notoriously long-
> runningly difficult problem. Generally when people try, the great
> art of the next generation or so is that created in direct contradiction
> of the definition.
>
I tend to agree with Joe on this one. As moderator, I plan on seeing what
articles come in, and deal with them individually, with help from any
backup moderators that may be available (hint, hint). I will be
formulating a charter which will be fairly vague at first, although I'll
use examples as seen in the current us.arts charter.
Henrietta has asked that I post articles that I find myself to beef up
the supply as necessary. I'll probably cull them from the net-announce
list, Gleason Sackman's Net-Happenings, and the Scout Report. For these,
I'll probably use my own subjective judgment as to what is art and what
isn't.
> *But*. Ultimately, if it's a moderated group, it's not going to be much
> of an issue. We certainly ought not be in the business of second-guessing
> the moderator as to what is an "art". In this regard, my previous post
> as well as yours should at most be some kind of indication to him that
> he should consider these matters in writing his charter and laying plans
> to run the group. And I certainly hope that in the event someone
> complains that he rejected a post about a major crackdown on graffiti
> in Houston, or that he accepted a post about a basket-weaving business,
> your first impulse as hierarchy administrator will *NOT* be to side with
> the complainer, and *NOT* even be to say "Then we must clarify the
> charter", but be to say "Well, he's the moderator, and art is a fuzzy
> concept..." If a perfect charter could be formulated for this kind
> of thing, the group could be *moderated* mechanically; the problems are
> essentially equivalent.
>
Right. I plan on ripping a lot from the current us.arts charter, taking a
look at the discussions of the past about "what is art", and use those to
guide my decision.
<snip>
> So no, we're not on the same page at all. If I were going to
> moderate this group, I would probably want to start with a fairly
> liberal moderation policy, but since I'm not going to, I definitely
> don't want to push the actual projected moderator too hard; you *seem*
> to be requiring the moderator to do things as you wish (though I
> certainly hope I'm misunderstanding you). Separately, we disagree
> about the potential audience for the group (though I do suppose that
> people with broad interdisciplinary artistic interests - presenters,
> granting organisations, random artists with wide reaches - will as
> you say be a core of that audience).
>
I haven't noticed Henrietta putting any pressure for or against on me.
Maybe I'm just not reading in to the discussion.
In any case, when I start moderating, I'd like the group to get on as good
a start as possible. I'd encourage you all to continue commenting about
this, and I'll use these discussions as a jumping point for the charter
and moderation policy of us.arts.announce. Let's take our time here to do
a good job.
Jim Kingdon
> a start as possible. I'd encourage you all to continue commenting about
> this, and I'll use these discussions as a jumping point for the charter
> and moderation policy of us.arts.announce. Let's take our time here to do
> a good job.
Based on your attitude, I think you will be a wonderful asset to us.*
(as the us.marketplace.* moderator, and others which I won't try to
list because I'll miss some, has been).
As far as I am concerned, when we run across someone like that, it is
a simple matter of "let us know what you want to do, we will rubber
stamp it" (well, I'm probably exaggerating slightly but you get the
idea).
Henrietta K. Thomas
wrote:
>Long quote at the beginning, sorry. I think it's worthwhile context
>(if only because it establishes that to a considerable extent I'm
>repeating myself, so if Ms. Thomas still disagrees, and anyone else
>agrees with what I'm saying, it might be worth someone else trying...)
Doesn't look like anyone else wanted to comment, so I'll skip down
to the point where you start responding to my previous comments.
Note: There will be much snipping to conserve bandwidth.
>In article <377c5a01...@il.news.verio.net>,
>Henrietta K. Thomas <usa...@wwa.com> wrote:
[snip].....
>> Three points:
>>
>> 1. My very vague understanding of 'visual arts' is that it is some kind of
>> code phrase for the types of things you see in museums. Mainly paintings
>> and sculptures. I had some long discussions with a young lady here, and
>> she gave up trying to explain it to me. So I'm hoping Henry will have better
>> luck. I need a definition *I* can understand and transmit to others just as
>> clueless as I am when it comes to 'the arts'.
>
>This is a good but probably hopeless argument. The core of it, as I
>understand it, is that you want a definition you can use in dealing
>with people in your role as hierarchy administrator. The biggest
>problem with that is that defining the arts is a notoriously long-
>runningly difficult problem. Generally when people try, the great
>art of the next generation or so is that created in direct contradiction
>of the definition.
Nevertheless, I think we *do* need to let people know what we're
talking about when we say "visual arts." This is for their benefit
as well as ours. If the term "visual arts" isn't important, there would
have been no need for the young lady I spoke of to ask how we
planned to deal with it in the us.arts.* groups.
>*But*. Ultimately, if it's a moderated group, it's not going to be much
>of an issue. We certainly ought not be in the business of second-guessing
>the moderator as to what is an "art". In this regard, my previous post
>as well as yours should at most be some kind of indication to him that
>he should consider these matters in writing his charter and laying plans
>to run the group. And I certainly hope that in the event someone
>complains that he rejected a post about a major crackdown on graffiti
>in Houston, or that he accepted a post about a basket-weaving business,
>your first impulse as hierarchy administrator will *NOT* be to side with
>the complainer, and *NOT* even be to say "Then we must clarify the
>charter", but be to say "Well, he's the moderator, and art is a fuzzy
>concept..." If a perfect charter could be formulated for this kind
>of thing, the group could be *moderated* mechanically; the problems are
>essentially equivalent.
