From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V8 #317 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Wednesday, August 18 1999 Volume 08 : Number 317 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Techie CD-Burner Question (0%RH) [mrrunion@palmnet.net] Re: Byron [ultraconformist@mail.weboffices.com] Re: My art is better than your art, Renaissance notwithstanding [Mark_Glo] RE: My art is better than your art, Renaissance notwithstanding ["Partrid] intent on...? ["Andrew D. Simchik" ] Re: separation ["JH3" ] My fart is better than your fart, Lindisfarne notwithstanding ["JH3" ] crap romantic poets ["jbranscombe@compuserve.com" ] Re: crap romantic poets [ultraconformist@mail.weboffices.com] A The sc-art-let letter ["jbranscombe@compuserve.com" ] Re: crap romantic poets [Joel Mullins ] Second Spin Strikes Again [Griffith Davies ] Re: crap romantic poets [Tom Clark ] carp romancin' poets [delia winthorpe ] Re: separation [Bayard ] Re: A The sc-art-let letter [steve ] purple, green and pink in the deep south [James Dignan ] RE: Art is a lie. . . . ["Partridge, John" ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 12:31 +0000 From: mrrunion@palmnet.net Subject: Techie CD-Burner Question (0%RH) Hey all, I know a lot of you out there have CD-R burners. I'm wondering if anyone has any info/experience with the non-computer component kind...the ones you hook up to your stereo and have either one or two CD spinners, little knobs, etc. I'm curious about pros and cons compared to regular computer burners. My computer is ancient and, with everything else going on, I just can't see myself finding the time any time soon to upgrade it with what I would need. Reply off-list so we don't bore everyone to tears. Mike (boo-hoo) p.s. When I sit numbly in some meeting doodling, and like a REALLY COOL doodle comes out, and then I crumple it up and toss it later (because it looks like a chocolate bunny, or something phallic), was it "art"? Hell yeah! Art is sorta that gray area between the outward urge to create and the inward desire to absorb. Art is both the doodle no one sees and the sunset that rips you alive one afternoon on the beach. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 12:56:26 -0600 From: ultraconformist@mail.weboffices.com Subject: Re: Byron >Byroin is another one -- really, I don't think he is as good as >Shelley or Keats; but he was Lord Byron, and he embodied the Romantic >Ideal. Even today some people will tell you that Byron is their Oh, I dunno about that. Byron was actually something of a classicist. He was a great admirer of Pope, for example. Read up in his letters, you will see him constantly making comments like "I think our generation of poets is taking the wrong course". He felt that some of his cohorts were often big sillies, and I wouldn't be surprised, knowing something about him, if he made fun of "The Sensitive Plant" on a regular basis. He was in the time, but in a lot of ways not of it. I think it's a mistake to say he embodied the Romantic Ideal merely because he was darkly handsome and tempramental and a lot of people picked up "Childe Harolde" as some sort of statement. There was a lot more to Byron than "Childe Harolde" and the gloomier parts of "Manfred". His true talent was for satire, and certainly he was the only poet in that circle capable of writing a fully realized one. "Don Juan" is quite as good as anything of Shelley or Keats. It's fucking brilliant, and not at all Romantic with a capital R. Love on ya, Susan ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 11:09:08 -0700 From: Mark_Gloster@3com.com Subject: Re: My art is better than your art, Renaissance notwithstanding >What does that mean? Six points of IQ is irrelevant for an individual, but >very important for a society. If all our IQs went down six points, thanks to >the famous "bell curve", we would lose half our genius group (IQ over 150, I >think?), and double our remedial reading classes and Rush Limbaugh fans. More Sharkboys, less Dignans! If they get even dumber, I could, like, be their leader. Wait a minute, I can't stand Rush Limburger. Maybe that's another category, like the under-two's. I wonder if there is some static cosmic IQ that is shared by all the beings on the planet, and that each is devalued when another person is "printed up." This would explain a lot of things. Happies, - -Markg ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 11:22:19 -0700 From: "Partridge, John" Subject: RE: My art is better than your art, Renaissance notwithstanding > What does that mean? Six points of IQ is irrelevant for an > individual, but > very important for a society. If all our IQs went down six > points, thanks to > the famous "bell curve", we would lose half our genius group > (IQ over 150, I > think?), and double our remedial reading classes and Rush > Limbaugh fans. > Yes but the good news is that in the modern world where global communication and travel are so inexpensive, smart people are finding each other and having smart kids. Of course the dumb ones are finding each other and having *more* kids but someone's gotta mow the lawns. