From: les@jmdl.com (JMDL Digest) To: joni-digest@smoe.org Subject: JMDL Digest V2001 #174 Reply-To: joni@smoe.org Sender: les@jmdl.com Errors-To: les@jmdl.com Precedence: bulk Unsubscribe: mailto:joni-digest-request@smoe.org?body=unsubscribe Archives: http://www.smoe.org/lists/joni Websites: http://www.jmdl.com http://www.jonimitchell.com JMDL Digest Thursday, April 12 2001 Volume 2001 : Number 174 The 'Official' Joni Mitchell Homepage, created by Wally Breese, can be found at http://www.jonimitchell.com. It contains the latest news, a detailed bio, Original Interviews, essays, lyrics and much much more. The JMDL website can be found at http://www.jmdl.com and contains interviews, articles, the member gallery, archives, and much more. Information on the 4th "Annual" New England JoniFest: http://www.jmdl.com/jfne2001.cfm The Joni Chat Room: http://www.jmdl.com/chat.cfm ========== TOPICS and authors in this Digest: -------- Re: Shawn Phillips [Kobus Louwrens ] various replies [Tyler Hewitt ] Re: Joni's smoking agenda?? ["Kakki" ] Cactus Tree ["Blair Fraipont" ] Steve's concert database [pyramus@lineone.net] Laura Nyro NJC ["kerry" ] Re: april 11!!!!!!!!!! njc [SCJoniGuy@aol.com] The "Bjork Incident". (long and provocative) (SJC) [MDESTE1@aol.com] Hendrix meets Mitchell [Sheila Mulhern ] NJCRe: The "Bjork Incident". (long and provocative) (SJC) [catman ] Re: Art vs. Pop Culture NJC [SCJoniGuy@aol.com] for BJ fans (njc) [jan gyn ] Re: Art vs. Pop Culture NJC [Catherine McKay ] Re: Art vs. Pop Culture NJC [dsk ] Art (Some Joni content) [pyramus@lineone.net] Re: Art (Some Joni content) [catman ] Re: Art vs. Pop Culture NJC [catman ] Joni inspires again [SCJoniGuy@aol.com] Re: pt2 Art vs. Pop Culture NJC [dsk ] Re: Art vs. Pop Culture NJC [jan gyn ] Re: pt2 Art vs. Pop Culture NJC [catman ] Re: The "Bjork Incident" NJC [dsk ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 09:23:15 +0200 From: Kobus Louwrens Subject: Re: Shawn Phillips I heard a local radio with Phillips on a South African radio station (he is quite a legend down here: I don't know what his rep is like anywhere else). He tells a story where he met a tall blonde waitress (or something) somewhere and she asked him if he could show her some guitar tricks. And it turned out to be Joni. He tells it all 'nudge-nudge, wink-wink' to imply he showed her a lot more than quitar playing. Kobus - -----Original Message----- From: Deb Messling To: Joni Date: Monday, April 09, 2001 1:15 PM Subject: RE: Shawn Phillips >In the Borders Crossing article, soon to be posted on the JMDL web site, >Joni doesn't say SP taught her guitar, but says he's the first person she >ever met who had written a song, and she found that "intriguing and exotic." > >This was the first I ever heard of it. A search on Shawn Phillips on the >JMDL article site yielded nothing. > > >> >...During the next six years, Phillips showed Joni Mitchell how >> > to play the guitar, > >> This is news to me - can anyone shed any light on this ? > > > >----------------------------------- >Deb Messling >"I like cats. They give the home a heartbeat." ~Joni Mitchell >----------------------------------- ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 11 Apr 2001 23:15:53 -0700 (PDT) From: Tyler Hewitt Subject: various replies RE: I suspect that in another hundred years or so, the Beatles' music will be considered something like folk art. (not folk music, mind you) Kind of like songs from the American civil war period are now. - ---- Andy Partridge of XTC has spoken in interviews about some Beatles songs like Yellow Submarine becoming children's standards like Mary Had a Little Lamb or London Bribges. Perhaps a similar take on what happens to popular songs over the years. RE: I'll confess my main reason for avoiding Bjork is I have no idea how to pronounce her name (like, you go into a record store, and you want to ask, "Do you have anything by.... Bork? Beeyork? Bajork?"), people in the media keep describing her as "elfin" (which I'm sure she must hate - I would!) and I also have this thing about people who go by only one name. It's pronounced Beeyork with the accent on the 'york'. I think the main reason that she goes by one name is because her last name is Gudmundsdottir, which bost people find even harder to pronounce than Bjork! Tyler Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/ ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 01:24:37 -0700 From: "Kakki" Subject: Re: Joni's smoking agenda?? Bob, It's really incredible how you've made contact with so many of the cover artists. It's always good to hear that they are receptive to being part of the "project," too. Boots' story perked up my ears a bit because a former boyfriend was a recording engineer at A&M in the 70s and he also had some Joni stories (of which I was skeptical and which started a few spirited rows ;-) But he loved Joni very much and I later learned later that some of what he said was true. As for the smoking justification, I used to work with a part-time opera singer. She told me that it was standard practice for many of them to smoke to in order to deepen the voice. Although, I have a feeling that if Joni did say this, it was probably just another way to divert from someone getting on her about the smoking! Kakki Bob wrote: > "PS - Here is a bit of Joni trivia for you. A buddy of mine was a recording engineer in the seventies and got his start by assisting with the likes of The Byrds, The Flying Burrito Brothers, Dave Mason and many others including Joni Mitchell. My friend has always loved what he calls the "clarity" of her voice. (To give you an idea of how far back this goes, he worked with her during the period when she was hooked up with David Crosby.) The following piece of trivia may be common knowledge to a Joni fan like you, but here is what he once mentioned to me. He said that in her early days she was never satisfied with her lower vocal range. She was always wanting to sing deeper. So she chain smoked cigarettes and did so for many years." ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 07:48:08 -0400 From: "Blair Fraipont" Subject: Cactus Tree Listening to this song as I was preparing for bed last night, I realized how much it reminds me of my former roommate Dororthy, who was man crazy. She was constantly seeing different men, going on dates, but always insisting she was independant. Independant except when she would come downstairs crying her eyes out because some guy left her. But the lines, "There's a man who's climbed a mountain And he's calling out her name And he hopes her heart can hear three thousand miles He calls again He can think her there beside him.." Are almost a perfect match to her ex-lover-boyfriend who now lives in California and works in a National Park. He would call her from that distance atleast twice a month, and she sort of brushed it off. and then, "her heart is full and hollow like a cactus tree while she's so busy being free" She always came across as a very sweet concerned person, but when it came down to it, she did have this very thin personality that had a holow consistency. And what a great contradiction used by Joni. For instance,when we all view a cactus for the first time, we first think, "WOW, that thing must be heavy!" But realize of what the insides really consist. And that works with people too, i suppose. "Gee, Johnny is such a sweet guy" "oh, he is vindictive and plants his flowers upside down" "oh dear." Now, i am not here to say, "oh what an awful girl, dont be like her, or you'll be an awful person" I only appreciate the song more, now that I can relate to it. And, I love Joni's imagery and storytelling capabilities (as we all do). COMING UP TUESDAY AT the University of Delaware, Fellow Listers: Kate and CJ. I can't Wait. NP: Love or Money, JM from MOA _________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 12:55:00 +0100 (BST) From: pyramus@lineone.net Subject: Steve's concert database Excellent Steve. A great source of information. pyramus P.S. If all those girls were your dates I'm surprised you had time to go to ANY concerts. ;) < Subject: Laura Nyro NJC >>NP: Laura Nyro, "Don't Hurt Child" (Very soothing, instantly likeable from her new/posthumous release - a must have for you Laura fans!)>> Speaking of this, has anyone heard the tribute to Laura Nyro CD, called Time & Love? It came out a few years ago, and it's really good. I know it's been trendy to put out tribute CD's, but this one's a keeper! Here's the track list: 1. Time and Love - Phoebe Snow 2. Stoned Soul Picnic - Jill Sobule 3. Buy and Sell - Suzanne Vega 4. Save the Country - Rosanne Cash 5. When I Think of Laura Nyro - Jane Siberry 6. Stoney End - Beth Nielsen Chapman 7. Eli's Comin' - Lisa Germano 8. Wedding Bell Blues - the roches 9. And When I Die - Sweet Honey in the Rock 10. Poverty Train - Patty Larkin 11. He's a Runner - Jonatha Brooke 12. Sweet Blindness - Holly Cole 13. Upstairs by a Chinese Lamp - Leni Stern 14. Woman's Blues - Dana Bryant ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 08:27:26 EDT From: SCJoniGuy@aol.com Subject: Re: april 11!!!!!!!!!! njc <> I heard from Joseph a bit ago, Wally...he was disconnected from the University where he was subbed to the list, and also involved in some political stuff that had him occupied. But I hope he gets the message and I'll add a birthday greeting of my own! Bob ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 08:31:50 EDT From: MDESTE1@aol.com Subject: The "Bjork Incident". (long and provocative) (SJC) I am hoping that this post serves several purposes. Of course that may be wishful thinking because certain people wouldnt be convinced that the earth is round if shown a satellite photo of the blue orb itself but Ill try anyway. Of course everyone wants the rancor and negative vibes to go away from the list. I do as well. But whats to stop them from happening again if it isnt determined what causes such events in the first place. I submit this in that spirit. If you dont want to read it then dont. Return to the non-issue posts only. Delete this post right away. Dont read another word. But then again what this post is about is censorship, intolerance and what happens to anyone who only a small group of people on the list have decided they dont like. If someday it happens to be you, you will care, or you will leave. Im not interested in pointing out who the thought police are. Only that some exist on the list and what we all need to know and understand because this list is but a microcosm of the world. Now I have always tried to contribute to this list. Musically and with my posts. I was told by one person that this is a "mental problem" i have in search of "attention". I have met more than a few of you and you who I have met know what I am really like as a person. Those who dislike me very much have never met me but their dislike is very strong. Obviously they dont know me personally and they dislike what I write very much. Think about that. They dislike my thoughts. They are BAD thoughts. Bad humor. Bad sarcasm. Bad politics. And because a few of them feel this way YOUR thoughts are unacceptable and not fit to post lest they get miffed. Interesting. On a list in which all sorts of self -described "progressive" people lecture (Im not the only one guilty of this) others on how to be tolerant I recieved the following: "you must have been abused as a child to be so mean"......... Let me begin by asking when if ever anyone has ever published a list as per what if any subject is "off limits". What if any opinion or subject thereof is "approved" or "disapproved". I could now rattle off about a thousand subjects and or opinions in various forms from jokes (some extreemly filthy and obscene) to cartoons to photographs to virtually any and all forms of descriptive writing that have graced this incredibly vibrant clearinghouse of ideas and thoughts and I would be hard-pressed to figure out what it might be that I or anyone else for that matter should not or must not write about to the list. In addition to that i cant think of any conservative or liberal sacred cow that hasnt been placed under the microscope as well. Of course in that this list is more tilted