We should try produce charters which are clear enough to prospective
posters that we needn't go through any arguments such as you describe
above. It is the moderator's job to enforce the charter, and our job to
back him up. The better the charter, the easier it will be for all parties
concerned.
>Anyway, I was unaware that this was going to be visual and performing
>arts only. No books then, I gather.
You apparently didn't read what I said in my list of possible things
to include in us.arts.announce:
>Other things can be announced in this new group:
>Real world exhibits of US artists' work, including national tours.
>New books featuring the work of US fine artists, past and present.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Auditions for plays and musicals in major US cities.
>National tours for plays, musicals, and major US performing artists.
>Creative writing and poetry competitions in the USA.
>Grants offered by the National Endowment for the Arts and similar
>organizations.
Literature is deliberately excluded because it deserves some space
of its own within the sub-hierarchy (e.g., us.arts.literature.* for
discussions of classic US literature and/or us.arts.book-reviews.* for
discussions of contemporary fare).
[snip]....
>> 2. Comic books would come under the general heading of 'illustrations'.
>
>Um, no. They're two totally different art forms. Many of the same
>people do them, but then, many of the same people also do canvases
>and murals.
Tell me where I can find a list of recognized comic book "artists"
and descriptions of their work. Bear in mind that this other young
lady didn't even want to recognize Norman Rockwell as a bona
fide US artist. I didn't ask, but I doubt if she'd recognize the
cartoonist Bill Mauldlin as an "artist" either.
>> 3. I want to get a grip on the conventional fine and performing arts,
>> as defined by the NEA,
>
>If you want gov.*, you know where to find it.
>
>(No, I *couldn't* resist, but I do find it ironic that you are using
>the NEA as a criterion for advancing a significantly more conservative
>idea of what "art" is than the NEA itself has. Do remember that the
>NEA is unlikely, by and large, to fund arts that are self-supporting.
>Jazz became an NEA area to some extent precisely when it stopped having
>large audiences; I devoutly hope you aren't going to argue that whether
>a given movie is "art" depends on whether it can get an NEA grant. Does
>this mean that the musicals of the 30s only became "art" when they were
>so decayed that the NEA had to help fund restoration efforts?)
No, it only means that we use the NEA classifications as a starting
point and invite the NEA to post announcements to us.arts.announce
precisely because it *is* the National Endowment, and should not
be ignored because we don't like some of the weird grants it makes.
>> before I even *try* to deal with anything else.
>> We have a 200 year history behind us; there is plenty of 'art' to talk
>> about.
>
>This isn't a discussion group being chartered.
And we shouldn't try to cram everything into an "announce" group.
>> Let them go to rec.arts.comics; that's where the action is. And I
>> have no intention of competing with them.
>
>Um. There are science fiction groups in many national hierarchies.
>I have no reason to think us.* will ever have one, and I'm not really
>sure why the other hierarchies *do* have them, but are you saying
>that in this regard us.* should for example defer to rec.arts.sf.*?
Until some US residents post an RFD requesting the creation of
us.arts.literature.science-fiction+fantasy, yes.
As to other hierarchies: I followed the discussion when Canada
created its own science-fiction group. The rationale was that
Canada has its own science-fiction writers and literary clubs,
and they wanted to discuss this in their own group in their own
hierarchy. It is similar to the rationale for having regional
*scouting* groups -- they're not in competition with the main
Big 8 groups; they're a vehicle for discussing more local
affairs. The us.* hierarchy should do this as well wherever
possible. We do not cover the whole world -- just the United
States.
>I do agree that creating a us.* comics group could be horrible precisely
>because rec.arts.comics.* is so very much its own tightly defensive
>little world. (Did you catch any of the Superman debate on news.groups?
>Interestingly enough they ended up *in* rec.arts.sf...)
I don't read news.groups anymore, and I think that might be part of
the problem between us. You're still thinking in Big 8 mode, whereas
I'm trying to avoid it as much as possible.
>What I'mn still totally unclear on, though, is why, in chartering a single
>announcement group, there's any reason to say in advance "No comic
>books".
[snip].....
Because that topic is already well covered in rec.arts.comics.*
and we need not duplicate it in us.*.
>> >if a us.arts.announce attracts readers at
>> >all, I think it'll be people planning to visit the US (or Americans
>> >planning to vacation widely within the country) and wanting to know
>> >what's going on where for them to see while they're here; this would
>> >imply that the group ought to be advertised on the travel newsgroups.
>>
>> To some extent, perhaps. But I think most readers will be ordinary
>> people who want to know what's going on with 'the arts' nationwide,
>> the same people who read the 'arts and entertainment' section of
>> their local newspapers,
>
>Well, I read the local paper, which focuses mainly on what's going on
>locally or in the national mainstream (movies, music, books), and
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>secondarily on stuff going on wherever else - primarily within the US,
>but sometimes further afield.
