From: Kris Erickson (kerickso@ryerson.ca)
Date: 08/13/02-05:36:36 PM Z
Of course you're right. I was being a little cheeky, and in my cheekiness I
ran out of steam.
Being unclear is something we can ALL be accused of, Mr. Morish is no
exception.
For clarity's sake we could, theoretically, publish all kinds of information
about all kinds of aspects of our lives on our respective websites.
However, we are photographers, not web publishers---I would be sad to give
up the art I love to clarify the same in HTML and JPEG images.
Maybe what I'm getting at is that, being as difficult as it is to
communicate with anyone in any situation (via any medium), perhaps we should
all be a little more mindful of this and a little more accommodating of
others' faults (which, of course, are often our own).
Not sure that people trying to link your interests with your art would be
'barking up the wrong tree'... scratching up the wrong post perhaps... ;-)
But even then, only half-scratching. While I would strongly doubt that any
specific interest could tie directly and summarily to a single image, I
think one would be hard-pressed to argue that that specific interest could
not, in some way, be related to the impulse and drive that created that
image in the first place; among a tangle of other interests, often more
relevant of course, but AMONG that tangle nonetheless.
btw, I appreciate your comments too! :-)
and going with what you said, in the original spirit of the web, it's this
other kind of networking (listserv) that allows our thoughts to intermingle
and play off and grow from each other's--in the hopes that, ultimately, we
may be moved slightly from where we were before to here, where we are now.
cheers,
k
-----Original Message-----
From: Katharine Thayer [mailto:kthayer@pacifier.com]
Sent: August 13, 2002 5:40 AM
To: alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca
Subject: Re: [OT] RE: Sicko humor as art?
Kris Erickson wrote:
>
>
> Perhaps in the end, then, the only thing Mr. Morish can be accused of is
> lack of clarity.
>
I don't think even that. His site is well organized and labeled; the art
gallery is in one place, the links are in another. If the artist, not
intending the links to be connected to the art, had put them in the art
gallery, then we could accuse him of lack of clarity. Methinks the lack
of clarity is to be found somewhere other than the artist's mind or
website.
And perhaps some of the confusion comes from a lack of memory about how
the web used to be, when it was common for people to link their sites to
other sites that amused them or educated them, sites they wanted others
to know about whether or not they related to anything on the linker's
site. To me as a viewer, Morrish's links seem to be about that kind of
"old-fashioned" web networking, chosen because he just likes them; they
reflect his opinions, his personality, his politics, his sense of humor
and other things beside and beyond his art per se.
I agree with and appreciate your other comments, Kris.
If I ever have a website, it will have many parts, since my life is
complex and multifaceted. There will be sections about art and gum
printing, sections about statistics, sections about some of the
different subjects I write about, like domestic violence, errors in
reasoning, and so forth. But my art is not about statistics and my art
is not about domestic violence; it is something separate to itself, and
anyone who tried to relate the different parts of the website to my art
would be barking up the wrong tree. My 2cents.
kt
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 09/19/02-11:02:49 AM Z CST