to the left more conservative sacred cows are scewered than liberal ones but I always say so what. Lastly would someone please post to this list something, anything that we all would consider to be in "bad taste". We have had penis threads, body-part threads, breast threads, breast cancer threats, sex threads of all stripes, mental illness threads, abortion threads, depression threads, Cat sex threads, Cat venereal disease threads, anti-God and anti christian threads, anti-traditional values threads, fart threads, pissing anaconda threads, wife and girlfriend beating threads (although so far no get pregnant on purpose to get married threads [[suprise]]), drug addiciton threads, genocide threads, Hitler threads, insanity threads, hate threads, we even had someone announce to this list the celebration of "Not My President" day. And all with nary a protest. Not....one....peep. Amidst all these and a million more we have had not one single time people say "Hey Im reeeeely miffed at that one". "That subject sure is off limits". Only Marcel has the distinction of eliciting that comment and only for the following thread. Now think about all the venom and rancor and think about how great it has been and all because of the following: <<<10 reasons why Bjork is where she is. 10) Knee pads extraordinaire. 9) Mom is an attorney for the publisher. 8) Dad is a big wig in the UN. 7) Raw extortion with compromising photographs of big time music executives. 6) Knows and likes Bill Clinton (know what I mean). 5) Formerly on the staff of David Geffen. 4) Cheers at Erin Brockovich publicly during screenings. 3) Absolutely despises anything other than the new world order. 2) Was last seen emerging from Ted Turners pants 1) She is the winner of the slot reserved in the music industry for musically challenged people who MUST be given a spot for humanitarian resons. Just get over it.>>>> Ever watch David Letterman? Ever watch Jay Leno? Does someone really want to claim that they never say things just like this post almost every night on major media programs like those? Ever see lawsuits and protests of disgust directed at Letterman or Leno since they too say such things in public. Now of the ten things I posted ONE lister deduced I was "sexist" another deduced I was "mysoginist" another said this made their "blood boil" and they proceeded to go off the charts in bashing me and calling me "pathetic" and that this was all "garbage" and all posted my name to the list for all to see. I dare say many who saw the attacks and me named hadnt even seen the original post which is why i just posted it. It was also expressed how much damage this post did to the list and how all around bad it was that I had the audacity to post these horrible awful things to the list. They focused on three of the ten. Numbers 10-6 and 2. The others never got mentioned. Read them again. Were these three items placed in total jest worth disrupting the entire list and attacking someone personally? They thought so and thought so strongly. Amidst all these threads it seems that there is only a select few which cause any members to fume and fulminate and get all hot and bothered and those are ANY thread or statement that criticizes (or worse makes fun of) the sacred cows of the politically correct. Or one that may include some mockery of the left. While anyone apparently can post anything they want either protesting, criticizing, castigating, villifying, or mocking any value associated with the political right or even center of the political spectrum any semblance of doing the same to any portion of the sacred cows of the left and we see visible signs of outrage, consternation, anger, and worse. The blood flows and the rage boils. So I posted a totally ludicrous list of 10 things that some artist supposedly did to get ahead which basically lampooned in three items the qualities associated with the left wing of the entertainment industry and a few cliches so old they are kept in formaldahyde at the Smithsonian. Is this supposedly some violation of the code of the list? If so who made the code and would they please share it with the rest of us. But we all know it isnt that. Its a combination of things that essentially results in all the flame wars that plague the list from time to time. Its attacking the person instead of the ideas. Its the double standard of the left. While its OK to call someone a "Nazi" with impugnity or associate pure satire with the Columbine massacre (which is what one person did) it is reeeeeeeeely bad to conjure up the image of a songstress crawling out of the trousers of the same person who got precious little criticism for calling his employees who had ash-marks from their attendance at their religious ceremony on a religious day of obligation and mocked them as "Jesus freaks" a comment which if he was to have asked them if they were N____ lovers or F______ lovers would have seen him condemned to be tied to an anthill and swathed with honey by these caring sensetive listers. So if i resorted to a level of mockery of certain values it is only because it has happened about a million times without a single comment from the same people who claim to be "tolerant" of ideas and other people . So once again it is the principal that escapes those who claim to be "principled". And this is what is such a joke. Oh it was sooooooo disgusting. I can hear Eric Idle, John Cleese, and Terry Jones having at this one in their sauciest tones. Having said that I have identified one big problem and that being the self correcting nature of having to defend your insults to the person who you insulted. They like to use ideas and dress them up in incendiary insulting invective terminology and associate certain people with evil. And then they dont expect to have their target respond. He or she is just supposed to take it as if that is their manifest destiny and right. Or if that person responds they are supposed to involve the entire list. I disagree. I think involving the entire list in what has become essentially a personal matter is the worst way to handle it. I believe that If you