I have no problem with that. If it's OK to announce museum exhibits
in us.arts.announce, it should be OK to announce national tours of
US plays, musicals, dance companies, etc., whether or not these
tours are covered in your local newspaper.
>My point is that the spheres of interest of the hypothetical average
>reader of such a paper are not national in scope; the practical one
>is local, while the speculative one is (to varying degrees) international,
>and the balance between the two is determined by the paper's readership.
The same would be true, I guess, of people who read us.arts.announce.
Some will appreciate the announcements of national tours, while others
may not. We cannot predict this in advance. So what we do will be a
judgment call that more people will appreciate it than will not.
[snip]....
>> I don't think you and I are on the same page. :-(
>
>Um, certainly not if Barry Manilow is an artist but Art Spiegelman
>isn't. Sheesh. Note that Barry Manilow's tours could be announced
>in us.music.* anyway. Whereas if a bunch of independent comic book
>creators go on tour (this has happened the past several summers,
>I'm not making this up), there's no place for them here?
Museum exhibits and/or national tours would probably be acceptable,
notwithstanding disagreements over whether comic books are "art."
What I'd really like *not* to see would be announcements of individual
comic books being published. Ditto for individual works of fiction.
These belong in *book reviews* newsgroups or something of a
similar nature -- and I *do* believe there is a *book review* newsgroup
in rec.arts.comics.*. That should be enough, IMO, at the present time,
for people who want to know about the latest, greatest comic books.
>Anyway. I do think that no us.arts.announce is ever likely to be
>useful to me personally for finding out what's going to happen in
>Milwaukee, or within reach of Milwaukee. All of the major venues
>in this city, Madison, and Chicago - the realistic day-journey
>destinations - have well publicised schedules. It's perfectly
>possible that in reading us.arts.announce faithfully I would
>*occasionally* find out about something within reach that I wouldn't
>otherwise have heard of, but I don't think it would be anything like
>common. In contrast, I'm hoping to get out to the East for a long
>trip sometime next year, and for *that*, I could see turning to a
>thriving us.arts.announce to see what's happening in a lot of
>different cities, to save having to dig around for information
>about each.
The question is not whether the group will be useful to you or me,
but whether it will be useful to a fair number of people in the United
States -- which, last I heard, had a population of roughly 230 million
people, some of whom are beginning to notice the us.* hierarchy.
>So no, we're not on the same page at all. If I were going to
>moderate this group, I would probably want to start with a fairly
>liberal moderation policy, but since I'm not going to, I definitely
>don't want to push the actual projected moderator too hard; you
>*seem* to be requiring the moderator to do things as you wish
>(though I certainly hope I'm misunderstanding you).
You are misunderstanding me. Certainly I have my own ideas; it
was my suggestion to create us.arts.announce in the first place.
Why did I make such a suggestion? Two reasons: Mostly what
we're getting in the group anyway is announcements, plus I want
some way of excluding posts advertising non-US artists. I don't
like content-based moderation, as you well know, nor do I like 3rd
party cancels, so I'm hoping we'll be able to just do robomoderation
based on headers. Whether or not we can do it this way remains
to be seen.
>Separately, we disagree about the potential audience for the group
> (though I do suppose that people with broad interdisciplinary artistic
>interests - presenters, granting organisations, random artists with wide
>reaches - will as you say be a core of that audience).
I think it will probably be a fairly eclectic group. But that remains to be
seen as well.
Henrietta
Leonard Pulver
"Henrietta K. Thomas" wrote:
>
> In us.config, on 7 Jul 1999 21:59:03 -0500, j...@sfbooks.com (Joe Bernstein)
> wrote:
>
<I snipped everything because it has all been seen.>
People have been fighting over the
definition of art since they started
painting on cave walls.
Almost all definitions have been
intensely subjective, as they should
be, but the criteria used have usually
been wrong.
Today, with artists working in so many
media, 2D, 3D, virtual, digital, much
unheard of even 50-60 years ago, all
the rules (There were rules?) have gone
by the board.
However art is still art, and one man's
oysters is another's fertilizer. Which
brings us to my definition:
If it generates an emotional response
in you the viewer, whether you love
it, hate it, laugh at it, are puzzled by it,
IT IS ART. It is only when it evokes
no reaction. that it fails to be art.
There was some mention of illustrators -
Rockwell was named, but how about
Andy Warhol? or Wyeth?
Also cartoonists ( comics, editorial ) very
special talents which belong in the
category of "political art" which crosses
all media and includes the "Guernica", the
murals of Diego Rivera, the "Napalm series
by the late Rudolph Baranik & the feminist
paintings of Rudy's wife May Stevens.
It is all art and for every one who loves a
work there is someone who hates it. If no
one loves and no one hates a piece then
it is junk.
Henrietta K. Thomas
<red...@mindspring.com> wrote:
[snip].....
>People have been fighting over the
>definition of art since they started
>painting on cave walls.
>
>Almost all definitions have been
>intensely subjective, as they should
>be, but the criteria used have usually
>been wrong.
>
>Today, with artists working in so many
>media, 2D, 3D, virtual, digital, much
>unheard of even 50-60 years ago, all
>the rules (There were rules?) have gone
>by the board.
All the more reason for us to be clear when we start setting up
groups for individual topics in "the arts."
