From: Cactus Cowboy (cactus@tritel.net)
Date: 02/25/02-12:58:44 PM Z
Dear Judy,
This is what Dave Barry wrote in his 17 Feb 2002 column:
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/living/columnists/dave_barry/2679614.ht
m
What Christopher actually posted on 24 Feb 2002 was Christopher's own
attempt at humor - his rewriting/revision of Barry's column. I hope this
helps to clear things up.
Dave in Wyoming
----- Original Message -----
From: "Judy Seigel" <jseigel@panix.com>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@skyway.usask.ca>
Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2002 11:43 PM
Subject: RE: What is "Good Photography"?
>
> On Sun, 24 Feb 2002, Christopher Lovenguth wrote:
>
> > For humor. A retelling of Dave Barry's column....of course Duchamp
wasn't
> > British.
> >
> > Janitors and artists never see eye to eye
> > We Americans tend to assume that the British are more intelligent than
we
> > are, because they speak with British accents. That's why we need to know
> > about the Turner Prize.
>
> CUT----
>
> I am an ardent Dave Barry fan... I think he's the funniest man in America.
> But if that "quote" is actually as he wrote it, he's in over his head.
> It's not only not funny, it's ignorant about art -- also badly
> constructed, as in bad writing.
>
> For instance, by coupling a fake "Marcel Duchamp" as if a living artist,
> with Damien Hirst, who *is* a living artist, & then taking it nowhere, he
> so thoroughly garbles whatever point he thinks he's making that we get no
> point at all beyond "urinal -- janitor -- hee hee, yuck yuck." Which is to
> say I don't get the "joke."
>
> Or rather, the "joke" is on you: Duchamp laid a trap all those generations
> ago -- and some folks, imagine, are STILL walking into it ! And I suppose
> for the next 100 years their heirs will do the same. But think for a
> minute: when a guy puts a urinal on a pedestal and signs it R Mutt.... do
> you suppose he's trying to get a blue ribbon in the local art fair? Or is
> he baiting the peanut gallery -- you ? And how very brilliant he was --
> folks are still biting after all these years.
>
> Did Barry just hear about Duchamp and the "readymade"? What next, a rant
> about punctuation in James Joyce? Jump up and down because Picasso put
> both eyes on one side of the lady's face? Tell us that Isadora danced
> barefoot? Get really upset because Vachel Lindsay doesn't rhyme?
>
> I myself could live quite happily without Duchamp, which is hardly the
> point. The point is that he is father of one of the most influential
> strains of art in the 20th century. 100 years ago. Time to get over it.
>
> Of course in fussing about modern art, Barry is in good company. Tom
> Wolfe, one of our most brilliant literary lights, also shot off his mouth
> on the topic and also got in over his head. He did the upscale version of
> this rant in "The Painted Word." And, tho more coherent than Barry is
> here, also got it wrong. I wasn't a great fan of the art he meant to
> denounce either, but still could see he was getting it all wrong --
> "demolishing" what he thought it was, which it wasn't. And telling us what
> *real* art is, which it isn't.
>
> The question isn't whether the stuff these folks are foaming at the mouth
> about is or isn't so great -- a lot of it we pray will disappear sooner
> rather than later. But to take the bait, and give us that century-old
> rant... How about taking a course in modern art? Then you might at least
> know what you're supposedly "demolishing." And that you are flogging a
> verrry dead horse. Or proving the artist's brilliance in making art that
> can STILL "epater le bourgeoisie" after all these years.
>
> Now that's brilliant.
>
> PS: Has anybody else noticed that this thread is also waaaaay off topic ?
> Maybe we should send it to the Old-as-the-hills list?
>
> Judy
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 03/08/02-09:45:22 AM Z CST