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 11:30:17 -0700 (PDT) From: "Andrew D. Simchik" Subject: intent on...? > From: Michael R Godwin > > I don't agree that art is about intentional > communication. Didn't Kafka > want all his stuff destroyed? He wrote it for himself, > because his muse, > or daemon, demanded it. It was only because thingy lied > to him and > published the novels that we have them today. The intent was to create art/literature/stuff for himself. It doesn't have to be about "communicating" with any specific audience to be art, though that might be part of the way the artist thinks of art. Our notion of art seems to me to depend on what the artist thought she was creating or had created. I liked your thoughts on folk art and the changing audiences for art. Drew === Andrew D. Simchik, schnopia@yahoo.com _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 14:24:25 -0500 From: "JH3" Subject: Re: separation M Godwin writes: >PS Surely it's compression that 'blends' the sound, not reverb? >Maybe it's a bit of both - slap some more on and hope for the >best, I say! It *is* both, but it's harder to explain what compression is if you have only the written word to do it. (It's more than just limiting the high & low frequency content.) And yes, there's a lot less of it on J4S than you usually hear on a Hitchcock album - the only one that's close is EoL, to my ears - plus there's a whole different EQ'ing philosophy in general. Personally I *like* less compression (I don't even own a compressor myself) but I just think that a voice like Robyn's sounds a little better with the added depth provided by reverb, echo, or double-tracking to make up for the "thin nasality" problem. Compression doesn't help there. (Disclaimer: My own voice has the same problem.) Problem is, if you put the reverb on just one thing (i.e. the voice) and not the rest, it sticks out like a sore thumb and you end up having to put it on everything. And then Eb gets all upset! I know there are fegs with a lot more studio recording experience than I have... what's more, my so-called experience is pre-digital. A lot of the crispness in J4S is probably because more digital gear was used. Uh-oh, is my technophilia showing again? JH3 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 14:30:47 -0500 From: "JH3" Subject: My fart is better than your fart, Lindisfarne notwithstanding Dave D. writes: >In the long debate, the thread of which I lost so far back in >quotations that I don't feel like looking for it, someone offered >a commonplace LCD argument... That was me, Dave. And it was only yesterday... But "LCD" = "Lowest Common Denominator"? I'll admit the argument is commonplace, and maybe you know something I don't, but it's more like the Law Of Averages if you ask me. >>people born in one era have no greater chance, *biologically*, >>of being geniuses than people born in some other era. >I just thought I'd weigh in and stir some shit. Don't feel so complacent >that people are the same, biologically, throughout time. Some very >convincing scientific research has shown that in the modern era, >persistent chemical contamination from sources such as PCBs in fish, >dioxin in beef, etc, can interfere with hormone development and usage.... And so on. I'm not saying you're wrong, Dave (though maybe I should've used the word "genetic" rather than "biological"?); but you're at least indirectly bolstering the argument that post-war culture has a legitimate reason for being qualitatively and objectively worse than pre-war culture. (Just so you'll know!) >In any case, we may well be getting stupider than our forefathers... ...But in your zeal to condemn (justifiably!) modern society for its admittedly strange taste for ecological self-destruction, you seem to forget that our dads and grand-dads had to put up some pretty darn unhealthy shit themselves, like Polio, Syphilis, Killer Influenza Epidemics, unfiltered airborne industrial waste, The Black Plague, human and animal feces dumped directly into drinking-water supplies, lack of refrigeration and air-conditioning, and of course the Spanish Inquisition. Yo, NOBODY EXPECTS THE... oh, never mind. But nobody studies *that* stuff in relation to genetic/developmental damage, because those things are no longer a problem. Sounds reasonable, no? I'm sorry to keep going on about this sort of thing, but it's sort of essential to everything I believe. I think it all evens out, somehow. Call me bull-headed... John