From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 04/17/02-12:08:45 AM Z
I think this has got to be the silly season, and we must all be having a
good time, or anyway were bored by spectral density.
To recap our rapid transit from Shannon's citation a few days ago of a
"wonderful" article by Jed Perl about Emperor's new clothes-type art,
discovered to be in fact a wild & woolly diatribe against Gerhardt Richter
by a fellow who thinks photography is inferior to "painting," thence via a
charming free run to my apparent rank as senior on this list, so far
anyway, and, still, I believe, in possession of a reasonable number of my
marbles, took surprisingly few days.
However, the caper cost me $3.50 to buy the New Republic, & I daresay
$3.50 more to see what other nonsense Perl is up to. What's more I'm
apparently designated tree destroyer and planet killer, if I understood
the thread correctly. (I'll have to consult my secret cells -- no
promises.)
Can I be serious now? I want to restate a serious point, which is after
all what we're here for, besides the good time. To wit: "Media" is as
valid a topic for art as any other, no subject is in itself good or bad.
It's in the handling. I'd guess however that trees being such a, um,
FAMILIAR subject, it would be HARDER to make good fresh art out of them.
Halvor asked what is art. Nobody seemed to answer. That's another
dangerous job, but somebody's got to do it.
Art is (as was officially decreed in the 1960s) whatever an artist does in
an art context. The real question, however, is what is *GOOD* art. My
definition is: a work with a visual component that tells or shows
something we didn't know before. A photo that looks like existing photos
is unlikely to do this, unless there's a conceptual "wink" -- or other
manner or expression or offbeam take on it.
True, I should have known better than to disrespect trees in a nest of
large-format photographers. But I think it's good for them to hear things
like that, toughens them up in a supportive environment. Meanwhile, also
for the record, I note that on the way home tonight I counted 29 (or 30, I
lost count in the dark) trees on the two sides of our block, all at this
moment sending great blasts of pollen into the air, this year a record
exudate we're told, to the misery of several of my friends and neighbors,
for whom Claritin doesn't work and whose other favorite (it starts with S,
Seldane?) has been take off the market.
Various of these trees are also blooming, and most will shortly proceed to
drop body parts onto the sidewalk. These tiny little wet things are
devilishly difficult to sweep off concrete, and, tramped into my halls,
cling to the floor with incredible devotion, so they must be pried up
manually, one by one, for several weeks.
Not that I don't like these trees, you understand. True, they increase my
property value and hence my real estate taxes, but still I like them fine
-- in fact they were one of the attractions to what was, 46 years ago,
basically a dump. I've even shelled out quite a few hundred dollars to
replace the tree at my doorstep struck down in a storm.
But I would NOT get sentimental about them (except my daughter's hemlock
in the back yard).
OK?
PS. I voted against Ronald Reagan every chance I got.
Judy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 05/01/02-11:43:30 AM Z CST