Re: "sophisticated art snot"

About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

From: Christopher Lovenguth (zantzant@hotmail.com)
Date: 10/07/02-03:40:00 PM Z


Nicely said.

BTW there is money for the NEA. It's just not given out to visual artist
anymore in the form of individual grants. It's funny that when I talk to
people about 1996 being the last time grants were given to individual
artist, no one seems to know this. And that congress took the funding away
because they thought artist were not worthy of tax payer's money. The only
exception are writers which were deemed "worthy" of still being funded. But
not those "whacked out good for nothing gay agenda pushing visual artist
with no talent". I mean they don't even know how to draw a straight line,
nor paint humans like the classics, do they?

Has anyone read the book I have been pushing in this post? I would like
someone else's opinion on the book. It's call "Visionaries and Outcasts" by
Michael Brenson. It relates to this post because contemporary art, like the
examples in this article being discussed, is what lead to the demise to
funding for artist. Just think about it, one used to be able to get money
from the government, no strings attached. No half up front and the other
half after making a piece that was pimped for the grant. Just money given to
make an artist life just a little bit easier (maybe one could then take some
time off and paint with the money) and recognition from our country that you
deserve this because of your contribution to society in the form of your
art. I know I'm idealizing this quite a bit, but that's all gone now. I'll
never get the chance to apply for something like that. And why did this
happen? Politics, an election year, censorship and someone else's morality
being place on all contemporary artist.

Not much different then this article. If you don't like an art piece, fine.
You don't even have to tell me why. But don't write a piece, even satirical,
where your argument has no weight except to pick on something that you don't
like. Tell me why you don't like it.

>From: Ender100@aol.com
>Reply-To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
>To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
>Subject: Re: "sophisticated art snot"
>Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2002 17:01:05 -0400 (EDT)
>
>I think it is fine if someone wants to put their feces in a jar and sell it
>as art. I think what I find interesting is that someone in the art world
>who
>is in a position of authority actually validated it by spending thousands
>of
>dollars of money on it. Now maybe this person had a good reason for doing
>so
>and isn't as much of a fool as we think, or maybe they are. It would be
>interesting to know more about his/her 's reasons for making the purchase.
>I
>would think if he is a fool, he probably won't last long at his job.
>
>I did think the comment in the article about the man reading the article
>while in the bathroom and then having the sudden idea of committing forgery
>was quite funny.
>
>I wish more money were available for the National Endowment of the Arts, I
>wish there were more education in the arts available for the general
>public.
>I wish public schools could do more of this. I would even pay more taxes
>to
>support these efforts.
>
>Mark Nelson
>
>Mark Nelson
>In a message dated 10/7/02 4:11:27 PM, zantzant@hotmail.com writes:
>
><< The fact that people have these discussions validates the need for work
>like
>this. If it wasn't striking at something, no one would pay any mind. I
>think
>it's hilarious that this guy, knowing his own value in the art community
>and
>seeing how utterly worthless and ridicules that notion actually is, passed
>his own crap off as art. That's the point (and a good one I might add since
>it seems to bother some people). >>

_________________________________________________________________
Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com


About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 11/14/02-02:40:26 PM Z CST