P. writes: >Yes but the good news is that in the modern world where >global communication and travel are so inexpensive, smart >people are finding each other and having smart kids. Personally, I think the *really* smart ones today are having themselves sterilized. There's less chance of being sued by your children for abuse discovered years later in hypnotherapy if you don't have any in the first place. John "gotta admit, I really like cherry popsicles" Hedges ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 14:51:47 -0500 (CDT) From: tanter@tarleton.edu Subject: Re: Byron Byron, schmyron. didn't know the first thing about real poetry. If you want a real poet, read Wordsworth. Marcy :) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 16:18:13 -0400 (EDT) From: Bayard Subject: Re: houston press review On Tue, 17 Aug 1999, Eb wrote: > >"I've got a lot of opinions, socially and politically, which surface at > >various times, but I can't seem to translate that into songs," says > >Hitchcock. "If I do, it just comes out didactic. It's not very inspiring. > >Songs really do seem to have a mind of their own or a will of their own. > >All I can do is decide whether to be receptive to the stuff that's coming > >through or not. The songs are all of me, but at times it seems as random to > >me as if I were a medium." > > And you fools thought Hitchcock was detached. ;) sounds more like "immersed." wonderful article; thanks, woj! keep 'em comin'. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 16:34:59 -0400 From: "jbranscombe@compuserve.com" Subject: crap romantic poets Byron, Wordsworth? Finally you're struggling towards a half decent poet: Percy Bysshe. And actually, he's only any good really because he's an atheist. Everything is art. Seems fairly obvious to me. jmbc ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 15:51:04 -0600 From: Marcy Tanter Subject: Re: crap romantic poets At 04:34 PM 8/18/99 -0400, you wrote: >Byron, Wordsworth? Finally you're struggling towards a half decent poet: >Percy Bysshe. And actually, he's only any good really because he's an >atheist. > >Everything is art. Seems fairly obvious to me. That's too easy---everything isn't art, unless God is the Artist. ;) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 16:26:26 -0600 From: ultraconformist@mail.weboffices.com Subject: Re: crap romantic poets >Byron, Wordsworth? Finally you're struggling towards a half decent poet: >Percy Bysshe. And actually, he's only any good really because he's an >atheist. I really don't like Wordsworth. That pastoral stuff gives me rashes. I do love Byron and I do love Shelley. The second half of "Adonais" isn't genius? Well, fuck me! Additionally, if you have something of this sort to say about Yeats or Dylan Thomas, you are invited to step outside. Loser has to write their next ten posts in ottava rima. Love on ya, Susan next to poetry I like fightin' best ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 18:09:39 -0400 From: "jbranscombe@compuserve.com" Subject: A The sc-art-let letter I said Everything is art. Marcy said Everything isn't art. Between us I think we've got it sorted. jmbc ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 18:06:33 -0400 (EDT) From: Ross Overbury Subject: Re: separation On Wed, 18 Aug 1999, JH3 wrote: > M Godwin writes: > > >PS Surely it's compression that 'blends' the sound, not reverb? > >Maybe it's a bit of both - slap some more on and hope for the > >best, I say! > > Personally I *like* less compression > (I don't even own a compressor myself) but I just think that a voice > like Robyn's sounds a little better with the added depth provided by > reverb, echo, or double-tracking to make up for the "thin nasality" > problem. Oh, crap -- now you've made me comment on this long before I was ready to. My own semi-formed opinion is that they picked the wrong mic or micing technique for Robyn this time around. The sound of the voice is sort of clinical, not just lacking in reverb, but too toppy and dry. It sounds much better to me when I'm not sharing the room with the speakers. I also don't think Robyn is nasal, so much as stuck in the soft palate. It's a bit of hissing wind propelling the notes, with the low resonance reduced. Constrict the muscles in the back of your throat and tongue a bit when you sing, and there you go -- that Robyn thing. Sometimes it's just the right device, but I think either he's using it too much lately or I'm becoming too familiar with Robyn. The closeness and sterility of the micing technique and the throat thing don't work very well together. Like someone turning on a strobe when he starts blinking. Give him a good large-diaphragm condenser and a bit of breathing room and it might be put right. I dunno if Bayard included enough of Balloon Man in the MP3 for the throat thing to come out, but I do one in my cover as a little joke. - -- Ross, the web-impaired. