From: David Eastman (clearemulsions@yahoo.com)
Date: 10/08/02-01:08:35 AM Z
Art or Political Agitation?
I am not happy to see a can of shit, nor to have pay
to see it, be it in a museum or in a ditch! I can make
my own "visions"... bigger and better, and best of all
cheaper, fresher and more original too!
I was not happy to see the bull whip, I was not happy
to see the arm... (somehow homophilic images are not
my cup of pee... On the other hand, I can imagine
myself, if angry at some religious group or leader...
making my own 'Piss Christ' How about you? After all,
Art IS communication... and It derives relevance in
part from its message.
I think that 99% of criticism is based on likes and
dislikes. Rarely does the critic help an artist
improve a work of art...to approach closer to a
particular aim or achieve a goal set by the artist.
I think it is useful to separate "ART" which is worthy
of collection, support and preservation, whatever: in
any case... Admiration and HONOR from other works,
which may have been artistically or skillfully
crafted, but are not art. I find it strange that we
have so much trouble separating the two... I belive
someone once observed that the finest writer may write
great works.... yet he or or she may also write
grocery lists; they are not the same, even though some
people (the artist included) might pretend otherwise!
Anyway, I found the following interesting link..
someone is looking for "illegal art" ("Being held in
honor of Eldred v. Ashcroft, a Supreme Court case that
will be heard in the fall. The case challenges the
constitutionality of the Sonny Bono Copyright act,
which extended copyrights another 20 years to benefit
Disney et al") and was wondering what you feel about
it:
Protection of the artist and his or her creations or
Freedom for ART immitators?
The site and the art is much less offensive than I
imagined it would be, and I am not sure I find
anything wrong with the art there... What do you all
make of this?
www.illegal-art.org
(By the way, Christopher, I have not seen that book
but will when I get a chance...)
Ray
--- Christopher Lovenguth <zantzant@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> 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). >>
__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Faith Hill - Exclusive Performances, Videos & More
http://faith.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : 11/14/02-02:40:26 PM Z CST