start something directed at some person then you must defend what you said to that person first and foremost and do so directly. This is an easy way of insureing that those who like to take cheap shots and call people horrible names can not do so without having to face the human being they made their target. If they cant take the blow-back then they should refrain from insulting someone in the first place. They should delete and never read another post that that perosn posts to the list. OR they should criticize the idea ands leave the name out of it. This is why the list has flame wars. Because some people cant resist ignoring the idea and attacking the person who stated the idea. Like if I can call you a "Nazi" or "bigot" or some other incendiary term then i dont need to refute the idea. What is interesting to me is I have never EVER called anyone anything. People take great unbrage at being called a liberal (which is a basic political distinction that used to have a noble connotation)but freely label another person a name far worse. Put it this way is being called a "liberal" as bad as being called a "fascist". I dont think so. Some certainly do. They call you an evil person and you respond with sarcasm and they go ballistic.These same people consider literally simple or direct questions to be quasi-ballistic affronts and describe them as if ther are near physical assaults and threats. At least thats what they tell the list has occurred. By doing this they create the impression that some one rampages around throwing verbal molotov coctails of hate into their lives. And this AFTER they have created the entire matter by personalizing insults. You try to answer a question with a detailed and complete answer in a private email and they take one sentence post it publicly and give the impression that that was your response. People need to comprehend how bad it is to do such a thing. In fact i think it is against the law to do such a thing. So if one responds they are then attacked for responding. Once and when others join in the fray THAT is a flame war. And they overwhelm the list itself. Something that should be between two people grows to involve many. They describe the responses as "off list" as if its a bad thing when the entire purpose of it is to keep the personal matter they initiated from involving all the other listers and creating a disturbance and all the negativity that that engenders. Of course that is what they wish to hide behind. They WANT the list to be involved and encumbered because to keep it private is to focus all the eneregy on themselves. If they hadnt attacked the other person in the first place the matter is solved with a simple delete. But these are not ordinary people. they believe it is their right to tell others what and how to think. Read the post above. Is that in any way doing that? Did I name any of the people who eventually attacked me on the list.No. Of course they can post their own list of "10 things conservatives do to get elected" but then that would take brains. Insults are far easier to throw out there especially when their comrades will join them in chorus. So I had no problem with someone defending Bjork. I may think they are nuts but no one will find anyones personal name identified with my post. Go ahead I dare you. Ill bet a million dollars. Find another lister or Bjork fans name in my post above. Yet somehow my name was dredged up to say how bad it was this piece I posted which was totally off the wall. And how bad ol Marcel is for posting it. Or is that the idea. Is this some Marxist University wherein diversity of thought is to be punished. The nail that sticks out is to be pounded down. Yoko Ono can put a single nail into a board and call it God and some listers will ooh and ahh and call it etherial genuis and defend it to the death but if someone calls it what it is the they are to be marginalized and criticized. Sorry but I thought that the spirit of Joni was freedom to think. Sorry to bring everyone down to earth but this my friends is the personification of the spirit of Joni herself. She could give a rats ass what anyone thought. Which was why she was successful and why i love her so much. If she cared about anything it was freedom of thought and expression not some norm of conformity. All her career she was told in no uncertain terms of how shge was risking her entire career saying and doing thinsg that otyhers disapprove of from living outside of a marital contract ("we dont need no piece of paper") all the way to smoking in places wher shes not supposed to smoke. On this list there are all kinds. I dare say it is impossible to say any friggin' thing without someone short on their medication taking offense. I got used to that long ago. Ive posted all kinds of things about all kinds of things and more things about music than most listers. So if I twanged your twanger about Bjork then thats good. Be creative and answer back. Post another anti-Bush howler. See if I care. It will only be the four hundredth such post on this list. I welcome true creativity and even genius even if it goes to the heart of my most sacredest cow. Just remember that if you dish it out you need to be able to take it with the same spirit you gave. My advice that is intended to prevent the useless flame wars that ignite from time to time is leave people and names out of your answers. Completely. There is no need to associate the idea with the name. If you float an idea you should be able to do so without being called names. That is how we all learn from each other. If you want to attack the ides itself thats fine just focus on the idea as opposed to the person. That is called tolerance. Tolerance is not to be of ideas, it is to be of people. If you dont feel compelled to tolerate another person then why should the other person tolerate you. We can never claim to have the final answer as to what makes people what they are. It is not up to us to judge them in any way shape or form. It is not our right to call them highly charged names as our sum total response. It is also important that people on the list