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 17:31:39 -0700 From: Joel Mullins Subject: Re: crap romantic poets Marcy Tanter wrote: > > At 04:34 PM 8/18/99 -0400, you wrote: > >Byron, Wordsworth? Finally you're struggling towards a half decent poet: > >Percy Bysshe. And actually, he's only any good really because he's an > >atheist. > > > >Everything is art. Seems fairly obvious to me. > > That's too easy---everything isn't art, unless God is the Artist. But everyone knows that Prince is the Artist. And Prince is definitely not God. By the way, you can't really define "art" and no two people will ever agree on what *is* art and what *isn't*. Art is just like beauty...it's in the eyes of the beholder. It's all opinion. Personally, I think the only thing artistic about Marilyn Manson is his make-up, but there are countless people out there who disagree with me. And what makes my opinion more valid than the opinions of others? Art is just a word that makes people think what they're doing is more important than it actually is. Or something like that.... ...hell! I have absolutely no fucking idea what art is. I don't think I care either. Dammit! Now I'm confused!! Joel, who's going to relax his brain. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 16:09:13 -0700 (PDT) From: Griffith Davies Subject: Second Spin Strikes Again If you are still looking for Queen Elvis - go to www.secondspin.com griffith _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 17:07:40 -0700 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: crap romantic poets On 8/18/99 3:26 PM, ultraconformist@mail.weboffices.com wrote: >I do love Byron and I do love Shelley. >The second half of "Adonais" isn't genius? >Well, fuck me! Now THAT'S POETRY! interjecting again, - -tc ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 17:36:37 -0700 (PDT) From: delia winthorpe Subject: carp romancin' poets no, no, no, no-no... blake (who is and is not considered a romantic poet - i say "yes!" though), could kick all of their asses including god himself at the same time! alright yeahhh.... i have nothing further to say on this subject. heheheheeeee d _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 20:44:13 -0400 (EDT) From: Bayard Subject: Re: separation On Wed, 18 Aug 1999, Ross Overbury wrote: > I dunno if Bayard included enough of Balloon Man in the MP3 for the > throat thing to come out, but I do one in my cover as a little joke. i did the first 2 minutes of most songs. http://158.72.105.122/gh/glass_flesh.htm np: "if we had a baby" =b obQuailspiracy: http://www.coturnix.demon.co.uk/index.htm ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 20:46:11 -0500 From: steve Subject: Re: A The sc-art-let letter jbranscombe: >I said Everything is art. Marcy said Everything isn't art. Between us I >think we've got it sorted. Art is whatever you can get away with - that Canadian guy. - - Steve, just very pleased that there's going to be a Buckaroo Banzai TV show. _______________ We're all Jesus, Buddha, and the Wizard of Oz! - Andy Partridge ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 19 Aug 1999 14:13:18 +1200 From: James Dignan Subject: purple, green and pink in the deep south Apologies if the following points have been answwred - I deliberately avoided all the commentaries on the album until I got my own copy. If you said something particularly erudite, I apologise. If not, well, I didn't miss anything, then. Mexican God - ambiguous - is it "Time will destroy you like a Mexican god would", or "Time will destroy you like it would destroy a Mexican god"? The latter conjures up images of "my name is Ozymandias, king of kings...". A nice plodding feel; comfortable and warm. I find myself harmonising (on the root note) on the 'oooh wopshawadada' parts and the chorus line. I wonder how correct the lyric sheet is with that "this is the evil I wished on so many"... to me it sounds more like "This is the evil eye, wished on so many". I'm tempted to book this one for the next Glass Flesh... The Cheese Alarm - wot, no Caerphilly? Intro starts off like Glass Hotel, then plunges deeper into the cheese. Tablas! I can hear tablas! Finally, the pulse gets going and - dammit, what's the earlier Robyn song with those etherial backing 'aah's? "Then you're dust", perhaps? My mind's hearing faint "Brenda's iron sledge" comparisons... maybe just the 'half the world sitting on the other half' idea. Viva! Sea-Tac - bouncy, with tongue quite firmly in cheek. Almost a more serious (?) Balloon Man feel in parts (the Space Needle parts in particular). What is it with Norway on this album? Love the 'oops!' ending I Feel Beautiful - like a big warm hug. Was Terrence asking about