From: Judy Seigel (jseigel@panix.com)
Date: 10/07/02-04:26:45 PM Z
QUESTIONS:
1. why is the term "sophisicated art snot" as subject line EIGHTEEN TIMES
so far today, in a list written by sensitive, creative souls, many of whom
fancy themselves *artists*, not mere copycats or automatons or knowitalls,
any less offensive than "shit," "merde," excrement or whatever,
especially if nicely sealed in a can?
2. why are we to take the shallow, at-face-value reading by folks who
don't know the difference between the brilliant American satirical
*humorist* Dave Barry, and that feeble philisitine imitator Dave Berry,
seriously?
3. why does this topic KEEP recurring on alt photo -- that is, if some
folks don't like "modern art" in sum, or in part -- why do they have to
torture folks who don't give a flying feather one way or the other about
it..? My hunch is, a) to vent, b) it grinds their kishkes because it's
not them, c) they want attention & may not get taken seriously any place
else, and d) it never fails.
So, I beg to point out: this list is NOT a hotbed of merde sellers. In
fact there's precious little that could be called modern art, even
generously, generated in so-called "alternative photography" at all...
I'm not objecting to off topic threads per se, but to THIS PARTICULAR ONE
that some folks apparently cannot let alone.
Now a suggestion:
Go read what Ruskin said about Whistler's "Nocturne." It's these rants
about no-good modern art almost to the letter. Also PH Emerson & other
critics of 19th century. Then think James Thrall Soby, even Lincoln
Kirstein, among so many others. That's not to say it's good because it
offends, but that even the most brilliant artists & critics may stumble
over the art of their own time.
Moral:
Not all art is good because it offends, but much good art, even minus
scatology, offends. Gerhard Richter we may recall, had nary a drop of
bodily fluid (why is that "bodily"-- not body?) in fact or fancy, but he
had Jed Perl, and some Perl followers in these very pages, foaming at the
mouth.
As for the NEA -- only the US Senate could make them look good, at least
where individual grants were concerned. Talk of CORRUPT ! Marcia said
they gave grants to the already famous -- right right right. And the
BIGGEST GRANTS to the MOST famous. So whoever laments not being able to
apply, in the old system anyway, a waste of energy. (Tho if you had a
lover, teacher, or other close colleague on the panel, odds were good --
and the next year you could get on the panel, made up of former grantees,
& odds were you'd return the favor.)
So let us cede those "artists' grants" (I don't know that I've ever seen
work done with "a national endowment to the arts grant" I thought was
worth its materials.) But our museums, and other groups do need that core
money... and it's depressing to know our government couldn't care less.
It's also depressing to know our government's idea of "art"... anyone
remember the flap over the Vietnam memorial and the sculpture the
"right-thinking" put in front of it?
Better to have merde in a can.
PS. that's a good point about the *writers* not being pilloried... tho it
may mean the writers have been relatively tame. We now have a case of a
"writer" who seems to be getting some flak in the great state of New
Jersey. So stay tuned...
Judy
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 11/14/02-02:40:26 PM Z CST