Da: "L-Soft list server at St. John's University (1.8d)" A: "Danilo Curci" Oggetto: File: "ARCO LOG9701" Data: luned́ 26 novembre 2001 21.36 ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Jan 1997 17:12:54 +0100 Reply-To: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" Sender: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" From: Francisco Yus Ramos Subject: New subscriber Dear colleagues, I have just joined this e-mail list, and I would like to introduce myself. I am a researcher at the University of Alicante (Spain), who is specialised in the application of pragmatics (especifically Sperber and Wilson's relevance theory) to verbal-visual discourses such as film, comic, advertising and the like. Forthcoming in POETICS there is an article of mine in which I propose a brand new relevace-based model of the outcome of interpretation OF and IN media discourses. The model is called VV-MODEL (verbal-visual model) and is made up of sixteen categories, each with four preliminary attributes: (1) whether communication takes place directly between the author of the discourse and its addressee (spectator-oriented communication), or whether communication takes place between characters (character-oriented communication) (2) Whether communication is intentional or the interpretation grasped by the addressee (spectator/character) has somehow "exuded" from the communicating source without any prior intentionality. (3) Whether communication is verbal or non-verbal (4) Whether the interpretation intended by the communicator is the interpretation selected by the addressee (maximal processing efficiency) or not (minimal efficiency). My hypothesis is that the outcome of any kind of interpretation IN/OF media discourse can fit, one way or another, one or several of the 16 categories that result from the (mathematical) combination of the above-mentioned four attributes. In another publication ("Conversational cooperation in alternative comics"), I have demonstrated that Grice's maxims can be a useful way to establish social boundaries between characters in alternative comics just by making certain characters violate these maxims in social-class-specific ways. I am glad to join this group. Yours sincerely, Francisco Yus Ramos Department of English Studies University of Alicante (Spain) ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 1 Jan 1997 15:43:09 -0500 Reply-To: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" Sender: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" From: Joseph Miceli Subject: Re: is art dead MY name is Joseph /m/22/,I am a college student and work part-time .I am very interested in art in all it's forms from fine art to dramatic.I am also interested in psycology,philosophy.I am also into martial arts and work out whenever I can.I believe that a individual can learn many things from art,especially if you pratice it,a person can not only learn more about art,but more about himself.If art is dead,which I don't think it is,I tend to think that if anything is dead it is people. In the society we live in today,people are more set on the quick dollar then the greater good of trying to accomplish something that no one person in this world can take away from you,and that is creating art. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 14:09:41 -0500 Reply-To: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" Sender: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" From: Laura Reedy Subject: Plato I was reading some interesting quotes the other day that i thought i might relay to the list. They come from Healing The Split, a psychology book on the line between creativity and madness. About two thoudand years ago Plato apparently was quoted But he who, not being inspired and having no touch of madness in his soul, comes to the door and thinks that he will get into the temple by the help of art- he, i say, and his poetry are not admitted; the sane man is nowhere at all when he into rivalry with the madman. His student Aristotle would later say that "all who have been famous for their genius...have been inclined to insanity." I just thought these comments by our fathers of philosophy were rather interesting, especially when you study how much they hold true to our more recent models of genius; Einstein, Mozart, Picasso, although no one would wholeheartedly call them madmen. The topic struck as rather interesting, so if anyone has any comments or imput please forge it on ahead. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 16:24:35 -0500 Reply-To: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" Sender: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" From: Erin Partridge Subject: this day and age hi. I just wanted to comment that I find it sad that art has been pushed away from every day life. In aincent cultures, art was not a hobby, it was a way of life. What has caused this separation of art from society? ...Just wondering, Erin ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 22:45:05 +0100 Reply-To: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" Sender: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" From: Marianne Ajana Subject: Re: Plato Responding Laura Reedy's quotes and observation, let me present this forum with a small bouquet of quotes about the same subject. There is nothing new under the sun. There is no insanity so devastating in man's life as utter sanity. --William Allen White I teach that all men are mad. --Horace When we remember we are all mad, the mysteries disappear and life stands explained. --Mark Twain True genius sees with the eyes of a child and thinks with the brain of a genii. --Puzant Kevork Thomajan Genius begins great works; labor alone finishes them. --Joseph Joubert One of the strongest characteristics of genius is the power of lighting its own fire. --John Watson Foster When human power becomes so great and original that we can account for it only as a kind of divine imagination, we call it genius. --William Crashaw I don't want to be a genius--I have enough problems just trying to be a man. --Albert Camus The pursuit of truth and beauty is a sphere of activity in which we are permitted to remain children all our lives. Albert Einstein What lies behind us and lies before us are small matters compared to what lies within us. Ralph Waldo Emerson If a man does not keep pace with his companions perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music he hears however measured and far away. Henry David Thoreau collected by Marianne Ajana, M.A. There is nothing that enriches life as the certainty of death. Michael Frayn. ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 18:42:11 -0500 Reply-To: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" Sender: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" From: Motoridge@AOL.COM Subject: Re: Plato Thanks for the quotes re genius. I think one of the strange aspects of genius is that it is not something we can declare about ourselves, no matter how inspired we may be. Genius is bestowed to us be others. Observers who recoginse the aura and proclaim it onto the 'genius' ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 15:55:02 -1000 Reply-To: miderror@ix.netcom.com Sender: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" From: "Randy K. Otaka" Organization: Yamazu New Life Inc. Subject: Re: Plato to add to the previous list of quotes, relating to madness (and art): "and now i know there are no secret tricks no correct politics just liars and lunatics." -soul asylum, "homesick" i feel that "reality" is, in its truest sense, insane. in buddhist terms, "reality" is empty of independent existence. the "sane" people are only "sane" because they are spared from, or actively deny, seeing this "truth": "everything is cut and dry day and night earth and sky somehow i just don't believe it." -soul asylum, "runaway train" if "reality" is empty, then there is no point to it, no edge around it, no connection within it, save what the artist can "make up." the needles, scissors, and thread by means of which the artist weaves his/her OWN fashions, these tools and the fabric which they are used upon, are all FICTITIOUS. and the madness of the artist is akin to that of the tailor of the "emperor's new clothes." i think artists perform their madness to "re-veil" the irrelevance of the distinctions between art/reality, clothed/naked, sane/insane. in "truth", there's no "truth." -- things are not what they seem, but are nothing other than what they seem. http://www.netcom.com/~miderror/caterpillargone.html ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 19:08:54 -0500 Reply-To: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" Sender: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" From: Erin Partridge Subject: Re: genius(motoridge) good point. Can be applied to many of the lables that are placed on people :) ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 4 Jan 1997 16:30:12 -1000 Reply-To: miderror@ix.netcom.com Sender: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" From: "Randy K. Otaka" Organization: Yamazu New Life Inc. Subject: Re: Plato Motoridge@AOL.COM wrote: > > Thanks for the quotes re genius. I think one of the strange aspects of genius > is that it is not something we can declare about ourselves, no matter how > inspired we may be. Genius is bestowed to us be others. Observers who > recoginse the aura and proclaim it onto the 'genius' cannot the same thing be said about madness? is madness then a social phenomenon? if so, then this undermines the way in which many of us (me sometimes) see madness: as a "real" disease, like a nasty virus. if madness is social, then it lives within each and every one of us, both sane and insane... we did a reading of oedipus rex once in which we saw oedipus as the pharmakon, or scapegoat, for the city of thebes. although oedipus committed the madness of paternal murder and incest, he did so unwittingly, and in fact, through the very attempt to avoid this fate. so, can't we say that ANYONE in "oedipus's shoes" would have done exactly the same thing? in other words, the potential to murder and commit incest lived in every individual in thebes, but oedipus, unwitting criminal, was a visible embodiment of these dark possibilities, so he was expelled, that the rest of the community could "be cleansed", could feel sane and whole again... "genius" may be a word operating under similar forces... my personal feeling is that genius/madness "exists" before social recognition. an individual may feel isolated/alienated/perplexed for countless reasons. the attempt to express this oftentimes painful uniqueness results in new vocabularies, and the resulting labels of genius or insanity... what i'd like to say is that genius/madness allows the "afflicted individual" to get in touch with a reality that has no commonality with the society around him/her. therefore, for that individual, such terms as "genius" or "madness" no longer mean anything, because they are socially derived terms. for society-at-large, the terms "genius" and "madness" DO have meaning, and allow the community to identify itself through contrast. to me, this is the most riddling paradox of art. an artist struggles to express something to an audience. and yet, in order for that something to be worth expressing, the artist must communicate, at some point, with that which is radically asocial (i.e. "mad", not necessarily in the social sense)... oh well, these are my personal takes on art. i'm not an artist myself, so my statements are definitely (dis)qualified... also, i realize that this is an artistic rendering of the process of art/madness/genius. there are no needles, scissors, or threads, to pinpoint, cut, or tie anything together neatly... sometimes, (sh)it just happens. -- things are not what they seem, but are nothing other than what they seem. http://www.netcom.com/~miderror/caterpillargone.html ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 16:32:22 +0100 Reply-To: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" Sender: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" From: Marianne Ajana Subject: Genius/madness (Otaka) You wrote: What i'd like to say is that genius/madness allows the "afflicted individual" to get in touch with a reality that has no commonality (sic.) with the society around him/her. I disagree that the "affliction" of either genius or madness should not have anything in common with society at large. I believe a streak of genius/madness exists in every human being - perhaps even as the cornerstone of our human nature and creative abilities. However, most of society disowns this part - probably though awe or fear. Unlike common people the artists/the mad ones - do respond and listen to this inner streak or voice in human nature. They have had the 'mad' courage to delve into it and discovered a powerful source in their lives. Another quote that I always remember, but have forgotten who said it, says, "When God created man he left within him a chip of his own tool - creativity." A bright, divine spark is in all true art and creativity. I think the difference between the creative artist/genius and the 'madman' is that the genuine artist - unlike the madman - is able to/must transform this inner source or well-spring into something constructive - he or she is driven by a purpose and a powerful urge to create. Experiencing the process of inspiration and art creation unfolding under one's hand or in one's mind is almost ecstatic. No wonder it has often been compared to the experience of birthgiving. Concept - conception. For the artist it is a deeply satisfying quest - a quest exploring and stretching the fringes of human imagination and definitely flirting with and bordering on sheer madness. The contemplation of great art gives me an intense pride that I am a part of humankind - the only species with such a potential for awe-inspiring, mad genius. And art CANNOT die! Marianne Ajana ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 10:54:33 -1000 Reply-To: miderror@ix.netcom.com Sender: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" From: "Randy K. Otaka" Organization: Yamazu New Life Inc. Subject: Genius/Madness (Mariana) Dear Mariana, As I am not entirely clear on my own point, I cannot really agree or disagree. I thought that I was saying the same thing, or at least attempting to splice my "thing" to express my awareness of a complexity within it. What part of art is social, and what part asocial? I feel that art IS this question (and madness/genius as well), even though we may appropriate answers from their struggles as being constructive, social, etc., or