phasing or flangeing recently? Because those few notes of phased guitar are perfect. The odd 'popping' percussion line reminds me of some of XTC's songs in some way. A nice transition from the (ephemeral) 'mayfly' imagery to the (eternal) 'centuries' image. You've Got A Sweet Mouth On You, Baby - yet another nice plodding feel, and yet another song featuring bees. Like a happy Nick Drake song. The lyric pattern is 12-bar blues, which is a little surprising. Dylan used that pattern quite a lot during the 60s, so I can understand if there's any talk of a similarity there. A pleasant effect with the faint distortion of the acoustic guitar (which increases as the song progresses). NASA Clapping - frantic! I still think there's a similarity between the chorus of this and "Devil's Radio". Not sure of the necessity of the harmonica, Albert. Berko guitar break adds to the fun. Sally Was A Legend - considering how often I get kiwi music references into my posts, I'm a little reticent about comparing this with the Muttonbirds, but it must be done. This wouldn't be out of place on Envy of Angels... where's the euphonium? One of those rare songs that I feel I've always known. Still get the feeling that it's about someone who committed suicide, though. Too short! Antwoman - thematically, it vaguely reminds me of Shriekback's "Sharkwalk", but whereas that one strides along, this one slinks sexily along. And pretty hornily, too. I initially misheard one line as "Vengeance is mine saith the Law" - I was quite disappointed when I discovered that this pun wasn't the true lyric. Hmmm... then again, the more I listen to it, the more I'm convinced that it's the lyric sheet that's wrong! The antvoices remind me of, of all things, Tomorrow Never Knows by Das Bootles. The guitar in the ending almost dissolves itself into the intro of "Airscape" Elizabeth Jade - another bluesy structure, and vintage Hitchcock in its feel. This echoes early Hitchcock in the same way that them Beatles needed to put "One after 909" on "Let it be". It's tempting to compile the Hitchcock R&B album, with "Rock & Roll Toilet", "Captain Dryu", and this one high on the menu. No, I Don't Remember Guildford - ...I knew, of course, from SH. Wistful, as Robyn often is when he mentions places in his titles ("Winchester", anyone?). Someone looking back on a life that's over, from the other side. "There's a butterfly on my face" brings to mind the posters for Silence of the Lambs, although I'm certain that wasn't an intention. So that's two songs featuring butterflies, two featuring Norway, two bloating, two beasts and two bees. Are all the songs interlinked? Dark Princess - it hasn't hit yet, but I feel it will, given time - in much the same way that songs like "When I was dead" and "Wreck of the Arthur Lee" did. It's got a very 'Respect' feel to it, to be honest. Ethereal and haunting instrumentation, with subcutaneous bass and pringling keyboards. Jewels For Sophia - vintage Hitchcock stream of consciousness. Almost expected a Harrison Ford poster of a crocodile in search of a mirage. I guess Barney is that horrible purple thing... as for gerbils in your annex, I shudder to think. Rolls on with a savage sense of impending...what? You can almost feel it as a coal driven locomotive of strum around the 'coloured one' part. This one needs a lot of thought, but it will make it too, I'm sure. Little Priestess (?) - I find the piano a little annoying, but not enough as to bypass it. This one might take a bit more time for me to decide about it. Gene Hackman - a little forced, perhaps.... it's good to finally have it on an official CD, but it's not a favourite, really. the following are already marked "hit" in my brain: Mexican God, Sweet Mouth, Sally, Antwoman, Elizabeth Jade; bubbling under: Dark princess, Jewels. Overall, not no. one on my Hitchcock list...yet, but a broody masterwork nonetheless. I like it! James np - guess... :) James Dignan___________________________________ You talk to me Deptmt of Psychology, Otago University As if from a distance ya zhivu v' 50 Norfolk Street And I reply. . . . . . . . . . Dunedin, New Zealand with impressions chosen from another time steam megaphone (03) 455-7807 (Brian Eno - "By this River") ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 20:30:33 -0600 From: hal brandt Subject: new David Lynch film release dates! For Lynch fans, here's the first of "The Straight Story" release dates: US: October 8, 1999 (limited) US: October 22, 1999 (wide) UK: Fall 1999 Germany: October 21, 1999 Austria: October 22, 1999 Denmark: November 19, 1999 France: November 24, 1999 The Netherlands: December 2, 1999 Poland: January 7, 2000 Czech Republic: April 2000 http://www.mikedunn.com/lynch/sstory/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 18 Aug 1999 19:26:41 -0700 