>However art is still art, and one man's
>oysters is another's fertilizer. Which
>brings us to my definition:
>
>If it generates an emotional response
>in you the viewer, whether you love
>it, hate it, laugh at it, are puzzled by it,
>IT IS ART. It is only when it evokes
>no reaction. that it fails to be art.
They have these painted plastic cows spread all around the central
shopping district in Chicago -- the area we call 'the Loop'. I think it
is a pretty stupid thing, a waste of time, talent, and money for whoever
dreamed this up. But a lot of people are getting a big charge out of it.
The plastic cows were painted by real artists and art students. Here
is what one "visual arts" instructor said about the students from his
school who painted four of the cows: "They thought it was hilarious
and they had a lot of fun. It may not be high art but it makes people
laugh."
>There was some mention of illustrators -
>Rockwell was named, but how about
>Andy Warhol? or Wyeth?
Warhol is what they call 'pop art'; Wyeth is more conventional.
Both should be appropriate topics in us.arts, IMO.
>Also cartoonists ( comics, editorial ) very
>special talents which belong in the
>category of "political art" which crosses
>all media and includes the "Guernica", the
>murals of Diego Rivera, the "Napalm series
>by the late Rudolph Baranik & the feminist
>paintings of Rudy's wife May Stevens.
We would only cover US cartoonists in us.arts, such as Bill Mauldin
of WWII fame, so Diego Rivera would be off-topic here (because
he is Mexican) unless there are some special US works he has done.
Baranik and Stevens, I do not know. If they are US cartoonists, then
discussions of their work might be appropriate in us.arts.
The point I've been trying to make is that (a) I'd like to be sure we are
covering the more conventional arts (painting, sculpture, dance, music,
stage+screen, etc.) before moving into less conventional topics, and
(b) that comic books per se are so well covered in rec.arts.comics.*
that I see no need to hurry to compete with those groups.
Henrietta
---
Support the new, improved us.* hierarchy! Ask your news admin
to get the list of active groups from usa...@wwa.com.
Jim Kingdon
> of WWII fame, so Diego Rivera would be off-topic here (because
> he is Mexican) unless there are some special US works he has done.
Uh, I take it you have never been to the Detroit Institute of Arts?
At least, as far as I know, the Rivera murals there were painted there
rather than painted in Mexico and moved (although I could be wrong on
that....).
Not that I really care too much about the subtleties of the us.arts
charter, I just thought I'd put in a plug for a set of murals which I
remember fondly from my childhood (I grew up an hour's drive from
Detroit and a trip to Detroit was one of those special outing type
things).
Henrietta K. Thomas
<kin...@panix6.panix.com> wrote:
>> We would only cover US cartoonists in us.arts, such as Bill Mauldin
>> of WWII fame, so Diego Rivera would be off-topic here (because
>> he is Mexican) unless there are some special US works he has done.
>
>Uh, I take it you have never been to the Detroit Institute of Arts?
>At least, as far as I know, the Rivera murals there were painted there
>rather than painted in Mexico and moved (although I could be wrong on
>that....).
I have never been to Detroit.
>Not that I really care too much about the subtleties of the us.arts
>charter, I just thought I'd put in a plug for a set of murals which I
>remember fondly from my childhood (I grew up an hour's drive from
>Detroit and a trip to Detroit was one of those special outing type
>things).
Then let me put in a plug for "art" in Chicago. We have a huge Picasso
guarding the entrance to a major civic center here, and one of the banks
has a lovely outdoor mosaic done by Marc Chagall. I'm sure there are
other interesting works by non-US artists here, but these two are the ones
I could think of offhand.
Except for these and other works located in the USA, both Picasso
and Chagall should be off-topic in us.arts because they are *not* US
artists. People who want to talk about non-US artists should use the
international groups.
Yeah, I know, I sound like hard-hearted Hannah. But we'll never be
a *national* hierarchy if we start off doing *international* things.
Henrietta
Jim Kingdon
> guarding the entrance to a major civic center here
Oh yes, I love it, and consider it emblematic of Chicago (sort of the
way that the spoon and cherry sculpture is emblematic of Minneapolis,
or perhaps more so because Chicago residents actually like the Picasso
:-)).
> one of the banks has a lovely outdoor mosaic done by Marc Chagall.
Hmm, don't think I know that one.
> Except for these and other works located in the USA, both Picasso
> and Chagall should be off-topic in us.arts because they are *not* US
> artists.
Shrug, like I said before that's the part I'm planning to stay out of
:-) (but, ironically, the reason I got into this thread because it is
cross-posted to us.config and I'm not currently reading us.arts).
Henrietta K. Thomas
<kin...@panix6.panix.com> wrote:
>> Then let me put in a plug for "art" in Chicago. We have a huge Picasso
>> guarding the entrance to a major civic center here
>
>Oh yes, I love it, and consider it emblematic of Chicago (sort of the
>way that the spoon and cherry sculpture is emblematic of Minneapolis,
>or perhaps more so because Chicago residents actually like the Picasso
>:-)).
For the most part, I think they do. It has a strong, powerful feeling
to it that probably reminds them of the "city of broad shoulders."