understand that to confront your idea does not mandate that you name them and label them as a bad person. This is exactly how flame wars have begun. When an idea is attacked the person need not respond. But when a name is named then a person is obligated to respond or accept his labeling. So I disagree with those who think its ok to do this. Besides one can never be sure as to the intent that a person had behind his making certain assertions. But lastly and most importantly is to understand that one of the very best of all aspects of this list is the challenge of ideas and new concepts that has always been so incredible. Exposure to alien ideas and concepts is the very essence of learning about life love and each other. Familiarity can breed not contempt but affection. Many times people suprise you. You think you know them but then you meet them and you realize that they are far more complex than your spasmodic reflex first indicated. It is the essence of life. Humor is different to all people. Some laugh at slapstick while others are repulsed by it as being primitive and juvenile. Who is to say. What is to be said is that this list wouldnt be half as interesting without the diversity it contains and that includes all thos who have the courage to post their deepest thoughts. This isnt my last post. Im not leaving in hurt feelings or bewilderment. We all need to respect each other more as people but the pure Hegelian concept is that the true synthesis of ideas happens only in the interaction between the thesis and the antithesis. In other words only out of conflict can come true understanding. (I take exception to the idea that we should only post pastel posts about music. The day that takes place is the day the spirit of Joni Mitchell dies. Imagine instead of Paprika Plains she was forced by the company to write a two minute harmless ditty. Instead of Mingus she was made to produce an album of sing-a-long songs with three chords and rhymy lyrics. Instead of Amelia she was forced to write Sugar Sugar. Instead of Furry Sings the Blues and Cold Blue Steel she was ordered to write Louie Louie. Im sorry if you think she should have. This may come as a shock to certain people but I get lots of emails from listers. Lots. Sometimes over 40. A few are critical but 90% are totally favorable. Some listers who disliked me at first dont dislike me now. Some who have always disliked me still do. I feel the same way about others. Thats the beguiling thing about this list's dynamic. We are all different. I accept that fully. Maybe some on the list dont. Thats unfortunate. Before i go id like to say have a great time at the "Not my President" rally and by the way that same group is holding their next convention in Beijing. Not just you, but we all, are entitled to our views and opinions. May this list forever be that way. Marcel Deste ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 09:14:55 -0400 From: Sheila Mulhern Subject: Hendrix meets Mitchell I read somewhere that Jimi Hendrix wrote in his diary about the day he met Joni Mitchell. I understand the diary was bought by Paul Allen (Music Experience Project Museum in Seattle). Has anyone ever been to the museum? Apparently the diary is displayed and opened to this exact page. Is this portion of the diary transcripted anywhere? I'd love to know what Hendrix wrote about Mitchell. Thanks, Sheila ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 15:46:48 +0100 From: catman Subject: NJCRe: The "Bjork Incident". (long and provocative) (SJC) I wondered quite while whether or not I should respond in anyway to this. It was well written post but does not address the beef I have (or others from what they have told me). I don't care what you write to the list, not at all. Of course you are free to write what you wish, just as anyone else is. If you write somehting that upsets someone, take the flak or don't write. However, the post does not answer my concern nor that of others who have the same concern. What you write on list and what you write off list are different. Your private posts are often downright rude and abusive. You obviously don't see that. It is not important that you do. The issue is i have asked you NOT to write to me and it has made no difference whasoever. You still continue to do so. That is why you don't get answers. I don't want to discuss anything with you. I have tried doing so in the past and you always end up being abusive, condescending etc. I am aware you would disagree with this. Like I said it doesn't matter. My reaction to how you write and what you say is mine and for me to deal with. Now, I think someone does have a problem when they continue to do something they have been asked not to do. I have given you the benefit of the doubt before, more than once, and each time I got stung. That is why I chose not to correspond with you. How do you explain your continuing to write to me when i have asked you not to? I would far rather be on good terms with people, even you. But I will not tolerate being shamed and abused either in writing or in person. I had told you how I felt about your writing and you responded with even more condescention. The only way i could stop that was to ask you not to write. It didn't stop it. The comment made to you about having been abused as child which makes you mean, was wrong and offensive to those of us who have been. bw colin ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 15:46:48 +0100 From: Edward Collier Subject: Art vs. Pop Culture NJC Hi Folks I'm new here, but I thought I'd throw in my twopennorth on the hoary old "Is it Art?" debate. IMO there are a great many suits suitable for Emperors being run up in the lofts and workshops of our capital cities - for my money (not that I will be parting with it), this would include practically anything that is described as "conceptual". That is, art that can be as usefully apprehended at the other end of a telephone as by visiting the exhibiting gallery. The best recent example of this would be Tracey Emin's "Bed" (for those lucky enough to have escaped this flagrant deception, this "work" is the artist's bed and its immediate environs in all its sordid squalor). Now, had she painted a picture of her bed... I recollect reading as a much younger man "The Aristos" by John Fowles wherein he cogently argues this subject (Art with a capital 'A'), one of his definitions being (from very hazy memory) that art should be the representation of the noumenal. He also went to great lengths to describe what he means by noumenal (don't bother with Webster!). Byeeeeee Edward ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 11:14:37 EDT From: SCJoniGuy@aol.com Subject: Re: Art vs. Pop Culture NJC Hi Edward, welcome to the list! How long have you been a JM fan? Do you have a favorite song and/or record of hers? Bob ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 09:15:40 -0700 From: jan gyn Subject: for BJ fans (njc) Hoo-aah! For those who liked Helen Fielding's Bridget Jones tomes, check out 'Jemima J' by Jane Green. It's similar in that thirty-forty somethings with low self esteem trying to date, but protagonist JJ is a little more street level than BJ, i.e., she still lives with roomates. So far a bloody good read... - -jan ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 12:39:21 -0400 (EDT) From: Catherine McKay Subject: Re: Art vs. Pop Culture NJC - --- Edward Collier wrote: > Hi Folks > > I'm new here, but I thought I'd throw in my > twopennorth on the hoary old "Is > it Art?" debate. Welcome to the list, Edward. I don't know nothin' about art (even though I'm married to an artist). I figure if you have to analyze it too much, what's the point? I just go by whether I like it or not, which may be naive, but what the hell. Sometimes it's the colours, sometimes the subject matter, sometimes it's because it makes you think. I'm not a big fan of conceptual art either, for many of the reasons you state. I suppose though, some of it DOES make you think (if only to think, "What the hell is that supposed to be? Hnh - you call that ART?" or, "Hmm, that reminds me of slavery, and slavery is wrong") and maybe that's what some of the conceptual artists are out to do - to make you think about something, even if it's not their art. If so, there may be some merit to it. IMO, there's a tremendous amount of BS that you have to wade through in reading anything about art - I figure, if I have to have it explained to me, in language that I don't understand, then I'm probably being conned. I wouldn't be rushing down to see buildings being covered in plastic wrap or anything, or dresses made out of meat and so on ... never mind, I have no idea what I'm talking about! but welcome to the list, just the same! Get your free @yahoo.ca address at http://mail.yahoo.ca ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 12:45:43 -0400 From: dsk Subject: Re: Art vs. Pop Culture NJC Hi Edward, Welcome to the Jonilist community! It's so nice to see you here! And to jump in right after subscribing... I'm impressed. :-) If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask. With all the knowledge about Joni here, it's likely that someone will have an answer for you. Edward Collier wrote: > I'm new here, but I thought I'd throw in my twopennorth on the hoary old "Is > it Art?" debate. IMO there are a great many suits suitable for Emperors > being run up in the lofts and workshops of our capital cities - for my > money (not that I will be parting with it), this would include practically > anything that is described as "conceptual". That is, art that can be as > usefully apprehended at the other end of a telephone as by visiting the > exhibiting gallery. Conceptual art *is* difficult to get a hold of, sometimes literally since there's often no object involved. So, yes, experiencing the art through the end of the telephone might actually be part of the creation. No need to see an object, just to see the idea behind the object. I find it all fascinating, even though the super-intellectualism of it can become unsatisfying after a while... and I then want a dose of sensuous colors and texture and form (sounds like a painting to me). > The best recent example of this would be Tracey Emin's > "Bed" (for those lucky enough to have escaped this flagrant deception, this > "work" is the artist's bed and its immediate environs in all its sordid > squalor). Now, had she painted a picture of her bed... The Saatchi-sponsored artists *are* getting lots of attention these days. It will be interesting to see what's said about their work years from now. > I recollect reading as a much younger man "The Aristos" by John Fowles > wherein he cogently argues this subject (Art with a capital 'A'), one of his > definitions being (from very hazy memory) that art should be the > representation of the noumenal. He also went to great lengths to describe > what he means by noumenal (don't bother with Webster!). ... so of course I looked in my dictionary right away. Not much help in understanding noumenal. Cool looking word though. So, welcome again, Edward! I hope you enjoy your stay here. And in case you don't know, Siquomb is an anagram of "she is queen undisputed of mind beauty" and is the name of a character in a mythology Joni wrote long ago. Sometimes, in unfettered enthusiasm, someone will say about Joni, "she's so siquomb, isn't she?" and we all nod in agreement or maybe some people sigh and say, yeah :-) It's a wordier title of affection than the OH of the RT list, but then Joni is a wordy gal, so it's fitting. atb, Debra Shea ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 18:12:42 +0100 (BST) From: pyramus@lineone.net Subject: Art (Some Joni content) Some fascinating views about art on the list recently. I'm reminded of the following quotation: "The nature of a work of art is not to be a part, nor yet a copy of the real world (as we commonly understand that phrase), but a world in itself, independant, complete, autonomous; and to possess it fully you must enter that world, conform to its laws, and ignore for the time the beliefs, aims, and particular conditions which belong to you in the other world of reality." (Oxford lectures: Professor Bradley: 