From: "Partridge, John" Subject: RE: Art is a lie. . . . > "Art is a lie that makes us realize the truth." > --Pablo Picasso > Now we're talking! Sincerity get thee behind me. > > >But tell me this, is there *any* > >category of alleged artistic expression that you would draw the line > >at and say, "sorry, haircut, that ain't art"? If yes, draw some > >boundaries for me. If no, then "art" doesn't mean a hell of a lot, > >does it? > > I think that art is not a single thing, it is a relationship between > the work, the individual viewer, and a wider audience of viewers > known variously as "posterity" or "audience" or "public." The notion that art is a relationship, a covenant between art and audience, is intriguing but I'm not sure what it means. It's one of those ideas that feel provocative but not productive. > > >intent matters not a wit; the > >result is what matters. > > To *you,* perhaps. And that's fine -- many people, including on > occasion myself, think that the work itself is all that matters. > (James Joyce, for instance, and LJ Lindhurst.) But to some artists, > the intent is very important. I have no doubt that it's important to the *artists* but who cares about them, I'm talking about the art. Which implies that a non-artist might produce a work of art. And that's fine: the term "artist" is applied retrospectively as a short-hand for describing someone who has produced some art, *not* the other way around. That is, you get to be called an artist once you've produced some art. If you haven't produced any art yet, you're called "amateur", "artist wannabe", "dilletante", or "unemployable". > I don't suppose the Nazi social > realists would be thrilled to have their works interpreted as fascist > imaginings and racial paranoia; nor do I think that Beethoven would > have been particularly thrilled to have the Nazis hold up his Ode to > Joy as an example of Aryan purity. Although, there can be a certain > comic effect when the artist's intent is unknown or misread or even > glossed over by enthusiasm for the work itself. I mean, when the > Vatican hangs one of Francis Bacon's "Popes" on the wall, that's a > bit of a curiosity -- like when my church's organist would play > Strauss's "Also Sprach Zarathustra," totally ignorant of the fact it > was written as a paean to Nietzsche, a veritable Anti-Christ. Heh heh > . . . Archie Bunker -- satirical clown or working class hero? > Oh indeed. Irony abounds. > And as I stated earlier, > defining art may be a partially social act. > You've got to be kidding me. How can the interaction between a single individual and a physical stimulus have a social dimension? When I, by myself, put on the headphones and am transported to a more beautiful level of existence by Beethoven's seventh, there is *nothing* social going on. Esthetic excitation is an inherently personal experience. > This was taken > to an extreme when he framed a urinal and signed it with a pseudonym, > passing it off as "sculpture." > > Yes, it was a conceptual raspberry, but one that mocked the > establishment rather than the viewer . . . for me, I can look at his > works and laugh *with* him. Dude, if you paid to get in, you're being laughed *at*. And anyway, what artist with any talent has *time* to waste it on demonstrating contempt for the establishment. Life is too short and too ugly to fritter away on sideshow distractions like shocking the bourgeoisie. Making fun of the retard in third grade is still despicable even if he *really* is retarded and *really* is ridiculous. If you've got talent, why make the world's most moving sneer when there's so much good stuff yet to be made. > > I guess I should answer your question . . . do I draw the line? The > answer is, no, I can't draw the line. If Artist X shits in a can and > calls it art, and Patron Y pays 1000 dollars for it, it's art to > them. To me? It's shit in a can. It is not art on a personal level, > and I think that I can make some criticisms of it that would be > fairly valid, saying that it is *bad* art. > > But I anticipate that some of you feel that by nature, ART *has* to > be good or it isn't art. No, I think we're on the same page on this one: 2x2 matrix covering the permutations of good art/bad art and like it/don't like it. Our debate is, I think, about what makes it on to the matrix to begin with. > > >Hmm. So can a parody be so well written that it becomes art? I would > >say no. A satire, possibly, but not a parody. > > And I would say, "yes." A parody -- a *good* parody -- must so > clearly understand the essence of the subject it is mocking that on > one small level it actually transcends the subject. I think "transcends" is the key and therefore by definition a *parody* is too tightly coupled to the original work to ever transcend it. Satire, OTOH, can transcend