>> one of the banks has a lovely outdoor mosaic done by Marc Chagall.
>
>Hmm, don't think I know that one.
It's kind of small, and you wouldn't even know it was there if you
didn't visit the bank. It used to be Chicago First Bank, but now
it's called Bank One. The mural is in a little courtyard in back of
the bank building.
>> Except for these and other works located in the USA, both Picasso
>> and Chagall should be off-topic in us.arts because they are *not* US
>> artists.
>
>Shrug, like I said before that's the part I'm planning to stay out of
>:-) (but, ironically, the reason I got into this thread because it is
>cross-posted to us.config and I'm not currently reading us.arts).
That's too bad. I just posted an article there about the Ernest
Hemingway Centennial Celebration in Oak Park.
Hemingway is *definitely* on topic. :-)
Henrietta
Joe Bernstein
Henrietta K. Thomas <usa...@wwa.com> wrote:
> In us.config, on 14 Jul 1999 15:16:18 -0400, Jim Kingdon
> <kin...@panix6.panix.com> wrote:
> >or perhaps more so because Chicago residents actually like the Picasso
> >:-)).
>
> For the most part, I think they do. It has a strong, powerful feeling
> to it that probably reminds them of the "city of broad shoulders."
What I've heard is that it was wildly controversial when it first arrived
in the early 1970s, despite the then Mayor Daley sticking up for it, but
by the time I arrived in the late 1980s, the news media at least were
given to acclaiming it. I would think the controversy would depend on
how the mainstream media handled it, frankly; this is not the kind of
thing that is sustainedly hated forever without people pushing that hate
fairly loudly.
Milwaukee went through the same curve with this sunburst-sculpture in a
gaudy orange colour that was installed right where our main street (yes,
Milwaukee really has one, sigh) hits the lakefront, so at sunrise you
could drive west on Wisconsin Avenue and see a sunburst inside a sunburst...
I only disliked it for maybe a year, when a teenager, and eventually I
came to see it as one of the landmarks of a trip home (since such trips,
for me, usually involve going west to the end of Wisconsin Avenue); but
there were several years of angry letters to various editors about it.
I haven't seen any of those letters since I came back. However,
construction a few years back resulted in its being moved a dozen or so
yards north, ruining the effect. (And yes, I *have* seen angry letters
about *that*.) And the bus I take no longer goes to the end of
Wisconsin Avenue anyway. Sigh.
> >> one of the banks has a lovely outdoor mosaic done by Marc Chagall.
> >
> >Hmm, don't think I know that one.
>
> It's kind of small, and you wouldn't even know it was there if you
> didn't visit the bank. It used to be Chicago First Bank, but now
> it's called Bank One. The mural is in a little courtyard in back of
> the bank building.
Actually, I'm fonder of the Calder (a huge sculpture, not mobile, just
outside the downtown post office) than of either the Picasso or the
Chagall. Oops, but Calder's American, no? Or was he Canadian? Um...
The Calder is, of course, also bright orange. Beats me why my favourite
pieces of outdoor sculpture should be the same colour!
> Hemingway is *definitely* on topic. :-)
Even though he wrote his most famous books abroad? :-)
(Which line, by the way, was the *main* point of this post, and that's
why I did cross-post and not confine it to us.arts.)
Joe Bernstein
.sigmods in effect
Jim Kingdon
> outside the downtown post office) than of either the Picasso or the
> Chagall. Oops, but Calder's American, no? Or was he Canadian? Um...
Hmm, that one never did all that much for me.
But it does have a cool feature, which is the small replica (maybe 1
meter tall) in the lobby of the office building across the street.
The replica has signs saying "please touch" and the idea is that blind
people can appreciate it, whereas that wouldn't work very well for the
outdoor sculpture itself (even if you did touch the outdoor one, all
you'd notice were some legs - kind of like trying to characterize an
elephant :-)).
Henrietta K. Thomas
wrote:
>In article <378d5653...@il.news.verio.net>,
>Henrietta K. Thomas <usa...@wwa.com> wrote:
>
>> In us.config, on 14 Jul 1999 15:16:18 -0400, Jim Kingdon
>> <kin...@panix6.panix.com> wrote:
>
>> >or perhaps more so because Chicago residents actually like the Picasso
>> >:-)).
>>
>> For the most part, I think they do. It has a strong, powerful feeling
>> to it that probably reminds them of the "city of broad shoulders."
>
>What I've heard is that it was wildly controversial when it first arrived
>in the early 1970s, despite the then Mayor Daley sticking up for it, but
>by the time I arrived in the late 1980s, the news media at least were
>given to acclaiming it. I would think the controversy would depend on
>how the mainstream media handled it, frankly; this is not the kind of
>thing that is sustainedly hated forever without people pushing that hate
>fairly loudly.
Yes, I think that is true. A lot of people didn't like it at first, but then,
these kinds of things have a tendency to grow on you, and after a
while, it gets to be an integral part of your life. What would the
Daley Center be without the Picasso?
>Milwaukee went through the same curve with this sunburst-sculpture in a
>gaudy orange colour that was installed right where our main street (yes,
>Milwaukee really has one, sigh) hits the lakefront, so at sunrise you
>could drive west on Wisconsin Avenue and see a sunburst inside a sunburst...
