Re: Thomas Kinkade, Beyond the GArden GAte (fwd)

Here it is.... read it all..

J.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Fri, 10 Jan 2003 22:35:11 -0700
From: Dave Rose <cactuscowboy@attbi.com>
Reply-To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
To: alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca
Subject: Re: Thomas Kinkade, Beyond the GArden GAte

----- Original Message -----
From: "Judy Seigel" <jseigel@panix.com>
To: <alt-photo-process-l@sask.usask.ca>
Sent: Monday, January 06, 2003 9:03 PM
Subject: Re: Thomas Kinkade, Beyond the GArden GAte

>
>
> On Mon, 6 Jan 2003, Don Bryant wrote:
> Cactus wrote:
>
> > > I've thoroughly investigated Henry Barger, Nellie Mae Rowe, and Thomas
> > > Kincaid, thanks to Google.com.
> > >
> > > At this point, I'm totally convinced that it's not "talent" but a
clever
> > > knack for marketing that really counts.
>
> Don wrote
> >
> > How do you mean "cleaver knack for marketing" Dave?
> >
> > Don Bryant>
>
> Judy wrote:
>
> A hatchet job perhaps..?
>
> I don't know who this Barger is. The guy was DARGER... and his works are
> among the most original, piquant, and provocative in 20th century art. As
> for clever marketing... The guy was a recluse, raised in a home for the
> retarded, worked as a cleaning man, lived and died alone in a rented room,
> where after his death his landlord, cleaning out the heaps of debris,
> recognized and saved the work.

Cactus Cowboy writes:

Sorry, my mistake, that was a simple typo. Of course I meant "DARGER".

How many times have you posted to this list your bitter rants denouncing the
mass media for publishing photos of beautiful young woman? How many times
have you slammed fellow photographers who photograph naked women? Yet you
heap praise upon a suspected child murderer (Darger) whose work prominently
features prepubescent naked girls sporting miniature penises as they're
tortured and disemboweled? "The guy" (Darger) was arguably a sicko.
Talented? Yes. But please spare us the phony bullshit about how you hate
the editors of the New York Times Magazine for the way they depict women.

You need to get your facts straight. Darger did not die "alone in a rented
room". He died in a poorhouse, six months after he lost the ability to
climb the stairs to his rented room. Nathan Lerner (not "Jonathan
something, Lerner?"), his landlord, discovered Darger's life work before he
died.

"No one knew this would happen back then in 1972. Indeed, until Lerner found
it, no one had known of the work's existence. When Lerner and his wife,
Kiyoko, asked Darger what he wanted to do with it, he mumbled, "It's
yours" -- among the last words anyone ever heard him speak."

Reference:
THE SELLING OF HENRY DARGER
An obsessive art historian devotes a decade to the works of a reclusive --
and controversial -- artist.
By Stewart Lee Allen
(From the September 9, 1998, San Francisco Bay Guardian)
http://henrydarger.tripod.com/sfbg.htm

> This clever marketer devoted a great deal of his life to preserving and
> showcasing that art, AFAIK he made nothing on it, and in fact sacrificed
> his own career... He was one of the photographers from the group in
> Chicago around Harry Callahan, Aaron Siskind, et al, whose name I forget,
> tho he's been featured in Aperture, et al... (If you GOOGLE Darger it
> should be there... Jonathan something, Lerner?)

Cowboy again:

As far as you know, you know very little. In fact, Nathan Lerner and his
wife Kiyoko recognized the value of Darger's work and sold some of it, and
donated some to museums. Some of Darger's larger watercolors have a value
of up to $100,000. Please don't insult our intelligence by passing off
Nathan Lerner (the guy whose name you don't know) as some altruistic
do-gooder who sacrificed greatly.

> However, if Cactus came away from Google thinking he'd done a "thorough
> investigation" of Barger, et al... there's another reason I don't do
> Google. (Understatment.)
>
> Get a library.
>
> Judy

Your snide remark to "Get a library" conveniently ignores the fact that I
don't live in midtown Manhattan, with access to world-class libraries. Not
that it matters. Apparently you, with access to all the great resources
that New York City offers, cannot do simple research. It's really
disappointing that you (an editor) of all people, can get the facts so
wrong.

If my idea of "thorough investigation" (several hours perusing websites)
doesn't jibe with yours, then so be it. We can agree to disagree.

By the way, you misspelled 'understatement'.

Here's a link that you may find useful:
http://www.google.com/

Best regards,
Dave Rose
Cactus Cowboy
Big Wonderful Wyoming
Received on Sun Jan 12 22:14:56 2003