the original work because the satirical treatment may be only one of several levels at work. > There is an art > to that. Of course, because a parody is so limited in scope, so > focused, and so dependent upon other factors to exist -- is the > audience familiar with the original? Have they a sense of humor that > works *with* the parody? Etc., that I think a parody has a much less > likely chance at ever becoming a great work of art. But as I > established, I believe in various levels or gradations of quality in > art. "Bored of the Rings" is a brilliant parody, but it will never > become a greater work than "Lord of the Rings." Duchamp can paint a > mustache on the Mona Lisa, but. . . . > Well, I wouldn't go so far as to call BOTR "brilliant" but I did bust a gut over the treatment of the Strider-based character. (Otnay ootay ightbray, if you know what I mean.) > >I think an accomplished > >artist could certainly apply his talents toward the end of artistic > >criticism and the result would likely be very uh, artful. But I don't > >believe it would be art. I'm flailing with the hypothetical here - do > >you have a specific example to ground it? > > Sure. Read Roland Barthes "Mythologies," or almost any Derrida. These > are very much works of literature in of themselves. Or Nietzsche's > work -- there is a poetry to his critique, a pith and a grace, that > raises it to art. Or what about TS Eliot? He was a brilliant poet and > a brilliant critic. James Joyce wrote some criticism that has such a > Joycean flavor it reads like a missing link between Ulysses and > Finnegans Wake. And Borges, one of my favorites, his criticism is > often a springboard for some of his best writing. So non-fiction can be art? I view that as improbable but I admit we're on a slippery continuum where the ratio of "original" content to "real" content may be high enough to cross your threshold but not high enough to cross mine. But we'd be on the same continuum for a change. > > Now, again, I think criticism suffers from some of the same things > that limit the artfulness of parody -- it is focused, very specific, > and doesn't translate well from the specific to the general, which I > think is one of the yardsticks of Great Art. Stravinsky's writings > about music will never be as significant as his music; and Eliot's > criticism will never reach as broad an audience or mean as much today > as "The Wasteland." My argument is for merely accepting this as art, > not necessarily placing it up there with GREAT ART. Aha! You *do* have standards! So what happens if we just say that my definition of art is your definition of GREAT ART? Are they the same? > > >Well not just grad school. Lots of journalists like to talk about it, > >preferably by the column-inch. I don't understand what you mean by > >"undermining a clear view". > > I think you are prejudiced about art criticism, and that prejudice is > slanting your argument and maybe preventing you from really opening > up to some of my arguments. I have no beef with art crit - it's been invaluable with helping me better understand and better appreciate some of my favorite novels. It's just not art. My dig at grad schools is perhaps excessively mean but I think we'd all agree that academia is the most socially dysfunctional environment you'll find in a free country. > > >No question in mind Oscar Wilde was an artist and I don't see how > >I've robbed his life of anything. The biographers and historians can > >write to their heart's content about him and if you happen to be > >someone who has a strong interest in Oscar Wilde, then their writings > >will hopefully be illuminating. I don't see that an artist's > historical > >significance bears on his art. Is a landscape by Adolf Hitler any > >more or less a work of art because it's Adolf's handiwork? > > I think you misunderstand me. I meant that some artists, I think, are > more important than their work. What Wilde stood for, his wit, his > style, the very image of Wilde in that place and time, the very image > of Wilde today, is more significant to Western History than any of > his plays or poems. Well okay. It's a little like comparing apples to oranges but I think I see your point. It's also somewhat off-topic since we're trying to get at the quiddity of art, not the socio-historic significance of the artist-role qua public persona in the contemporary social matrix. > > "I have met you too late. You're too old for me to help you." > --A young Joyce to the 37 year-old Yeats > > "Such a colossal self-conceit with such a Lilliputian literary genius > I never saw combined in one person." > --W. B. Yeats (A remark about Joyce made in 1902.) > > Well cited. In a way they're both right. ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V8 #317 *******************************