Re: chacun a son gum

[Sandy King <sanking@clemson.edu>]

At 5:37 PM -0500 10/30/06, Judy Seigel wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Oct 2006, Katharine Thayer wrote:
>
>
> Finally, however, I hereby declare that it is incumbent on Mr. Sandy 
> King once and for all to define CRAP.  I myself define crap in terms 
> of kitsch, or what I consider kitsch, that is, bad kitsch, not good 
> kitsch.... heh heh heh, but come on Sandy.... name no names but .... 
> what are the parameters? (I do of course agree about judging art 
> from the monitor, except possibly for what Clement Greenberg would 
> have called "the narrative content.")
>
> cheers,
>
> Judy
Nope, I don't feel it incumbent on me to define CRAP. It is bad 
enough to see it and know what it is, but to reveal in a description 
is beyond the call of duty.

But, I would say it is more or less like art, one of those "je ne 
sais quoi" things. Hard to define, but when you see it you know what 
it is, or is not. If it does not pass the smell test, it is crap. (or 
maybe spoiled milk)

But I will say what CRAP is not for me. It is not well-crafted gum 
prints made in a pictorial or painterly style. I devoted a lot of 
time to pictorial art and am very fond of that style. That is not how 
I work, but I still love the look of finely crafted three-color gum 
prints. Or finely crafted faux-color gum prints. But I really don't 
like crappy gum prints, three-color or faux-color. Or crappy carbon 
prints, or crappy Pt./Pd. prints, etc. ad nauseum.

Best,

Sandy