>I only disliked it for maybe a year, when a teenager, and eventually I
>came to see it as one of the landmarks of a trip home (since such trips,
>for me, usually involve going west to the end of Wisconsin Avenue); but
>there were several years of angry letters to various editors about it.
>I haven't seen any of those letters since I came back. However,
>construction a few years back resulted in its being moved a dozen or so
>yards north, ruining the effect. (And yes, I *have* seen angry letters
>about *that*.) And the bus I take no longer goes to the end of
>Wisconsin Avenue anyway. Sigh.
So, the same thing happened in Milwaukee. The people got used
to a certain thing, and complained when it was tampered with.
>> >> one of the banks has a lovely outdoor mosaic done by Marc Chagall.
>> >
>> >Hmm, don't think I know that one.
>>
>> It's kind of small, and you wouldn't even know it was there if you
>> didn't visit the bank. It used to be Chicago First Bank, but now
>> it's called Bank One. The mural is in a little courtyard in back of
>> the bank building.
>
>Actually, I'm fonder of the Calder (a huge sculpture, not mobile, just
>outside the downtown post office) than of either the Picasso or the
>Chagall. Oops, but Calder's American, no? Or was he Canadian? Um...
Alexander Calder (1898-1976) was American. I've found two good
URLs:
http://sheldon.unl.edu/HTML/ARTIST/Calder_A/SS.html
http://www.calder.infogate.de
The German site contains numerous links, including one to
<http://www.artincontext.org>, a non-profit which maintains
a database on fine artists all around the world.
>The Calder is, of course, also bright orange. Beats me why my favourite
>pieces of outdoor sculpture should be the same colour!
Orange is one of the "warm" colors. Perhaps you are partial to "warm"
colors in general......
>> Hemingway is *definitely* on topic. :-)
>
>Even though he wrote his most famous books abroad? :-)
Yes.
>(Which line, by the way, was the *main* point of this post, and that's
>why I did cross-post and not confine it to us.arts.)
I have left us.config in as well. But now, it's time to stop all this
chatting around and get back to business. I'll be starting a thread
later today on the charters for us.arts, us.issues, and us.politics.
Stay tuned.....
Henrietta
Leonard Pulver
on this. Many European artists like Piet
Mondrian lived and worked in NYC for
several years before returning home.
Can we only discuss "Broadway Boogie
Woogie" (MOMA) and not his oeuvre or
his influence on the NY School?
What about Malevitch? His work, mostly
pre revolution, has influenced artists in
America and around the world. There
may be 40 or 50 works in the US ( mostly
in private collections ) but without checking
the Guggenheim catalogue from 20ą yrs
ago, I cannot name or locate any. The
largest collection is in a Dutch museum.
Does that make him Dutch?
Most "American" artists studied and
produced all their work in France from 1800
to 1930. Only the WPA Arts project
established a cadre of artists who lived
worked & taught in America.
We must recognize that art is universal.
It knows no boundaries, political, geographic,
or any other. We can not and must not
try to regionalize art in any way
Leonard
"Henrietta K. Thomas" wrote:
>
> In us.config, on 14 Jul 1999 10:09:09 -0400, Jim Kingdon
> <kin...@panix6.panix.com> wrote:
>
> >> We would only cover US cartoonists in us.arts, such as Bill Mauldin
> >> of WWII fame, so Diego Rivera would be off-topic here (because
> >> he is Mexican) unless there are some special US works he has done.
> >
> >Uh, I take it you have never been to the Detroit Institute of Arts?
> >At least, as far as I know, the Rivera murals there were painted there
> >rather than painted in Mexico and moved (although I could be wrong on
> >that....).
>
> I have never been to Detroit.
>
> >Not that I really care too much about the subtleties of the us.arts
> >charter, I just thought I'd put in a plug for a set of murals which I
> >remember fondly from my childhood (I grew up an hour's drive from
> >Detroit and a trip to Detroit was one of those special outing type
> >things).
>
> Then let me put in a plug for "art" in Chicago. We have a huge Picasso
> guarding the entrance to a major civic center here, and one of the banks
> has a lovely outdoor mosaic done by Marc Chagall. I'm sure there are
> other interesting works by non-US artists here, but these two are the ones
> I could think of offhand.
>
> Except for these and other works located in the USA, both Picasso
> and Chagall should be off-topic in us.arts because they are *not* US
Leonard Pulver
Joe Bernstein wrote:
>
> In article <378d5653...@il.news.verio.net>,
> Henrietta K. Thomas <usa...@wwa.com> wrote:
>
>
> > Hemingway is *definitely* on topic. :-)
>
> Even though he wrote his most famous books abroad? :-)
>
And his best work, short feature stories, as a
reporter for
the Toronto Star weekly, and later news stories
from the
various European Peace conferences and the Spanish
Civil War.
Leonard
Leonard Pulver
> We would only cover US cartoonists in us.arts, such as Bill Mauldin
> of WWII fame, so Diego Rivera would be off-topic here (because
> he is Mexican) unless there are some special US works he has done.
> Baranik and Stevens, I do not know. If they are US cartoonists, then
> discussions of their work might be appropriate in us.arts.