just a piece of **it. In other words, art draws the line, and other people decide which side of it they are on. As far as the difference between genius and madness is concerned... yes, I am inclined to agree that this difference has something to do with what is constructive, and what is destructive. But who determines this? I suppose I am not making myself clear here... I'm pretty sloppy with regards to Freud, but I do remember something about his book, "Beyond the Pleasure Principle," in which he seemed to say that Eros (a more or less constructive impulse) and Thanatos (the death instinct), at some level, were thoroughly confounded. I think that the artist/genius/madman sometimes gets in touch with this ambiguous reality, where love and death "mean" the same thing. And when this happens, the reality of "love" and "death" as separate, distinct forces disappears. The perception of these events, and most other little dramas of life... well, they become just that, little dramas. Shows. This perception is liberating, in so far as "reality-as-is" has less influence upon the artist/genius/madman. This allows for the CREATION of other possibilities. HOWEVER... my point, if there is a point, is this: after coming into contact with the "absence of a face behind the mask" so to speak, does the artist EVER entertain the thought that his work is "for the benefit of others?" I would think that this thought would disrupt the sincerity of his work. Most artists I know are rather DESTRUCTIVE, in the sense that they want to BREAK through the monotonous film of the already-conceived, and bring people back to the moment of the question OF construction/destruction, art/reality, etcetera, the moment before all words, the moment that we always only escape FICTITIOUSLY. Some, yes, consciously think of their audience, but these are, in my opinion, less effective artists than those who, like Oedipus, struggle blindly through their art, expressing truth through their own ambiguous experiences... Your points are well-taken. I'm just being the devil's advocate, I suppose, and attempting to return all "clarity" to the vagueness and ambiguity before, which, I feel, is the source of madness and genius, and which, even you feel, is denied by society. And I do agree: Art cannot die. And the reason for this is that REASON cannot live forever. Freud said: "Art hallucinates Ego mastery." Randy -- things are not what they seem, but are nothing other than what they seem. http://www.netcom.com/~miderror/caterpillargone.html ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 5 Jan 1997 17:50:45 -0800 Reply-To: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" Sender: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" From: Benny Shaboy Subject: Re: Plato You wrote: I was reading some interesting quotes the other day that i thought might relay to the list. > His student Aristotle would later say that "all who have been >famous for their genius...have been inclined to insanity." > >I just thought these comments by our fathers of philosophy were rather >interesting, especially when you study how much they hold true to our >more recent models of genius; Einstein, Mozart, Picasso. . . . - - - I appreciate your bring this up. This issue of the line between madness and genius is, as you point out, an old one and one that deserves some investigation and thought. I would like to know, however, in what way Einstein, Mozart, Picasso might be considered even slightly mad. While the behavior and thinking of some "insane" persons can parallel "creative" behavior and thinking, most of the people we look up to as geniuses--certainly these three are good examples--were thoughtful, hardworking and disciplined. (Their private lives, if that's what you are talking about, were not necessarily more messy than those of salesmen, office workers, or other "ordinary folk" that we might know--or at least that I know.) I don't mean to say that there are no examples of artists who were colorful or even "disturbed," and I understand that the creative process involves "jumps of logic" that seem similar to those of madness, but think for a moment about these artists, for instance: Henry Moore. Regarded as perhaps the greatest genius of modern sculpture. He lived an extraodinarily untroubled life--middle class, monogamous, even-tempered and long. Auguste Renoir. Ditto. A real family man, he went off to his studio daily in the morning, usually returned for lunch, back to work after lunch, home by dinner. Day after day. Joan Miro. He looked like a banker or other respected member of the community and pretty much lived that way. The list goes on and on. I bring this up not to say that artists are just regular people, but because I am confused by statements such as Aristotle's. Of course Plato had a very dim view of visual art, but that is another matter. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 6 Jan 1997 07:20:31 UT Reply-To: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" Sender: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" From: Natalie Tyler Subject: Re: this day and age Erin ponders: >>>.What has caused this separation of art from society? I would say that television is a BIG culprit. I grew up without a television in my home after one experimental year when I was four years old. When I learned to read I knew no better entertainment than books. I really do not know that I would have selected the book over the television at age 6 or 7 so I am glad that the choice was made for me. Here's a nice quotation from the late pianist, Glenn Gould (one who I reckon a genius and some, certainly, thought mad): The purpose of art is the gradual life-long construction of a state of wonder and serenity." Natalie Tyler ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 7 Jan 1997 15:39:20 -0500 Reply-To: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" Sender: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" From: Motoridge@AOL.COM Subject: Re: Plato Yes it is interesting that creativity has become associated with some form of divine maddness while we have ( as you sited) so many examples of gifted artists who seem 'normal' and untroubled by the negative aspects of genius.Perhaps its because individuals who are pre-desposed to madness are more determined and more in need of a creative outlet for the mad passion. Perhaps madness with its sometimes attended aspects like visions, hallusinations, obsession, finds a natural home in the creative arts, where it is ok to express these visions, etc. To be an'artist' is a socially aceptable form of madness and perhaps the artistic process acts as a kind of therapy for the individual. The act of creating art is often so absorbing that all concerns and problems seem to disappear during the creation. So it acts as a remedy for some artists. I believe that great artists do have a unique vision, whether it be 'mad' or bad the vision compels them to expresion. I do not think all artists work in order to communicate. I work because I feel such a strong need to somehow capture an essence, to make it my own through a synthesis of observation and process that is evidenced through the filter of my personal pshcological makeup. ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 14 Jan 1997 16:20:50 -0500 Reply-To: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" Sender: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" From: Saicho@AOL.COM Subject: Re: this day and age I do not know why my last post is so garbled -- does anyone have any ideas? Richard Sansom Saicho@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 16:43:36 -0500 Reply-To: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" Sender: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" From: Perfectabl@AOL.COM Subject: Re: OFF MAILING LIST!!!!!! In a message dated 97-01-14 20:30:25 EST, you write: << Saicho@AOL.COM >> PLEASE TAKE ME OFF OF YOUR MAILING LIST. mY CREATIVE STIMULATION ISN'T WHAT IT USED TO AFTER HAVING TO LEAVE SCHOOL AND EXPECTING MY THIRD CHILD. PLEASE AKNOWLEDGE MY REQUEST. PERFECTABL@AOL.COM ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 05:18:45 -0600 Reply-To: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" Sender: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" From: Heath DeForrest Allison Subject: Re: OFF MAILING LIST!!!!!! At 04:43 PM 1/15/97 -0500, you wrote: >In a message dated 97-01-14 20:30:25 EST, you write: > ><< Saicho@AOL.COM >> >PLEASE TAKE ME OFF OF YOUR MAILING LIST. mY CREATIVE STIMULATION ISN'T WHAT >IT USED TO AFTER HAVING TO LEAVE SCHOOL AND EXPECTING MY THIRD CHILD. PLEASE >AKNOWLEDGE MY REQUEST. > PERFECTABL@AOL.COM > It would appear that your ability to follow directions is also stunted. Your sending youre request to the wrong list. When you subscribed you were given specific instructions on how to go no mail. But you probably deleated them, discarding them without reading them. Now you just look foolish because your screaming at a group of people that have nothing to do with your request. __________________________________________________ | http://wsnet.com/~kamikaze | | "Make a little Bird House in Your Soul!" | | kamikaze@wsnet.com | hallison@imagecom.com | -------------------------------------------------- ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 09:57:49 -0800 Reply-To: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" Sender: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" From: Patricia McIntosh Subject: Sex! Okay, I'll admit - it was a cheap shot, but golly, where is everyone?? I joined this list a few days ago and have yet to see anyone discuss art or...well, ANYthing except how to unsubscribe. So... Has anyone else had a chance to see the Matisse show that was in Atlanta recently? I did and was very moved by the blue border of the swimmers that had been taken from the last place Matisse lived and put up in its own room at the High Museum. Before I rounded the corner into that room, I saw a black and white photo of the piece in its original environment. An audiocassette I was given at the beginning of the exhibit told me how Matisse loved the water, but at this stage of his life, was too old to go out very often, so he created this border to surround himself with images of what he most enjoyed. To actually then *see* this creation before my eyes left me speechless, my eyes brimming with tears. I have always enjoyed art, but this *personalized* what I saw. The story behind it, the photograph, the knowledge that Matisse did this *for himself and no one else* moved me deeply. So, any thoughts on that, folks? Better speak up or I really *will* start talkin' 'bout sex. Say, where *is* the list management anyway? Patty ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 08:45:44 -0800 Reply-To: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" Sender: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" From: Dave English Subject: Sex! -Reply I don't give a shit about Matisse ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 12:54:25 -0500 Reply-To: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" Sender: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" From: Motoridge@AOL.COM Subject: Re: OFF MAILING LIST!!!!!! difficult to be tolerant, easy to be rude ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 13:16:28 -0500 Reply-To: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" Sender: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" From: Motoridge@AOL.COM Subject: Re: Sex! -Reply agree with Mr. English. The only artist I care about is myself. I admire some, like the work of many... but am tired of the breathless wonder of art 'amatuers' and 'cognisati' raving over a stale meal ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 10:55:51 -0800 Reply-To: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" Sender: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" From: Dave English Subject: Re: OFF MAILING LIST!!!!!! -Reply it is the truth, whether it is easy or not ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 13:59:47 -0800 Reply-To: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" Sender: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" From: Patricia McIntosh Subject: Re: Sex! -Reply Dave English wrote: > I don't give a shit about Matisse My dear Mr. English! My, didn't *we* wake up on the wrong side of the futon this morning? Let us examine the artistry in Mr. English's reply, class. First note the absence of the period. Following in the anti-establishment tradition of e e cummings, Mr. English rebukes us by his refusal to punctuate. Secondly he rejects pretense when he elects to use the word "shit" rather than the more appropriate "merde" in critiquing the work of our French friend Henri M. Brilliant and incisive, I must say! And lastly, I must comment on the chiaroscuro technique he employs by sculpting a reply so aggressive, yet so brief. While he does cling slavishly to the minimalist methods and borrows blatantly from the Swedes in that, it is effective in communicating to the reader the vehemence of his reaction without pandering to our sympathies. Bravo, Mr. English. I have alerted ARTNews to your insights on the Matisse show, and no doubt they will be contacting you shortly for more information and elucidation. Patricia McIntosh "Did I accidentally subscribe to 'FLAME-L' or what?" ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 13:06:12 -0600 Reply-To: raynard@interman.net Sender: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" From: Raynard Hall Organization: Communications Problem Solvers Subject: Re: Sex! -Reply funny, I thought English was setting up more discussion about SEX from Patty as in I would never have read your post if not for the heading AND I don't give a ........about Matisse. I know what you and Motoridge mean about the eternally revered long dead, but I thought Patty's note spoke to an art viewing experience that left her touched and breathless thus possibly triggering the association w/ sex. I personally don't mind the anecdotes. Reminds me of the times I get touched and breathless about art and sex. Keep it coming. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 11:39:59 -1000 Reply-To: miderror@ix.netcom.com Sender: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" From: "Randy K. Otaka" Organization: Yamazu New Life Inc. Subject: virginity i read patricia's message about matisse, then a couple of other messages voicing cynicism about that message. it really shocked me (but then again, after only two months on the net, i see that it is not really the wonderful thing it's advertised to be. instead of more opportunities, the "meeting of open minds", you just see more of the same crap you want to escape. how's that for cynicism?). i wish i could say something to counter the cynical voices on the internet, but i realize that it is an entirely futile effort; this message, no doubt, will be broken down and critiqued by the jackals as well. i personally was moved by patricia's message. no, i didn't go to the exhibit, no, i don't know art... but reading about how someone else was inspired by art allowed me to at least believe that that possibility could exist in me. and even if i had seen matisse, seen his work so much that it was painted over my eyes, i still don't think i would have been rude enough to criticize another person for their enthusiasm. actually, the whole sex thing is relevant. when you are a virgin, sexuality is a mystery that no other person can elucidate for you. you have to personally experience it, and come to your own conclusions, good or bad. that first moment of experience (actually, ALL moments of experience) is sacred. no one can take it away from you, no one goes through it the same way. the comments i have heard on this listserver are as ridiculous and self-centered as a jaded, cynical old pervert telling a virgin that sex is not all its cracked up to be (well, naturally, at HIS age, he wouldn't appreciate, nor REMEMBER what it was like). if you don't remember your "first time", your first experience with art, then perhaps you've lost touch with the moment that art was meant to summon us to. in that moment, there is neither good nor bad, neither right nor wrong. instead of slamming someone else's inspirations, why not voice what inspired you (if you can remember it)? that is far more constructive... (if you are even interested in being constructive). the artist matisse painted water around himself, surrounded himself in a world he enjoyed. in a certain sense, people with open hearts and minds must do the same thing nowadays, simply in order to survive. there are too many cynical voices out there, saying, "that's stupid, or incorrect, or whatever." as patricia wrote, the artist makes a world for him/herself. and that selfishness, so different from the selfishness of the cynic, is what gives art, is what is the gift of art: a new vision, a new version, a new virginity. -- things are not what they seem, but are nothing other than what they seem. http://www.netcom.com/~miderror/caterpillargone.html ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 11:42:57 -0800 Reply-To: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" Sender: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" From: George Sherwood Organization: The Earthly Subject: Re: Sex! Patty, I agree with you completely. Sex is a form of art, one that requires skill and sensitivity. Every movement, every word, every breath should be understood as creation towards higher insight into the human condition, revealing the meaning of life at its most sublime ecstacy. No one understood philosophy better than D. H. Lawrence. These are some very good point you have made. I hope it was as good for you as it was for me. As for the Matisse, what's that? George Patricia McIntosh wrote: > > Okay, I'll admit - it was a cheap shot, but golly, where is everyone?? > I joined this list a few days ago and have yet to see anyone discuss art > or...well, ANYthing except how to unsubscribe. So... > > Has anyone else had a chance to see the Matisse show that was in Atlanta > recently? I did and was very moved by the blue border of the swimmers > that had been taken from the last place Matisse lived and put up in its > own room at the High Museum. > Before I rounded the corner into that room, I saw a black and white photo > of the piece in its original environment. An audiocassette I was given > at the beginning of the exhibit told me how Matisse loved the water, but > at this stage of his life, was too old to go out very often, so he > created this border to surround himself with images of what he most > enjoyed. To actually then *see* this creation before my eyes left me > speechless, my eyes brimming with tears. > > I have always enjoyed art, but this *personalized* what I saw. The story > behind it, the photograph, the knowledge that Matisse did this *for > himself and no one else* moved me deeply. > > So, any thoughts on that, folks? Better speak up or I really *will* > start talkin' 'bout sex. > Say, where *is* the list management anyway? > > Patty -- George Sherwood God? an iron; and us? His ironies. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 14:07:07 -0600 Reply-To: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" Sender: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" From: Heath DeForrest Allison Subject: Re: OFF MAILING LIST!!!!!! -Reply The simple fact of the matter is, the initial post was rude enough. Being niether a Zen Buddhist, or practicing Christian, I was under the impression I needn't to conform to anyone elses dogmatic standards. Er go I turned no cheek. I applogize if you the innocent bystander were offended. __________________________________________________ | http://wsnet.com/~kamikaze | | "Make a little Bird House in Your Soul!" | | kamikaze@wsnet.com | hallison@imagecom.com | -------------------------------------------------- ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 18:40:49 -0500 Reply-To: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" Sender: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" From: Monet456@AOL.COM Subject: off Please tell me how to get off this list. I have the directions arould here somewhere but it'll be easier if I hear it from someone on the list. Thanks Matthew ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 20:42:05 -0800 Reply-To: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" Sender: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" From: Patricia McIntosh Subject: Re: OFF MAILING LIST!!!!!! -Reply Dave English wrote: > it is the truth, whether it is easy or not Contrary to what you seem to believe, one *can* be truthful AND pleasant at the same time. They are not mutually exclusive. When one decides it is not worth the bother to be pleasant to others, we ordinarily call that rudeness. I don't know about the rest of you, but I make an effort to avoid people who choose to be discourteous. Good day to you, Mr. English. Patty "I do not wish for people to be pleasant as it saves me the trouble of liking them." - Jane Austen ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 20:53:44 -0800 Reply-To: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" Sender: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" From: Patricia McIntosh Subject: Re: Sex! -Reply Raynard Hall wrote: > funny, I thought English was setting up more discussion about SEX from > Patty as in I would never have read your post if not for the heading That was the idea. It was a ... er ... sucker punch, I'll admit, but I had to find some way of um...well...stimulating some conversation here. AND I don't give a ........about Matisse. You are entitled. > I know what you and Motoridge mean about the eternally revered long > dead, but I thought Patty's note spoke to an art viewing experience that left her touched and breathless thus possibly triggering the association w/ sex. NO, silly! The ONLY reason for "sex" in the subject line was to get people to read. Oldest trick (pun intended) in the book. > I personally don't mind the anecdotes. Reminds me of the times I get > touched and breathless about art and sex. Keep it coming. Now was ^that^ pun intended, Raynard? Hmmm? Patty ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 20:59:59 -0800 Reply-To: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" Sender: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" From: Patricia McIntosh Subject: Sex! - NOT George, > I agree with you completely. Sex is a form of art, one that requires > skill and sensitivity. Okay, okay, you all have had your fun... :) That was *hardly* the point and *you* know it. Harrrumph. Every movement, every word, every breath should be > understood as creation towards higher insight into the human condition, > revealing the meaning of life at its most sublime ecstacy. No one > understood philosophy better than D. H. Lawrence. Really? I mean, I've studied his body of work a great deal, and I think he is deep and his work rich with symbolism, but a great philosopher? I've never seen him in that light... These are some very > good point you have made. I hope it was as good for you as it was for me. > As for the Matisse, what's that? Shall we stick to art as art rather than art as metaphor for human sexuality? Patty ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 21:16:08 -0800 Reply-To: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" Sender: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" From: Patricia McIntosh Subject: Re: Sex! -Reply Motoridge wrote: > agree with Mr. English. The only artist I care about is myself. How unfortunate for the rest of us who must endure such self-absorbed musings. No man is an island, Mot'. >I admire some, like the work of many... but am tired of the breathless >wonder of art 'amatuers' and 'cognisati' raving over a stale meal It's "amateurs" and "cognoscenti" - thanks. Amateur - from the Latin word for love. Someone who appreciates or participates in a particular activity solely for the love of it rather than for material gain. Cognoscenti - from the Latin word cognoscere meaning "to know and understand". The cognoscenti are those "in the know" or of particular understanding in a certain discipline. I see no reason to speak disparagingly of those who love art though they are not gifted in creating it, nor do I see any point in sneering at those who try to be well-informed on a topic which fascinates them. Perhaps if you stopped being jaded long enough to love something for the sake of enjoying it, or to open yourself up to the possibility that you could always learn more about your craft than you already know, that nasty cynicism and self-absorption would faaaaaade away. Think about it. Patty ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 22:13:20 -0500 Reply-To: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" Sender: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" From: Erin Partridge Subject: Re: Sex! - NOT (Patty) THANK YOU Patty. :) Erin ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 22:07:21 -0600 Reply-To: raynard@interman.net Sender: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" From: Raynard Hall Organization: Communications Problem Solvers Subject: Re: Sex! - (Patty) Yes Pat-tie, Pat-tie, Pat-tie! Go Patty!!! ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 20:49:53 -0800 Reply-To: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" Sender: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" From: George Sherwood Organization: The Earthly Subject: Re: Sex! - NOT OK, so you didn't think it was funny, but you must admit that with a cheap shot you get what you pay for. However, my humor, has bad as you think it is, cannot steal from you your expirence of the Matisse. I didn't read your post simply because it said SEX! I only read it more quickly. And you did want to wake us up, but do you now propose to tell us how to wake up? Honestly, I have no experiece with the Matisse, but we can discuss Gilgamesh or something if you are interested. Sincerely now, George Patricia McIntosh wrote: > > George, > > > I agree with you completely. Sex is a form of art, one that requires > > skill and sensitivity. > > Okay, okay, you all have had your fun... :) > That was *hardly* the point and *you* know it. Harrrumph. > > Every movement, every word, every breath should be > > understood as creation towards higher insight into the human condition, > > revealing the meaning of life at its most sublime ecstacy. No one > > understood philosophy better than D. H. Lawrence. > > Really? I mean, I've studied his body of work a great deal, and I think > he is deep and his work rich with symbolism, but a great philosopher? > I've never seen him in that light... > > These are some very > > good point you have made. I hope it was as good for you as it was for me. > > As for the Matisse, what's that? > > Shall we stick to art as art rather than art as > metaphor for human sexuality? > > Patty -- George Sherwood God? an iron; and us? His ironies. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 00:03:04 -0800 Reply-To: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" Sender: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" From: Patricia McIntosh Subject: Re: OFF MAILING LIST!!!!!! -Reply Heath said, rather eloquently: > The simple fact of the matter is, the initial post was rude enough. Being niether a Zen Buddhist, or practicing Christian, I was under the impression I needn't to conform to anyone elses dogmatic standards. Ergo I turned no cheek. Okay, granted, you don't *need* to conform to anyone else's dogma, but the point Jesus was making in telling us to turn the other cheek is that that is what brings us all to a point of grace and peace. I know many wiccans and atheists who subscribe to this way of handling certain situations. Thoughts? >I applogize if you the innocent bystander were offended. *I* was not offended, though I do believe your ideas could have been more gently couched. :) Some people are not good with details and netiquette. Patty ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 00:10:26 -0800 Reply-To: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" Sender: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" From: Patricia McIntosh Subject: Re: Sex! - NOT (Erin) Erin Partridge wrote: > THANK YOU Patty. :) :) :) Shore Thang, girlfriend. <^5's> Smiles are good. Fun is good. SEX is good. But there is a time and a place for everything, and last I checked this is not SEX-L, though I understand a list by that name does exist. Explains a lot about the Neilsen ratings on TV, doesn't it?? ;) Patty ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 16 Jan 1997 22:04:51 -0800 Reply-To: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" Sender: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" From: George Sherwood Organization: The Earthly Subject: Re: Sex? - NOT (Patty) Erin Partridge wrote: > > THANK YOU Patty. :) > > Erin Oh, pleeease! the syrup is gagging! -- George Sherwood God? an iron; and us? His ironies. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 01:33:24 -0800 Reply-To: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" Sender: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" From: Patricia McIntosh Subject: Re: virginity~for Randy~ X-To: miderror@ix.netcom.com Randy said: > i read patricia's message about matisse, then a couple of other > messages voicing cynicism about that message. it really shocked me Makes two of us. I have to wonder what some people think this list is here for if not to discuss art, etc. in a *constructive* and inquisitive way. For that matter, it is quite a simple thing for one who dislikes a particular artist/topic to ignore it altogether rather than submitting a response that is blatantly combative. > (but then again, after only two months on the net, i see that it is > not really the wonderful thing it's advertised to be. instead of more > opportunities, the "meeting of open minds", you just see more of the > same crap you want to escape. how's that for cynicism?). Yes, I agree that there is a lot of BS out there just like IRL, BUT...here we have the advantage of the delete option. :) i wish i could say something to counter the cynical voices on the internet, How about "Let a smile be your umbrella."? :) That always gets 'em where they live, man. but > i realize that it is an entirely futile effort; this message, no > doubt, will be broken down and critiqued by the jackals as well. Oh, I dunno, from what I have seen these jackals may be cynical, but they are also by and large terribly lazy. I doubt they'll bother drawing and quartering either of us (like they'd stand a chance with me - pfeh). > i personally was moved by patricia's message. *nod* thank you, Randy. no, i didn't go to the > exhibit, no, i don't know art... but reading about how someone else > was inspired by art allowed me to at least believe that that > possibility could exist in me. and even if i had seen matisse, seen > his work so much that it was painted over my eyes, i still don't think > i would have been rude enough to criticize another person for their > enthusiasm. Well of course not, hon'. But then you are capable of empathy. There are others out there who are not, and who seem to think the world exists to serve their pleasure. Must be lonely, y'know? I'll take soft and warm over cold and hard anyday! > the comments i have heard on this listserver are as ridiculous and > self-centered as a jaded, cynical old pervert telling a virgin that > sex is not all its cracked up to be (well, naturally, at HIS age, he > wouldn't appreciate, nor REMEMBER what it was like). Good analogy. :) > if you don't remember your "first time", your first experience with > art, then perhaps you've lost touch with the moment that art was meant > to summon us to. in that moment, there is neither good nor bad, > neither right nor wrong. Beautifully put! > instead of slamming someone else's inspirations, why not voice what > inspired you (if you can remember it)? that is far more > constructive... (if you are even interested in being constructive). Good idea! > the artist matisse painted water around himself, surrounded himself in > a world he enjoyed. in a certain sense, people with open hearts and > minds must do the same thing nowadays, simply in order to survive. > there are too many cynical voices out there, saying, "that's stupid, > or incorrect, or whatever." Mmm-hmmm... > as patricia wrote, the artist makes a world for him/herself. and that > selfishness, so different from the selfishness of the cynic, is what > gives art, is what is the gift of art: a new vision, a new version, a > new virginity. Yes, exactly my sentiments. Thank you for your thoughtful post, Randy. Patty ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 09:49:24 -0800 Reply-To: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" Sender: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" From: Patricia McIntosh Subject: The Virtual World I've been thinking a lot lately about real vs. virtual friendships/romance/etc. I've been on the net since April of '95 and have some experience now with a few different mailing lists and IRC (Internet Relay Chat). There are virtual communities out there where I know people and details about their lives (and idiosyncrasies) and they know mine. OTOH, there are people I work with every day whom I know very little about. Odd isn't it? To *not* know what someone looks like, and yet to know they are twice married, that their spouse is infertile and they are trying to adopt, that they experience bouts of depression, that they have lost their faith in God, etc., etc., etc. And yet I know comparatively little along those lines about the people I work with - it would somehow seem rude and/or invasive to ask unless they volunteered information first. Why is this? I mean, when you think about it, the visible info. we have from people IRL is pretty meaningless overall. People can dress well and be offensive and obnoxious *inside*, but in the virtual world there is less concern with appearance, and attitude/personality are everything. For that matter, I met my boyfriend on the 'net (though we now have let that aspect of the relationship fall by the wayside in favor of RL interactions :) ), and I don't know if we would have focused in on each other as quickly had we met in "real" life. The guy is *me* in male form - which has been a surprisingly fun thing to explore. The first time he sent me private e-mail in response to something I had written, I just *knew* he was a kindred spirit. It was breathtaking to get to know him "from the inside, out" rather than the other way around. Has anyone else experienced something like this? Also, I must admit that I have found I have more in common with my virtual friends than I do with most of the people I see day to day. Could having the common denominator of the computer (with modem) make that much of a difference? Anyhow, I'd be very interested to know what you folks think about Virtual vs. Real and what your experience has taught you. Patty "Two roads diverged in a wood and I Took the one less traveled by And that has made all the difference." - Robert Frost ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 08:03:44 MDT Reply-To: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" Sender: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" From: edbaud@BBS.SLV.ORG Subject: Thank you Patty For your excellent post Fred ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 08:16:22 MDT Reply-To: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" Sender: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" From: edbaud@BBS.SLV.ORG Subject: off AR>Please tell me how to get off this list. I have the directions around here AR>somewhere but it'll be easier if I hear it from someone on the list. Thanks AR>Matthew Ok, one more time... send e-mail to listserv@sjuvm.stjohns.edu Topic is irrelevant in the body of your message: unsubscribe arco ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 08:19:56 MDT Reply-To: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" Sender: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" From: edbaud@BBS.SLV.ORG Subject: Thank you Patty AR>For your excellent post AR>Fred I speak to the original post regarding Matisse.... There is no use flailing away at these personalities here... Some, interested only in themselves may never the less do good work... Text fails... Fred ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 09:09:24 -0600 Reply-To: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" Sender: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" From: Heath DeForrest Allison Subject: Re: The Virtual World Patricia, I have been net immersed since december 94, making me a neophyte by any standard. It was this raceless, faceless, genderless, environment that attracted me to the net and ultimately my current occupation. A friend introduced me to IRC while my fiancee was out of town two days after Christmass. I was so incredibly inept at the time, that I had no idea my fossile of a 80/88 was even net capable. "You want to plug in your modem and log into my Internet account?" said Mark. "I don't think I have a modem." "Sure you do. Thats why this phone jack is in the back." And the rest was history. I logged into his account at 4pm that after noon, and logged off at 8pm the next day just long enough to go and buy my own account. I spent so much time online that the ISP who sold me the account hired me as a PR manager. Its my opionon that those of us inclined to lists and chat rooms are already bound by that common interest. We already know intimate conversations are expected, and we no longer are limited by that inhibition. Where as your co-workers remain intimidating having no equivalent to the nets unspoken invitation. Fear of rejection is reduced as well. How damaging can being snubbed be if you simply need to close a window to get over it? You needn't ever see the offender again. You technically haven't seen them to begin with. Its safe, and if you tread the right corridors, its friendly. My employer at the afore menioned ISP met her fiancee (now husband) in a chat room. She was in Alabama, he in Melbourne Australia. But they had fallen in love with each other long before exchanging photos. Having been a very different work environment than most, I got to witness the storybook first hand. Not all encounters are so Ideal. I know of another story in which a friend of mine was wooed by young man in a chat room. They got familiar enough online to arrange a real world meeting. And from her account it was a nightmare. The man did his best to force himself upon her, and when she was able to subdue his univited advances, he took to living in a hotel one block from her house. He currently is still stalking her from that hotel room. So facades are still perpetuated, and its never a truly utopian environment for that reason. But all in all I think your observations are right on. __________________________________________________ | http://wsnet.com/~kamikaze | | "Make a little Bird House in Your Soul!" | | kamikaze@wsnet.com | hallison@imagecom.com | -------------------------------------------------- ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 10:36:48 -0800 Reply-To: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" Sender: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" From: Dave English Subject: Re: OFF MAILING LIST!!!!!! -Reply -Reply relax ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 15:27:17 -0800 Reply-To: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" Sender: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" From: Patricia McIntosh Subject: Reply -Reply ~for Dave~ Dave English wrote: > relax :) Care for some hot tea, Dave? With or without sugar? I assure you I am quite relaxed. I, like most people, find it easy to relax when people are being considerate. Don't you? Little things mean a lot sometimes. Peace. Pass it on, man. ;) Patty ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 15:45:37 -0500 Reply-To: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" Sender: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" From: Motoridge@AOL.COM Subject: Re: Sex! -Reply 2 I meant the terms in exactly the way you defined them, true lovers and true understanders, no personal slur was intended, and I aplologize if it seemed so. I nevertheless I am tried of the same old love and admiration breathless wonder at the same old wizards of art, young or old. If its at MOMA it Must be good ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 15:46:39 -0500 Reply-To: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" Sender: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" From: Motoridge@AOL.COM Subject: Re: The Virtual World reply goodness gracious... ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 16:39:36 -0800 Reply-To: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" Sender: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" From: Patricia McIntosh Subject: Re: The Virtual World reply Motoridge wrote: > goodness gracious... :) Ja? Und? Please, share your thoughts! That *is* the reason for this list, no? Patty ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 14:09:40 -0800 Reply-To: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" Sender: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" From: George Sherwood Organization: The Earthly Subject: Re: The Virtual World Hello all, This topic intrigues me, especially as my life's theme as a wanna-be writer is to reveal the damage that morality does, the evil that it is. How is this relevent? When we talk on the Net we can be more honest because we don't have to worry about our reputation as much, don't have to maintain a social mask of "everything is fine." Morality in the form of social structure requires that mask to get us through the work day or whatever. There is a strong goal at work to get the job done, whatever that may be, and personal revelations are irrelevent to that. Morally, we are expected not to let personal problems or conversations interfere with "progress." We talk in rather abstract terms about this or that, but it is from a distance, not deviating to far from the "goal." This is also true in many other aspects of life, where there is a moral code that more or less says, "Stick to the goal." The goal on the Net is to converse. If we speak personally at work, however, we are not only off the track, we risk, as Heath mentioned in realtion to the Net, rejection and possibly even bodily damage. These dangers are more remote on the Net. In this sense life is an illusion and so is progress. Life is a risk no matter where or how we live it, but we use this mask to deny that, to remain comfortable. Everyday life and conversation is an escape all-too-often from what is really important and meaningful. But morality requires this illusion, this mask of every day life. Good manners serve to keep us comfortable, but being comfortable is often the opposite of what a "real" life really needs at some moments. Morality and laws do the same thing. On the Net, where we do not need that mask as much, we can be social without the necessity of convention and tradition weighing us down, where here "tradition" and "convention" are meant as the everyday requirement that we obey social obligations. Work etc, are of paramount importance, when in reality most people at work would rather not be there. This could also be part of the reason people get to know each other less at work than they do on the net: because they feel phony there. Most people on the Net are there because they want to be. But even on the Net we must beware of those with ulterior motives. There is no escaping life completely. -- George Sherwood God? an iron; and us? His ironies. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 14:30:51 -0800 Reply-To: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" Sender: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" From: Dave English Subject: Re: The Virtual World -Reply X-To: steppen@LIGHTSPEED.NET To George Sherwood: I agree with a lot of what you say about honesty on the Net. A couple of things though: first, when you say the evil that morality is, could you be a little more explicit about what you mean. Secondly, I think my task as an artist is to channel my emotions, whatever they are, into music form-I say this in response to your life's goal being to transmit a set them "morality's evil"-why do you choose morality's evil? why not morality's virtue? and why do you feel a need to spread this message? Lastly, if you haven't read For Whom the Bell Tolls, it came to mind as I was reading your post, in regard to self-dialogue, keeping one's value's clear, self-honesty, affirmation of our evil sides, alcohol, chicks, sex, etc. Check it out. Then try reconcile the fact that its author committed suicide, it's a good philosphical fiction. ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 17:32:12 -0500 Reply-To: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" Sender: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" From: Motoridge@AOL.COM Subject: art smells From: 1st Pandemonium Manifesto - George Baselitz... "No truck with those who can't wrap art up in a SMELL. I have no kind word to say to the amiable. They have proceeded by art historical accretion, they have ruled neat lines under things, they have practiced mystification with all the passion of a collector." November 1961 ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 17 Jan 1997 20:51:44 -0800 Reply-To: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" Sender: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" From: Patricia McIntosh Subject: Re: art smells Motoridge wrote: > From: 1st Pandemonium Manifesto - George Baselitz... "No truck with those who can't wrap art up in a SMELL..." November 1961 "Dew whut?" - Lewis Grizzard "Elvis Is Dead, and I Don't Feel So Good Myself" Patty [Lady on a train to Winston Churchill, "Sir, you smell!" Churchill to lady, "No madame, I *stink* - *you* smell."] :) NEXT! ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 17:28:47 UT Reply-To: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" Sender: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" From: Natalie Tyler Subject: Art Thank you, Randy, for your response. I would like to stay with this group and to explore the magical and transcendent meeting grounds of art, human psychology, the human heart. What breathes inspiration into our daily lives? Art, i say, is meant to do that and whether it comes to you in the form of a sonnet, a lithograph, or a motet, it comes to you and frankly offers you an experience that will transform you forever. When I was about 4 years old (close to five) I saw a fully staged production of the opera Hansel and Gretel and was absolutely galvanized, mesmerized, by the marriage of beautiful music, beautiful voices, the visual delight of the sets, the complexity of the narrative: opera does merge so many art forms at once, that perhaps it is often doomed to fail: think of it; the music, the humanvoice, the visual experience, the narrative experience.... This left me ecstatic, and also made me know that I wanted to have more: to hear more music, to see more theatres, to hear more trained human voices. Natalie ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 00:18:29 UT Reply-To: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" Sender: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" From: Natalie Tyler Subject: Re: The Virtual World What provocative questions you raise! Although I have not done IRC (I don't think I have the capabilities) I have been on quite a few lists and have been able to know people that why. People say that a relationship can progress on the net about five times as quickly as in Real Life. I think some of the reasons are that our information is limited to words on the screen: we have no visual cues: although we can often guess if a person is male or female, there is no real guarantee. We don't know race, religion, age, and it must certainly be hard to tell if someone tells the truth or not. Also many of us who are shy in the Real World are not shy in writing. Many of us who hate to dress up can sit at our home computers in nightgowns with unbrushed hair. I have liked the intensity of computer conversation; i can get right into the stuff that I care about (art, literature, music, some films, travel) by finding a list that seems apropos. I have also realized that I make a lot of assumptions about people based on appearance in RL: this does not happen here and I have confronted my own prejudices and my own middle-class assumptions when I have been happily discussing the world of Mahler or Jane Austen with someone for 6 months and find out that the person is African-American, or gay, or 18, or 75, or suffers from cerebral palsy that limits clear speech in real life. It is a new way to see people. I guess that the exception would be that dyslexics, or people who are verbally challenged, may not appear as adroitly on the screen as they do in real life. When I read your message, I think about your words. I don't even begin to speculate about your eye colour, what you are wearing, whether you are thin or overweight. In that sense I think the virtual world is good: it is like a playing field in which we are starting out equally, without the preconceptions of class, race, religion, age, beauty. etc. Natalie ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 18 Jan 1997 22:43:04 -0500 Reply-To: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" Sender: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" From: Motoridge@AOL.COM Subject: book has anyone read the book by Jean Gimpel 'Against Art and Artists'? ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 17:12:19 +1000 Reply-To: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" Sender: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" From: Jocelyn Subject: Two topics: 'The Virtual World' & Meaning v Grammar. Patty wrote >I've been thinking a lot lately about real vs. virtual >friendships/romance/etc. > .......... >Anyhow, I'd be very interested to know what you folks think about >Virtual vs. Real and what your experience has taught you. Patty, I've been on the internet since about april 95 too and the way relationships form and de-form fascinates me. I have loited round several groups and have formed some friendships that I call 'close'. One interesting experience I had was the result of putting out an ad. Initially it seemed to me that the net was full of teenagers so put out an ad for ' an intelligent, environmentally sensitive, 50ish male' who might be interested in corresponding with a similar female. At that time I was not 'in a relationship'. I had over 70 replies from some very interesting people. One might expect from such and an ad that there might be some leud or offensive messages. There was not one. This is very contary to all the warnings I have had about the internet being full of perverts etc. I am still corresponding with some of the people but I couldn't keep up regular contact with so many. At first I was stunned by how easy it was to become very friendly with people. Now I just 'take it for granted' that people who bother to reply to email will cut out all the usual crap and just get down to being 'real' right from the beginning. It seems that we have nothing to gain here by a show of outward wealth or beauty. Except of course if we want or need to be a fantasy person. You were interested in what other's experiences had taught them. >I just *knew* he was a kindred spirit. >Has anyone else experienced something like this? I becames interested in a particular guy who responded to my message because of a very similar feeling to the one you described as "The guy is *me* in male form" We had so many interests in common and he wrote beautifully and honestly. We became very regular in our correspondence and increasingly intimate. It felt good. He lived about two hours drive away so eventually we agreed to meet. This we did several times before assuming the beginnings of a closer relationship. After meeting him in reality, I had an enormous battle with my emotions. In every way he attracted me except physically. I am ashamed of this because I thought I believed that physical things were less important than spiritual, emotional or intellectual. The relationship did not continue at my instigation, and what I learned was that physical 'chemistry' does matter (to me anyway) along with the other 'more important' attributes, and also that one has to be very careful about hurting somone else. I fear I did hurt him. After all that I am wondering if this is what this list is about. Yes, it is about communication too, isn't it? On that one - I have a continuing discussion with my present partner who is a PhD in literature and teaches at the university here. He says that as long as one's listner understands the meaning of what is said, it doesn't matter HOW it is said - i.e. it doesn't matter if the pronounciation and grammar is correct or not. I can't quite reconcile this with my training from childhood that there are certain right ways to say things. E.g. Lots of people here say 'anythink' when they mean 'anything'. This really grates on me, but I do know what they mean. Should one not correct one's children when they say 'anythink'? etc. My friend says that 'sticking' to a set of rules stultifies the language. I am in two minds. I can't quite agree with him, but being a very poor speller, I do appreciate the fact that long ago when I was at university one of my teachers encouraged me to say what I wanted to say even if I couldn't spell it. He says that there are some particular things that can't be said within the existing rules. I would be interested to know what anyone else thinks - do the rules of syntax and grammar matter in communication if the listner (or reader) has understood the meaning? It the art of communication either verbally or in writing only in the meaning or in both the meaning and the conveyance? Or are there two distinct 'arts' here? That brings up the other fact about this method of communication. There are no accents - as in American and Australian accents. Enough. Jocelyn ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 09:25:41 +0100 Reply-To: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" Sender: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" From: Marianne Ajana Subject: Re: Meaning vs grammar Jocelyn wrote: He says that there are some particular things that can't be said within the existing rules. I would be interested to know what anyone else thinks - do the rules of syntax and grammar matter in communication if the listner (or reader) has understood the meaning? It the art of communication either verbally or in writing only in the meaning or in both the meaning and the conveyance? Or are there two distinct 'arts' here? You are leaving out one very important element in your questions here - CONTEXT. It is true that some things are extremely difficult to convey - even with the most polished language, but the parameter for when to stick to all the accepted rules of communication is again a question of context. There are occasions - verbal as well as written - when the informal method is by far the best, for instance, when a teacher wants a strong, direct, honest, unstilted response from a student. Also, an informal note to somebody close to you does not need extra proof reading, but in other contexts a sloppy language cannot be excused. A sloppy syntax and grammar quickly labels a person as less qualified. Remember language often conveys the first impression - and there are the many formal contexts where we have to use correct language every day. It smoothens our daily tasks. Language is humankind's all-important communication tool - and the basis of all communication on a list such as this one - for example. Which brings me to another observation about this list. Lately, almost every discussion on this list has focused on art - the first item listed in its name, of course. Nevertheless, I miss a much broader dialogue in relation to the proclaimed purpose of this list: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication." Last mentioned but not least - *communication* strikes me as a common denominator. Marianne Ajana ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>< An interesting warning found on children's alphabet blocks: Letters may be used to construct words, phrases and sentences that may be deemed offensive. ><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>< ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 19 Jan 1997 16:38:12 -0500 Reply-To: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" Sender: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" From: Wellorgood@AOL.COM Subject: Re: Two topics: 'The Virtual World' & Meaning v Grammar. I think that we take some meaning about the validity of an idea from the way a message is conveyed. A speech delivered with darting eyes, shuffling feet, poor grammar, and incorrect pronunciation, might not inspire the audience to give the speaker's words the attention they deserve. I think the same goes for written messages. I'm guessing that we miss a lot of important ideas because the messenger does not seem credible. As a student, I am guilty of judging ideas on the quality of their delivery, probably because delivery plays such an important role in my own grades. I hesitate to admit that I pass over much of what I read and hear if I think I could've presented a better delivery of the material. Thanks for the reality check; I'll pay more attention from now on! Jenevaire Nieponski ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 14:13:15 -0800 Reply-To: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" Sender: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" From: Patricia McIntosh Subject: Re: The Virtual World Natalie Tyler wrote: > What provocative questions you raise! *nod* Thank you! Although I have not done IRC (I don't > think I have the capabilities) You can download it off the net. They have it for Mac, PC, and a few other things. >I have been on quite a few lists and have been > able to know people that way. People say that a relationship can >progress on the net about five times as quickly as in Real Life. My beau and I have a theory that e-years are like dog years - just multiply by seven. :) Of course it also helps if you have three and four-hour-long conversations every night...