1901). My own view is akin to those of the good professor. As Colin said everything is (potentially) art, but I would add that you have be prepared to perceive it as such. I suppose the modern idiom would be that you have to 'buy into it'. If we look at painting, you walk into a gallery and either study the paintings and involve yourself in them, or you just think that they are wall decorations (Elvis Costello's 'useless beauty'?). If you involve yourself in them then they become art. They are art when they are created because the artist obviously must involve himself in them. They then become art again when viewed by someone who is willing to view them with his mind and not just his eyes. You don't have to be an artist to do this. Of course this works with the other arts as well. Look at Jonis music. Some people are quite happy to find joy in the music and aren't too bothered about the lyrics. A few will not be too concerned with the music but love the lyrics. When the lyrics are strong this works well. Still more love both, and the interaction between the two. It depends how you approach this and how deeply you are willing to buy into it. All art is created from nothing and needs an audience to survive. We are all creating art all of the time and are surrounded by it, but sometimes fail to realise it. pyramus ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 18:34:39 +0100 From: catman Subject: Re: Art (Some Joni content) > We are all creating art all of the time and are surrounded by it, but sometimes fail to realise it. that is my take on it. Thanks for your interesting post. > > > pyramus - -- bw colin colin@tantra.fsbusiness.co.uk http://www.geocities.com/tantra_apso/index.html ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 18:35:54 +0100 From: catman Subject: Re: Art vs. Pop Culture NJC > The best recent example of this would be Tracey Emin's > "Bed" (for those lucky enough to have escaped this flagrant deception, this > "work" is the artist's bed and its immediate environs in all its sordid > squalor). Now, had she painted a picture of her bed... > Hi Edward(my middle name) and welcome. The above is an example of what i would have liked to have posted but didn't. She and Damien Hirts stuff leave me agog! bw colin ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 13:42:11 EDT From: SCJoniGuy@aol.com Subject: Joni inspires again We all know that Joni has inspired darn near every MUSICIAN working in the biz today, but here's a guy who was inspired in the visual arts...sorta topical in light of the current art thread. (Debra, I too am lovin' your comments!) Here's a quote... <> And here's the whole story where you can see his creations: http://www.rrobertsgallery.com/pierson.html Bob NP: Ani, "beautiful night" ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 14:17:21 -0400 From: dsk Subject: Re: pt2 Art vs. Pop Culture NJC catman wrote: > Art is art and to me that means everything human kind crreates from tools to buildings to clothing to cars to buildings etc. As to their 'value' ect well that is a different argument altogethr(totally subjective too) and not one I was addressing. Traditonally art refers to paintings or sculptures or any object that is looked at purely for its aesthetic qualities. You can claim art is anything a human creates, but then we're not talking about the same thing and it all gets confusing. My definition includes some sense of purpose behind what is created, not necessarily an "I'm making art now" sense of purpose, but a desire to create in order to bring ideas together, or describe one's view of the world, or to simply play with colors and then precisely picking which colors, always with some concern about the aesthetics of the work, even if what is created appears "ugly" to everyone else. Not everything a person creates is so deliberately done and done only for the challenging pleasure of creating. Another part of my definition of art is that art objects are not directly useful. For example, a handtool may look beautiful, but the reason for its design is so the tool can be used efficiently; its beauty is a by-product of that, and because its usefulness is its reason for being, it's usually not considered an art object. There's a blurring of the edges now between art and craft, with some people arguing that craft objects are art and others disagreeing (of course); I think they are two separate categories of objects. Marcel Duchamp long ago exhibited a signed man's urinal on a pedestal in a gallery and claimed that since he was an artist, the urinal was a work of art because he said it was and because he presented it in a context where art had traditionally been presented, and thus was born conceptual art. It's no wonder we are disagreeing, Colin, and your definition is probably closer to current thinking, i.e., art is anything a person claims is art. Anyway, I think we'll need to agree to disagree on our definitions of art, which certainly isn't the first time such an agreement has been reached when discussing the What's Art? question, and it won't be the last either. I'll consider your definition, but will probably stick with mine or some variation of it for now. I find there's a lot more creativity possible when there are some edges. atb, Debra Shea ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 13:03:50 -0700 From: jan gyn Subject: Re: Art vs. Pop Culture NJC At 06:35 PM 4/12/01 +0100, catman wrote: >> The best recent example of this would be Tracey Emin's >> "Bed" (for those lucky enough to have escaped this flagrant deception, this >> "work" is the artist's bed and its immediate environs in all its sordid >> squalor). Now, had she painted a picture of her bed... >> I like Tracy Emin! She comes up with a lot of good lines. - -jan ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 21:14:31 +0100 From: catman Subject: Re: pt2 Art vs. Pop Culture NJC > Traditonally art refers to paintings or sculptures or any object that is looked at purely for its aesthetic qualities. You can claim art is anything a human creates, but then we're not talking about the same thing and