>
> The point I've been trying to make is that (a) I'd like to be sure we are
> covering the more conventional arts (painting, sculpture, dance, music,
> stage+screen, etc.) before moving into less conventional topics, and
> (b) that comic books per se are so well covered in rec.arts.comics.*
> that I see no need to hurry to compete with those groups.
No need to compete with comic book groups. They
really are not "cartoons" any more ( more like action
TV series on paper) and their aficionados will
stay
away from anything called "art".
Warhol, was an ad agency illustrator & art
director when
he coined the term "POP Art" which IMO he adapted from
Josef Albers' OP(tical) Art.
Political Art runs the gamut of media
from painting & sculpture to photography
to video, to editorial page cartoons to
Doonsberry.
Leonard
Henrietta K. Thomas
<red...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>You are getting into very sticky ground
>on this. Many European artists like Piet
>Mondrian lived and worked in NYC for
>several years before returning home.
>Can we only discuss "Broadway Boogie
>Woogie" (MOMA) and not his oeuvre or
>his influence on the NY School?
If you are talking about the NY School, you can certainly
mention Mondrian's influence and some of his major works,
but I don't want to see any long, long threads or separate
newsgroups dedicated to European artists. Our focus should
be on US artists and *their* contributions instead.
>What about Malevitch? His work, mostly
>pre revolution, has influenced artists in
>America and around the world. There
>may be 40 or 50 works in the US ( mostly
>in private collections ) but without checking
>the Guggenheim catalogue from 20ą yrs
>ago, I cannot name or locate any. The
>largest collection is in a Dutch museum.
>Does that make him Dutch?
See above.
>Most "American" artists studied and
>produced all their work in France from 1800
>to 1930. Only the WPA Arts project
>established a cadre of artists who lived
>worked & taught in America.
Let me throw out some names and see how many you recognize:
Washington Allston
John James Audubon
George Wesley Bellows
Thomas Hart Benton
Albert Bierstadt
George Caleb Bingham
Mary Cassatt
George Catlin
Frederick Church
Thomas Cole
John Singleton Copley
John Steuart Curry
Arthur Davies
Asher Brown Durand
Thomas Eakins
Arshile Gorky
Childe Hassam
Edward Hicks
Hans Hofmann
Winslow Homer
Edward Hopper
George Inness
John La Farge
Emanuel Leutze
Morris Louis
John Marin
Reginald Marsh
Grandma Moses
Barnett Newman
Georgia O'Keefe
Charles Willson Peale
Rembrandt Peale
Jackson Pollock
Maurice B. Prendergast
Man Ray
Frederic Remington
Charles M. Russell
Albert Pinkham Ryder
John Singer Sargent
Ben Shahn
Gilbert Stuart
Thomas Sully
Jose Ray Toledo
John Trumbull
John Vanderlyn
Benjamin West
James Abbott McNeill Whistler
Archibald M. Willard
Grant Wood
Source: 1995 World Almanac, Noted Artists, Photographers, and
Sculptors of the Past.
As near as I can tell, all of the above were painters. I only know
about Audubon, Grandma Moses, Georgia O'Keefe, Whistler,
and Grant Wood by references in school and popular media.
I only learned about Mary Cassatt recently when the Art Institute
of Chicago did a showing of her work. Who are all these other
people? Europeans claiming to be born and raised in the USA?
Native-born Americans who did their best work in Paris? Or US
folks who got their start in the WPA?
>We must recognize that art is universal.
>It knows no boundaries, political, geographic,
>or any other. We can not and must not
>try to regionalize art in any way
Then we don't need us.arts, do we? We can just post about
US artists to rec.arts.fine.
Leonard Pulver
a few of the above I knew personally and a few
I know their children. A few I do not know the
names.
Many worked in Europe. Perhaps most notably
Mary Cassatt, who after her 4 yrs at Penna Acad
of Fine Art, took off for Italy where she studied
graphics techniques. She moved to Paris in '66
and after some study with a portrait artist she
submitted work to the salons of 1872 and 1873.
In '77, '79, 80, '81, '87 she exhibited in the Salons
des Impressionistes. Later she returned to USA
to paint a mural for the World fair of 1893. I do
not recall her later work much, but she suffered
from cataracts in both eyes. In 1912, she had
surgery to remove them but by 1917 her vision
was gone. She died at 82, 15 months before I
was born. She was perhaps the first, and maybe
the best 'feminist' painter.
As for Whistler he trained at the Imperial Academy
in St Petersburg Russia and after 3 years at West
Point and 2 years making maps for the Coastal
Survey, he returned to his studies in Europe . He
later moved from Paris to London where he did the
bulk of his work.
Cole and his student Church were really the first
born, bred, & dyed in the wool American Artists,
and formed the Hudson River school. You might
find their handling of light interesting.
> Source: 1995 World Almanac, Noted Artists, Photographers, and
> Sculptors of the Past.
>
> As near as I can tell, all of the above were painters. I only know
> about Audubon, Grandma Moses, Georgia O'Keefe, Whistler,
> and Grant Wood by references in school and popular media.
> I only learned about Mary Cassatt recently when the Art Institute
> of Chicago did a showing of her work. Who are all these other
> people? Europeans claiming to be born and raised in the USA?
> Native-born Americans who did their best work in Paris? Or US
> folks who got their start in the WPA?
The WPA did not give any artists their 'start'
What it did was give hundreds of artists work
relief, painting murals etc in post offices and
other federal buildings. It kept them eating
& gave them money to buy materials to use in
their own work.
> >We must recognize that art is universal.
> >It knows no boundaries, political, geographic,
> >or any other. We can not and must not
> >try to regionalize art in any way
>
> Then we don't need us.arts, do we? We can just post about
> US artists to rec.arts.fine.
maybe so, maybe not!!
Leonard
Henrietta K. Thomas
<red...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>"Henrietta K. Thomas" wrote:
[snip]....
>> Let me throw out some names and see how many you recognize:
[snip list of US artists taken from 1995 World Almanac]
>a few of the above I knew personally and a few
>I know their children. A few I do not know the
>names.
Well, I'd guess you are in better shape than most Americans,
who I doubt would even know as much (actually little) as *I*
do about those artists.
>Many worked in Europe. Perhaps most notably
>Mary Cassatt, who after her 4 yrs at Penna Acad
>of Fine Art, took off for Italy where she studied
>graphics techniques. She moved to Paris in '66
>and after some study with a portrait artist she
>submitted work to the salons of 1872 and 1873.
>In '77, '79, 80, '81, '87 she exhibited in the Salons
>des Impressionistes. Later she returned to USA
>to paint a mural for the World fair of 1893. I do
>not recall her later work much, but she suffered
>from cataracts in both eyes. In 1912, she had
>surgery to remove them but by 1917 her vision
>was gone. She died at 82, 15 months before I
>was born. She was perhaps the first, and maybe
>the best 'feminist' painter.
Good case in point. I never heard of her until the Art Institute did a
showing of her work. And now you have given me a whole background
story of her life. Fascinating.
>As for Whistler he trained at the Imperial Academy
>in St Petersburg Russia and after 3 years at West
>Point and 2 years making maps for the Coastal
>Survey, he returned to his studies in Europe . He
>later moved from Paris to London where he did the
>bulk of his work.
I remember Whistler from the famous painting of his mother,
which was usually featured in school textbooks. Otherwise,
the name would have meant nothing at all to me.
>Cole and his student Church were really the first
>born, bred, & dyed in the wool American Artists,
>and formed the Hudson River school. You might
>find their handling of light interesting.
I think we need to know more about these *first* American
artists and the Hudson River school. We should know as much
about them as we know about Van Gogh. Not that Van Gogh
isn't important, but that we need to learn more about our own
homegrown artists.
>> As near as I can tell, all of the above were painters. I only know
>> about Audubon, Grandma Moses, Georgia O'Keefe, Whistler,
>> and Grant Wood by references in school and popular media.
>> I only learned about Mary Cassatt recently when the Art Institute
>> of Chicago did a showing of her work. Who are all these other
>> people? Europeans claiming to be born and raised in the USA?
>> Native-born Americans who did their best work in Paris? Or US
>> folks who got their start in the WPA?
>
>The WPA did not give any artists their 'start'
>What it did was give hundreds of artists work
>relief, painting murals etc in post offices and
>other federal buildings. It kept them eating
>& gave them money to buy materials to use in
>their own work.
OK, if you say so, but did you know they still have a similar
program going in the national parks? There was an announcement
not too long ago of where to make applications for these artist's
grants.
>> >We must recognize that art is universal.
>> >It knows no boundaries, political, geographic,
>> >or any other. We can not and must not
>> >try to regionalize art in any way
>>
>> Then we don't need us.arts, do we? We can just post about
>> US artists to rec.arts.fine.
>
>maybe so, maybe not!!
Well, you and others have asked us to keep us.arts, so that's
what we're going to try to do. My only argument is that I want
to focus more on the US part so that US artists can get the
recognition they deserve.
Henrietta
Leonard Pulver
"Henrietta K. Thomas" wrote:
> Well, you and others have asked us to keep us.arts, so that's
> what we're going to try to do. My only argument is that I want
> to focus more on the US part so that US artists can get the
> recognition they deserve.
>
> Henrietta
The problem with recognition for us artists is all
political.
The pop artists like Warhol would still (if they were
still alive) be doing graphics for ad agencies or
perhaps animations for Disney) if Leo Castelli did
not see something that he could promote and he and
Ivan Karp sold the hell out of it for years.
In the same way Alex Katz would still be painting
flats for theater sets if a friend of a friend did
not have a connection with someone at the Marlboro
Galleries. IMO his work still looks like flats.
Al Copely was exhibited widely in Europe, Japan
and South America, but could not get a show in NY
because he was also renowned worldwide as a serologist.
etc etc etc
Henrietta K. Thomas
<red...@mindspring.com> wrote:
Yes, I see what you're saying, that sometimes it's *who* you know that
makes a difference in the level of acceptance you get. This is true in
many fields of endeavor, I think, but perhaps more obvious in 'the arts'
than in other fields. In a way, that's too bad, because it lowers our
short-term expectations. But in another way, it's good, because it may
help us really appreciate the good stuff when it appears. At least, I
hope so. :-)
Henrietta