it all gets confusing. > > My definition includes some sense of purpose behind what is created, not necessarily an "I'm making art now" sense of purpose, but a desire to create in order to bring ideas together, or describe one's view of the world, or to simply play with colors and then precisely > picking which colors, always with some concern about the aesthetics of the work, even if what is created appears "ugly" to everyone else. Not everything a person creates is so deliberately done and done only for the challenging pleasure of creating. I undrstand where you are coming from. I thought from your last post that we had a different view of what art is. I take it from what you have explained, that, for example, my sweaters are just sweaters because they have a function and not created just to be hung up somewhere? I know one designer calls her stuff 'wearable art'! I guess that is is how I look at it too. You see i spend a lot of time working with colour and pattern and shape. the end product is something to wear. It please me much more than creating a painting would because a painting is just hung up on a wall soemwhere. A sweater is worn and moves and seen by loads of people and gives pleasure to both wearer and seer(assuming they like it!). I also see the validity of your definiton of art, even if it does leave my art out of it. I guess we don't agree, and that is okay. bw colin ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 17:51:51 -0400 From: dsk Subject: Re: The "Bjork Incident" NJC MDESTE1@aol.com wrote: > I have met more than a > few of you and you who I have met know what I am really like as a person. You also show what you're really like as a person right here, on this list, as we all do. > ...we even had someone announce > to this list the celebration of "Not My President" day. And all with nary a > protest. Not....one....peep. LOL! That's so funny to me that my one-time announcement of a public political demonstration is in your list of things people could complain about. How does that possibly compare with your unending supply of hateful posts about politics, Clinton-hating especially, that we've all been subjected to in the past year? And usually said nothing about. > Amidst all these and a million more we have had not one single time people > say "Hey Im reeeeely miffed at that one". "That subject sure is off limits". > Only Marcel has the distinction of eliciting that comment and only for the > following thread. Very wrong. People are usually "called on" their behavior if it's hurtful or hateful, and there are constantly discussions, sometimes heated ones, because people see things differently. So this "only Marcel" comment makes no sense at all. > Now think about all the venom and rancor and think about > how great it has been and all because of the following: Yeah, I know, you've had a good time with this. I doubt that anyone else has. > Amidst all these threads it seems that there is only a select few which cause > any members to fume and fulminate and get all hot and bothered and those are > ANY thread or statement that criticizes (or worse makes fun of) the sacred > cows of the politically correct. Or one that may include some mockery of the > left. The Bjork list reactions weren't about politics; they were about mean-spiritedness. > This is why the list has flame wars. Because some people cant resist ignoring > the idea and attacking the person who stated the idea. People did react to your ideas in the Bjork list; they did not attack you, unlike the private messages you sent in reply. > They describe the responses as "off list" as if its a bad thing when the > entire purpose of it is to keep the personal matter they initiated from > involving all the other listers and creating a disturbance and all the > negativity that that engenders. You might actually believe this excuse. From the perspective of someone who's experienced your private messages, you keep it private so you can be even more hateful than you are on the list, where you know it would not be acceptable behavior. If it's not acceptable in public, what makes it ok in private? The fact that you tone your nastiness down in public messages shows me that you know exactly how you come across privately. > Of course that is what they wish to hide > behind. Yes, you do wish to hide your behavior. > So I had no problem with someone defending Bjork. I may think they are nuts > but no one will find anyones personal name identified with my post. Go ahead > I dare you. Ill bet a million dollars. Find another lister or Bjork fans name > in my post above. Seems to me you had MAJOR problems with people defending Bjork and not agreeing with you. Isn't that what all this turmoil is about? And what your private posts to anyone who had made a comment all about? Posts that across the board were seen as negative and nasty, to put it mildly. And do you really think people don't know who you're talking about? Good grief, what an odd thing to feel so self-righteous about. And if people have publicly made their statements, which is why we know who you're talking about in the first place, what does it matter if you name them? Again, good grief on this one. > ...Of course they can post their own list of "10 things conservatives do to > get > elected" but then that would take brains. > > ... Before i go id > like to say have a great time at the "Not my President" rally and by the way > that same group is holding their next convention in Beijing. It's nasty digs like these that you throw in and then call humor that show your attitude toward people. All the other paragraphs you've written can't hide your underlying attitude. It's obvious from all the "they"s in your message that you haven't spent a second wondering about your reponsibility in all this. Too bad. Good luck to you, Marcel. Debra Shea ------------------------------ End of JMDL Digest V2001 #174 ***************************** ------- Post messages to the list by clicking here: mailto:joni@smoe.org Unsubscribe by clicking here: mailto:joni-digest-request@smoe.org?body=unsubscribe ------- Siquomb, isn't she?