[Can you say "smitten"?] > I think some of the > reasons are that our information is limited to words on the screen: we > have no visual cues: although we can often guess if a person is male > or female, there is no real guarantee. Except meeting in person and (over time) sharing RL intimacy. ;) I have heard from family and friends horror stories about a man (or a woman?) who fell in love with someone on the net, met them and married them immediately, only to discover the person was not the sex they claimed to be. Weirdness. I guess that is one argument against remaining completely chaste until the honeymoon. There is a lot to be said for honesty, y'know? > We don't know race, religion, age, and it must > certainly be hard to tell if someone tells the truth or not. I flatter myself to think that, after a certain amount of time on the net, I've developed a pretty good sense of when someone is on the up and up. I *have* been mislead (though not as drastically as described above), and it has taught me what questions to ask, and what things to look for. I think this is true for most people. Generally, if someone expresses hesitation about meeting you in person after you've talked on the phone, etc., something might be fishy. > Also many of us > who are shy in the Real World are not shy in writing. Which is *wonderful*. I tend to prefer the company of more introverted people, though I am pretty outgoing. (As if it weren't glaringly obvious already...) Introverts seem to think through their responses more carefully. > Many of us who hate to > dress up can sit at our home computers in nightgowns with unbrushed hair. Oh yes, I admit, I love this aspect of the anonymity. So much more comfortable and relaxed... > I have liked the intensity of computer conversation; i can get right > into the stuff that I care about (art, literature, music, some films, > travel) by finding a list that seems apropos. Yes, I'm hoping some folks will join us in participating (constructively) regularly here for that reason. The conversations can be extremely enlightening. > I have also realized that I make a lot of assumptions about people > based on appearance in RL: this does not happen here and I have > confronted my own prejudices and my own middle-class assumptions when I > have been happily > discussing the world of Mahler or Jane Austen Fwiw, Austen is a personal favorite of mine. :) > with someone for 6 months and find out that the person is > African-American, or gay, or 18, or 75, or > suffers from cerebral palsy that limits clear speech in real life. Ahh, how I love the net. It *forces* us to make our judgments based on the contents of someone's character rather than any of these other, stupid, superficial things. And that is as it should be. I have experienced much the same thing, Natalie. > It is a new way to see people. I guess that the exception would be > that dyslexics, or people who are verbally challenged, may not appear > as adroitly on the screen as they do in real life. *nod* good point. > When I read your message, I think about your words. I don't even begin > to speculate about your eye colour, what you are wearing, whether you > are thin or overweight. Right. And for our purposes here, none of those things matter. If one is looking for a RL mate, however, those wonderings do become more pertinent. To greater or lesser degrees, it is difficult to alter what we find physically desirable and attractive. I wish I could say that I am so in love with my beloved's soul that it would not matter if he were 350 lbs., or if he had crooked teeth, or tattered clothes, but that is decidedly not the case. The fact that he is very handsome to me (and he tells me he finds me beautiful as well ) makes it infinitely easier for our love to grow. But I digress... > In that sense I think the virtual world is good: it is like a > playing field in which we are starting out equally, without the > preconceptions > of class, race, religion, age, beauty. etc. Wisely put, Natalie. Thank you for such a thoughtful response. :) Patty ps - Happy King Day, all! ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 20 Jan 1997 15:47:56 -0500 Reply-To: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" Sender: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" From: "Kenneth A. Carpenter" Hello, I am interested in art as a tool for learning. There are many reasons that pictures should gain an enhanced place in education. For one thing, we know more now about alternate learning styles and multiple intelligences. Some visual learners can offset a lesser ability to learn in the traditional left brain "smash the words into the head" techniques of the past. Another thing is that pictures can easily convey material that it would be difficult to convey otherwise, like the moving clouds on the weather map. A better example comes from one of Tuffte's books which shows a map of the US with all the counties outlined. Each county was in a shade of gray or black or white depending on the cases of breast cancer. Each of us on the list would instantly recognize the relative severity of the problem in the locations that we knew best. Another consideration is the improvement of technology to create, catalog, and display visual material. I have lots more to say on the subject. What would you like to add? Ken Carpenter ~~ C @@| \) <----me -/ V ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 21 Jan 1997 18:53:53 -0500 Reply-To: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" Sender: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" From: Sharon Mendenhall Subject: What is art? Hi. My name is Sharon Mendenhall, and I am a new subscriber. I am not in the education field, but am a free-lance writer, and my daughter a free-lance artist. My question, "Just exactly what is art?", comes from an experience that happened to my daughter in high school. She participated in a juried art contest through the art department in her high school. The first year, her art work was almost disqualified because of its content. It was defined by one of the judges as being political in nature. This was an open contest, available to all students within the county with no established subject matter. It was also a Congressional show. Taking this into consideration, a "political piece" would not be out-of-line as it was definitely not in bad taste. Her piece did win second place in the contest, despite its content. They based their decision on technical merit. I just assumed that a participant in a juried show is at the mercy of the judges, and that is just the way it is. But, the second year, she submitted another entry and was completely disqualified because her piece was labeled "Historical", and therefore, as I was told later, NOT ART. Fortunately, for her, the Congressman for our state did not take the same viewpoint as the jury, and awarded her piece a special award, coming directly from him. Since then, her extremely emotional artwork has been described by professionals as everything from religious to surrealistic. Although those two pieces have been published, and are well received by the general public, (as the general public votes with its pocketbook,) I am curious as to the reaction from the so-called professional field. I subscribed to this mailing list because I thought perhaps I would receive an answer to my question. My daughter is now a student at an art institute with the intent of becoming a professional. She could easily become discouraged because of the attitudes of some of the professionals that have viewed her work. I am determined not to let that happen, as she is a very, very, talented artist and should continue in her chosen field. The artwork in question can be seen on the web at: wwcol.com/angelart/ragen. My daughter's artwork is very definitely a communication that evokes a high degree of emotional response. It could be defined as depressing, or at the very same time, uplifting, spiritual, and healing. But, whatever the label, I do not believe it is NOT ART. I hope the questions I posed qualify for an open discussion on the subject. Thank you, Sharon Mendenhall LFDEALE@aol.com ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 08:15:00 MDT Reply-To: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" Sender: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" From: edbaud@BBS.SLV.ORG Subject: What is art? I find some of the work done in Red China and even some done in Albania and under Stalin in Russia to be fine art. I don't think political content destroys the value of fine art (athough it opens the way to hacks and often discourages artists). However artists value their freedom highly and are often offended by political or propagandistic art and will sometimes be prejudiced against art with a "message." Fred Bauder ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 12:20:06 -0500 Reply-To: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" Sender: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" From: Notaho4U@AOL.COM Subject: Re: What is art? I, too, am a new subscriber. I do not profess to have any training in the arts, nor a particular "eye" for them, but I know what I enjoy. It would seem to me that the determination of what is art is relative. My opinion, as Jane Q. Public, is that anything created with thought, heart and soul is considered art. This can be any facet of any subject - whether it be painting, writing, or the creation of a web page on the internet. Art critics are merely people...people with opinions as individual as the public or the artist themselves. If it were my child, I would encourage her to continue creating what she enjoys - what she needs to nourish her soul and to grow for herself. When you adapt who you are and what you do in order to fit into a preconceived notion (as in what 'defines art'), you cease to be a creative individual. I believe artists, in any form, have a responsibility to themselves and to their public to be true and honest in their renderings. I could never respect someone who created a piece simply to 'fit' into a mold designed by someone else. Art, in its simplest form, is an expression of individuality. Encourage and nourish that in itself, and your daughter will be successful no matter what she chooses to portray in her works. CJ ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 15:48:09 -0500 Reply-To: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" Sender: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" From: Perfectabl@AOL.COM Subject: off list please I would like off your mailing list please. I know you think I'm an idiot for not saving the address to get off the mailing list but put up with it just this once. Huh! THANKS ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 22 Jan 1997 23:05:50 -0500 Reply-To: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" Sender: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" From: Sharon Mendenhall Subject: Re: What is art? Thank you for the words of encouragement. Ragen has always found it difficult to do pieces on commission because she puts so much of herself into her work. I know, and she knows, her best works are those where she has total freedom to express. It is easy for us to say don't listen to the critics, but she is still affected by their harsh words when they come. I guess it is just part of the learning process for all of us. Art, no matter the forum, is subjective. Beauty is always in the eye of the beholder. Critics may try to tell us what is good and what to buy. But, for the most part John and Jane Q. Public still vote with their pocketbook. It is an emotional investment, rather than a financial one. I appreciate the fact that you took part in this debate. I put it "out there" as food for thought. Sincerely, Sharon Mendenhall ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 00:24:20 -0700 Reply-To: "C.Jack" Sender: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" From: "C.Jack" Subject: Re: What is art? In-Reply-To: <199701220501.WAA101988@maildrop.srv.ualberta.ca> The question "what is art" has been bantered around for decades- no answer has ever been offered that gains support from everyone. It is a question that has been addressed by historians, theorists, philosophers, and artists themselves, and often the challenges to the notion of what art is comes from the artist him/herself, seeking to challenge the accepted or standard notions of aesthetic taste and merit. One of the most notable from our century, at least to my mind, is Marcel Duchamp- that rascally man who purchased a urinal from a janitorial supply shop, scrawled a signature across its side, and placed it on a pedestal. Gasps and scowls abounded- yet his work is enshrined in the history books as truly innovative, "great" art. He further challenged the notions of art when he purchased a reproduction of the Mona Lisa, scribbled in a goatee, and the letters LHOOQ (spoken at a normal pace, this translates roughly into "She has a hot ass"). Again, gasps abounded- and again, it has become part of the history books. Some of the most innovative transformations of art throughout history have come from those artists who felt the need to express something that was important to them, even though it was met with disdain from the public and those elusive professionals who have empowered themselves with the final judgement of what is, and is not, art. Gericault, Daumier (who was jailed for his caricatures of the French king Louis-Phillipe as a pear), Manet, Van Gogh, Monet, Picasso- all artists whose work was not particularly well received by either the public or their judges (at first), and all artists who have been highly acclaimed in history for their work. I agree- art is relative, and art can be many things. It can be calming, instructional, inspirational, pacifying, propagandistic, revolutionary.... Art is no one thing- it is whatever touches the life of a person- whether it be the artist alone, or an entire nation. It is unfortunate that your daughter has encountered such negativity by "professionals", but it is apparent that she has a great passion for her work, and believes that she has something to say, something to contribute. Perhaps the judges were disturbed by the content of her work,emerging from the mind of someone so young. But encourage her to persist in her right to say what she believes through her work- and remember, whether their ultimate goal was the history books or not, some of the most acclaimed artists were first met with criticism and resistance, yet they prevailed- because they refused to have their art dictated to them. ~~**~~**~~**~~**~~**~~**~~**~~**~~**~~**~~ Being here is a lot like being lost. We merely have to find the proper here And microwaves will follow. ~~**~~**~~**~~**~~**~~**~~**~~**~~**~~**~~ ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 01:32:45 -0600 Reply-To: raynard@interman.net Sender: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" From: Raynard Hall Organization: Communications Problem Solvers Subject: Re: What is art? Sharon: Please repost the URL so that we can see the your daughter's work. I tried the link as previously posted and think it must have been an unintentional error. ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 10:31:46 -0800 Reply-To: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" Sender: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" From: Patricia McIntosh Subject: Re: What is art? Sharon Mendenhall wrote: > Thank you for the words of encouragement. Ragen has always found it > difficult to do pieces on commission because she puts so much of herself into her work. It has been my experience that the larger the check, the easier it is for an artist to do a piece on commission... And I don't mean to sound cynical, that has just been my observation. > I know, and she knows, her best works are those where she has > total freedom to express. It is easy for us to say don't listen to the > critics, but she is still affected by their harsh words when they come. She'll learn with time what to listen to, and what to take with a BIG grain of salt. > I guess it is just part of the learning process for all of us. There is something to be said for paying some heed to what others think of one's art. I know there are artists out there who do their art only for themselves and then wonder why no one raves over it. Art is a form of communication, and I think your daughter's art speaks very clearly. > Art, no matter the forum, is subjective. Beauty is always in the eye of the beholder. True enough. > Critics may try to tell us what is good and what to buy. But, for > the most part John and Jane Q. Public still vote with their pocketbook. > It is an emotional investment, rather than a financial one. Also true. But bear in mind that people who buy art as a *financial investment* tend to go with works/artists that have already won some degree of national or international recognition/critical acclaim. And they tend to be willing to pay more. My two cents on the initial question: My mom has had a fairly successful art gallery in Atlanta for the past 15 years (eons in the art world in Atlanta), and though I am more a writer than an artist, art has fascinated me since childhood. I have asked my mom "What makes good art "good"?" before, and she said that, indeed it is subjective. She tells her clients that the most important thing to consider when buying a piece is whether or not it makes them *feel* good when they look at it. Much of the art she sells starts at $1500 and goes up from there. The primary art critic in Atlanta, Catherine Fox rarely, if ever, pans any of my Mom's artists any more, though when my mom had been around less than 10 years, she DID. It's almost as if my Mom's endurance on the art scene has endowed her with a certain credibility as a "critic" herself. (i.e. - If Louisa McIntosh likes it, it must be "good.") What distinguishes art from good art from great art? With great art, there does seem to be a distinct preference for the abstract over the literal representation. The brushstrokes (or whatever) are more "gestural." After all, there are any number of graphic artists and illustrators who can create a drawing or painting of near-photographic accuracy, but there are few who can take an actual scene, and, using nuances of light and dark/color/placement of objects/texture/etc. represent it well *in the abstract* for the viewer. The value of the abstract over the literal is that it allows more room for interpretation and as such may have broader appeal. Few true art aficionados want to have a scene/concept/idea spoon fed to them by the artist. In art as in writing as in music...subtlety and symbolism, "heart" and provocative thought are all necessary for greatness. Patty ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 12:12:32 -0600 Reply-To: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" Sender: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" From: Gina Mikel Subject: Re: Introduction & What is art Hi Everyone, I've been lurking here for a few weeks. I'm new to these lists (about a month) and am finding posts to be... funny, informative, repulsive.... I'll be interested to see if they continue to be a part of my life or are a passing thing for me. I loved Patty's introduction and the dialogue that followed. Would you still refer to Patty as a "newbie" re art? I saw the lines drawn, understood both "sides", laughed. I'm an artist (whatever that means). Couldn't help responding to Patty's post. >> Thank you for the words of encouragement. Ragen has always found it >> difficult to do pieces on commission because she puts so much of >>herself into her work > It has been my experience that the larger the check, the >easier it is for an artist to do a piece on commission... >And I don't mean to sound cynical, that has just been my observation. Is the amount of money a person stands to make inversely proportional to the amount of oneself the artist puts into the piece? In other words, I did a job this year (and was paid $6/hour) painting 6 foot Yogi Bear signs (about 15 of them). To a certain degree, it was more like house painting than art, except for how it influenced me. It showed me what my mind thinks about when I'm painting if there's very little need to visually interpret. Now I have a better handle on when I'm *really* engaged in the process, versus going through the motions. I also feel like I put a lot of myself into that work. Though I wasn't concerned (couldn't be) with whether or not the viewer would see it/me. I wasn't talking to you all, I was talking to myself. (Maybe Duchamp was talking to us about how he talks to himself? And that was what made it art? That he knew to talk to us about that in that way at that time. Lots of people are spending lots of time echoing his message, I think.) I do understand that there are problems with commission pieces. I've had some. I'm in a strange place now, where I'm looking at these projects differently. Another job that I'm interested in: A man I know sells t-shirts at conventions to educators. He commissions artists for the art on the t-shirts and asked me to show him some samples. He needed almost stick figure representation of several kids, very simple color and pattern. I learned a lot about gesture (my limitations with) when I did the sketches. >> I know, and she knows, her best works are those where she has >> total freedom to express. It is easy for us to say don't listen to the >> critics, but she is still affected by their harsh words when they come. > >She'll learn with time what to listen to, and what to take with a BIG >grain of salt. Hopefully. Artists have a major tendency to tune out all advice. >> I guess it is just part of the learning process for all of us. > >There is something to be said for paying some heed to what others think >of one's art. I know there are artists out there who do their art only >for themselves and then wonder why no one raves over it. I wonder why artists need other people to critically acclaim their work? It makes me question their motives and whether or not they're really trying to give to me. Maybe they want me to give to them. I don't like that feeling. >Art is a form of communication, and I think your daughter's art speaks >very clearly. Could use you on another list, Patty. (what do you think motoridge?) >> Art, no matter the forum, is subjective. Beauty is always in the eye of the > beholder. > >True enough. Yes. >> Critics may try to tell us what is good and what to buy. But, for >> the most part John and Jane Q. Public still vote with their pocketbook. >> It is an emotional investment, rather than a financial one. > >Also true. But bear in mind that people who buy art as a *financial >investment* tend to go with works/artists that have already won some >degree of national or international recognition/critical acclaim. >And they tend to be willing to pay more. "Precious Moments" things are bought as an emotional investment, too, by the public, a lot more often than really great art. (A prejudice here on my part? Sorry to people who love them. I didn't mean to go there. It was just the first example that came to mind.) In other words, the general public's acceptance is not necessarily anything more, or above, what a critic values. >My mom has had a fairly successful art gallery in Atlanta for the past 15 >years (eons in the art world in Atlanta), and though I am more a writer >than an artist, art has fascinated me since childhood. I don't understand that. I know that must be the case with art historians, as well. It seems like being able to understand a language (visual) but not speaking it. You don't seem like someone who wouldn't want to get in there and "speak" (yes, it's glaringly apparent ). Do you dabble in it? >I have asked my mom "What makes good art "good"?" before, and she >said that, indeed it is subjective. She tells her clients that >the most important thing to consider when buying a piece is whether >or not it makes them *feel* good when they look at it. Very, very good advice and easier for people to hear than follow. People are not overtly educated in visual communication. Nor are they in touch with their emotions (i.e. response to visual stimulus) and I don't know if they know "feeling good" when they see it. >It's almost as if my Mom's endurance on the art scene has endowed her >with a certain credibility as a "critic" herself. (i.e. - If Louisa >McIntosh likes it, it must be "good.") You being a product of your mother to some degree, I don't doubt that she is a credible critic. Is there any field where there's *more* misplaced snobbery? >What distinguishes art from good art from great art? >With great art, there does seem to be a distinct preference for >the abstract over the literal representation. The brushstrokes >(or whatever) are more "gestural." After all, there are any >number of graphic artists and illustrators who can create a >drawing or painting of near-photographic accuracy, but there are >few who can take an actual scene, and, using nuances of light and >dark/color/placement of objects/texture/etc. represent it well *in the >abstract* for the viewer. What you are describing here is pretty much a "normal development" for an artist, with varying degrees of need to get to that degree of accuracy. (Near photographic, however, stops me because a photograph is two dimensional and representational drawing in the early stages moves beyond what a photograph does. I tend to think you already know that, though.) Anyway, what I'm amazed by (and think is great art) is (sorry everyone, a dead deity) someone like van Gogh. He started late in life, learned the rudiments, stopped as soon as he saw where it was going, and started to communicate (in a profound way). He didn't even seem to need to dwell on the simplification/gestural problems. Guess I'm saying the simplification/gestural problems, too, can be taught and worked out technically with practice. It *is* usually indicative of a better artist, not necessarily indicative that that artist is one of the greats. But then, maybe you're being generous, in this case, with the term "great"? The value of the abstract over the literal >is that it allows more room for interpretation and as such may have >broader appeal. Few true art aficionados want to have a >scene/concept/idea spoon fed to them by the artist. I think that's true. I also think the artist gets bored with the pursuit of literal. It's harder to do abstract stuff and have it read correctly. When I see a work where the abstraction is reduced to one paint stroke to depict a person's face, I feel the artist's pride. "Ha, look at *that*!" Gina ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 23 Jan 1997 22:38:12 -0800 Reply-To: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" Sender: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" From: Patricia McIntosh Subject: Re: Introduction & What is art Gina, Welcome, and thank you for the thoughtful reply! I enjoyed reading your insights on art. FYI, no, while there is a part of me that would love to create art (paintings, ceramics, jewelry), there are other disciplines that fascinate me even more, such as medicine. Just out of curiosity, what list did you think you might need me on? :) Thanks again, and glad to see you here, Patty ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 02:34:41 -0500 Reply-To: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" Sender: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" From: "Bryan S. User" Subject: Re: Introduction & What is art Dear Gina, I too am new to this Mailing List thing. I've found it very inspiring so far. Trying to be creative with an overworked heart and mind can become impossible at times. I like the lists because they expose me to other hearts and minds that help refresh mine. I agree with your views on art and critics and such. Though I am only a 19 year old art major, I've learned that the only opinion that counts is mine. If I look to others to justify or give value to my art, then it is no longer my art. If I let the critics or the public have more power than myself, then I become secondary in the creative process, and my works become a prostitution. I believe that the reward for a work lies in the making of it and not in the selling of it. I do realize that at some time in our daily lives we must eat, and take shelter from the cold, and to do this we need money. But do I use my artistic ability to create that money? And if I do, is there a balance to be found between expressing myself and making a living? I don't know. Like I said, I'm 19. I'm just beginning my life. But I know one thing: it is not my purpose in life to make anyone like me or what I do. It is my purpose in life to be myself. Isn't that the whole point to being an artist? I paint and draw and write, hoping to see a reflection of myself that I can understand and appreciate. I have had critical acclaim, and it wasn't as joyous as knowing that I had been honest in my expression. Can anyone relate? ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 13:47:06 -0500 Reply-To: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" Sender: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" From: Motoridge@AOL.COM Subject: no opinion re: your aside about other lists. I am realizing all people want is 'feel good' stuff, no matter what the topic, everything else is considered negative. With the kindest of intentions :Aka ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 00:03:27 UT Reply-To: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" Sender: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" From: Natalie Tyler Subject: Re: The Virtual World >>>>>>Of course it also helps if you have three >>>>>and four-hour-long conversations every >>>>>>night...[Can you say "smitten"?] Well, I am certain that the rate of progress is very different if one is seeking a romantic relationship: I guess I was more writing about friendships, or acquaintanceships. I think that most of the people I know of who have been involved in "on-line" romance have had a "happy ending".....but I also know of people who have been bilked or disillusioned. Probably many of you saw the story about the young lady who "married" a man from AOL and the groom was actually a woman con-artist. I feel very sorry for her. I don't think that I could resist a con artist very well, so I do not feel superior. I am fairly new to this group and I do not have a good idea of how it works: I myself am an English lit teacher who is very interested in art in general (music, the visual arts, performance art, fine film) and in psychology. Natalie ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 22:41:13 -0600 Reply-To: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" Sender: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" From: Gina Mikel Subject: Re: Introduction & What is art >Though I am only a 19 >year old art major, I've learned that the only opinion that counts is mine. >If I look to others to justify or give value to my art, then it is no longer >my art. You are way ahead of where I was when I was 19. I really value what the critics have to say, though, too. They're our best teachers. They might be the only ones adept at guiding us. I'm not sure if we can guide each other (in our work). Maybe that's another place where the *great* artists come in? >But do I >use my artistic ability to create that money? And if I do, is there a >balance to be found between expressing myself and making a living? I don't >know. I don't think you'd want to avoid using your artistic ability to make money. I had trouble when money as a motive came first. But I didn't have any money, so I couldn't exactly turn anything down. >But I know one >thing: it is not my purpose in life to make anyone like me or what I do. I'm 30. I didn't figure this out until this year. I don't think I'm good at putting it into practice yet. >It is my purpose in life to be myself. Isn't that the whole point to being an >artist? I think it's the major advantage. >I paint and draw and write, hoping to see a reflection of myself >that I can understand and appreciate. >I have had critical acclaim, and it wasn't as joyous as knowing that I had >been honest in my expression. >Can anyone relate? Yes. Gina ========================================================================= Date: Fri, 24 Jan 1997 22:41:17 -0600 Reply-To: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" Sender: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" From: Gina Mikel Subject: Re: no opinion At 01:47 PM 1/24/97 -0500, you wrote: >re: your aside about other lists. I am realizing all people want is 'feel >good' stuff, no matter what the topic, everything else is considered >negative. With the kindest of intentions :Aka > What you said was concise (more than I can say for myself!) and sound. Maybe it would help if you weren't funny. (That was a joke... sort of) Anyone know why art is so hard to talk about? Gina ========================================================================= Date: Sat, 25 Jan 1997 15:07:57 -0500 Reply-To: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" Sender: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" From: Motoridge@AOL.COM Subject: Re: one opinion Art is hard to talk about because it is geberally a visual experience. Greater and lesser men have tried to express the experience in words, but it is impossible to fully capture the 'spirit' of a work of art. Art works when it touches the non-verbal parts of our brain and communicates on a viseral level. Words, unless they are pure poetry, are nothing but a busy barrier of distraction that befuddles and needlessly mists the vision. aka ========================================================================= Date: Sun, 26 Jan 1997 21:31:30 -0500 Reply-To: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" Sender: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" From: ShamGarlan@AOL.COM Subject: Re: The Virtual World In a message dated 97-01-17 10:23:51 EST, you write: << It was this raceless, faceless, genderless, environment that attracted me to the net and ultimately my current occupation. >> There is a commercial on TV that echos basically this same sentiment, and I say that it is just another lie parading as insight. If anyone here really believes that the internet is "raceless, faceless, genderless," then go to any public forum on the net, and tell a racial or sexual joke. You will find that there is indeed race and gender on the internet. ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 00:02:11 -0800 Reply-To: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" Sender: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" From: Patricia McIntosh Subject: Re: The Virtual World > << It was this raceless, faceless, genderless, environment that > attracted me to the net and ultimately my current occupation. >> > There is a commercial on TV that echos basically this same sentiment, and I say that it is just another lie parading as insight. A rather bold statement... > If anyone here really believes that the internet is "raceless, > faceless, genderless," then go to any public forum on the net, and tell > a racial or sexual joke. You will find that there is indeed race and > gender on the internet. Granted, but I think that misses the point she (?) was making. The point was NOT that race and gender stop mattering as issues that our society (real, virtual, or otherwise) struggles with; the point *was* that we are seen here for what our minds/souls can produce with words on a screen, and that is the first impression we have of others. We are known FIRST (if we are honest) here by our most essential selves - our character, our ideas. It is refreshing to discuss an issue thoroughly with someone knowing that there is likely little or no prejudice *based on essentially meaningless visual cues* tainting the way they perceive you or your opinions. My IRC nickname, "Fireweed," is often considered to be male or neutral by new people I meet, and I usually won't tell them (unless they ask) that I am female and that fireweed is a stately magenta Alaskan wildflower. :) It keeps things uncomplicated by gender bias more often than not (though unfortunately people mistake me betimes for a pothead, when, in fact, I'm a rather staid, dull single mother to two kids). Patty ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 00:09:19 -0800 Reply-To: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" Sender: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" From: Patricia McIntosh Subject: Bons Mots, Was: one opinion Mot' wrote: > Art is hard to talk about because it is generally a visual experience. And often an emotional/intellectual one as well. It is an abstraction, and it requires a very *personal* response. > Greater and lesser men have tried to express the experience in words, but it is impossible to fully capture the 'spirit' of a work of art. Art works when it touches the non-verbal parts of our brain and communicates on a visceral level. Words, unless they are pure poetry, are nothing but a busy barrier of distraction that befuddles and needlessly mists the vision. aka Wow, Mot' - beautifully put! That's it in a nutshell. Thanks for sharing a rather "poetic" insight. Patty ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 01:08:38 -0600 Reply-To: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" Sender: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" From: Gina Mikel Subject: Re: The Virtual World The progression of these lists... How do they go? Or not go? It seems like the groups tends to have a personality. Seems to be an equilibrium that gets a little disrupted each time someone new comes on. If there's a common purpose, like a profession, the group seems to do well no matter what. Everyone wants to discuss their job with "peers". The topics generally focus around that. People ask questions about how to do something. People answer. A friendly dialogue happens usually. If art is your profession, you can't really do that (yet, I hope). You can talk about artists you like (sometimes). You can talk about what media you use. You can't really say, "Oh, I wouldn't put that big blob there" (productively). I agree that really good art is a visual, personal response. I don't know about work in progress. If I didn't verbally think it through, I don't know if I'd be problem-solving effectively. Anyway, the other art lists I've seen -- The artists don't discuss their work there, either. One list focuses on theories of modern art (far as I can tell) and the other focuses on materials and techniques (generally). Both lists seem to be comprised mostly of artists or art critics (2 skewed vantage points). What about this list? When a list is quiet, is it susceptible in some way to some sort of transformation? I notice that I keep quiet on lists that are busy and established. Do the rest of you do that? (Not that I expect you to answer.) The ones that are quiet, they'll have been that way for weeks. As soon as I feel safe and post, people start talking more. Not in response to my brilliant ideas but just to kind of assert themselves, let me know they're there and they're watching my behavior, just in case I might get some wild idea and talk about something way far away from topic subjects stated in that e-mail that I'm not supposed to delete. I learned one little rule of thumb for those of you who are new to this: Try to find out the name of the moderator. If the person posts to the list a lot, silence will ensue if you disagree with him/her. (That wasn't *my* foot stuck in *my* mouth -- in this particular instance.) I guess if you use a different name, no one would know, but can you imagine having a name like Bambi, that really being your name, and being on the Internet? I lurk on a Windows NT list and haven't really studied it, but I have a suspicion that Melissa is actually a guy who wants his questions answered quickly. Gina ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 09:14:02 -0800 Reply-To: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" Sender: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" From: Patricia McIntosh Subject: Lists in The Virtual World Gina Mikel wrote: > The progression of these lists... How do they go? Or not go? It seems like the groups tends to have a personality. Seems to be an equilibrium that gets a little disrupted each time someone new comes on. I think that's very true of a lot of lists, moreso of the non-work-related lists than otherwise, IMO. > If there's a common purpose, like a profession, the group seems to do well no matter what. Everyone wants to discuss their job with "peers". The topics generally focus around that. People ask questions about how to do something. People answer. A friendly dialogue happens usually. That has been my experience as well. > What about this list? When a list is quiet, is it susceptible in some way to some sort of transformation? Well, when I came on, it was so quiet that I contemplated a hostile takeover, changing ARCO to stand for: Anarchists and Ruling Class Oppressors but then I thought, "Nyaaaaah..." In all seriousness, I suppose it's quite possible on a low volume list that a bunch of people who already know one another could all come on the list at the same time and bend it to suit their purposes to some degree, but I haven't seen it happen yet. I notice that I keep quiet on lists that > are busy and established. Do the rest of you do that? (Not that I expect you to answer.) LOL! There is a certain amount of irony in ^that^, isn't there? :) I get quiet when I get busy with other things. Right now I'm between jobs, so I'm a little more free. > The ones that are quiet, they'll have been that way for > weeks. As soon as I feel safe and post, people start talking more. Not in response to my brilliant ideas but just to kind of assert themselves, let me know they're there and they're watching my behavior, just in case I might get some wild idea and talk about something way far away from topic subjects stated in that e-mail that I'm not supposed to delete. Hmmm...I have also found that there are just certain personalities that come across in technicolor on the net, and they tend to ask very intriguing questions and (generally in a positive way) stir things up a bit. I was, until recently, on a list that revolved around philosophy and religious beliefs. It was quite well-established and high volume, and I'd been on it, off and on, for about a year and a half. They would never admit it in a million years, but there is very much an "inner circle" on that list with an amusing cast of characters. If you did anything to displease the inner circle (let's call them the IC) you were either attacked or ignored, depending on your offense. Anyone who showed themselves to be soft and/or vulnerable opened themselves up to being picked on. Ugh. I can definitely be soft and vulnerable, but I take no crap and fear no one and so they generally left me alone (sometimes ignoring me, but *never* attacking). The IC seemed to perpetuate one another's dysfunctionality, and in the end, three friends and I just left in disgust. The list management were all members of the IC and therefore had NO objectivity about the other members' behavior. I still wonder what the list owner must be thinking... Patty ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 10:08:08 -0600 Reply-To: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" Sender: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" From: Gina Mikel Subject: Re: Lists in The Virtual World >>I notice that I keep quiet on lists that >> are busy and established. Do the rest of you do that? (Not that I expect >>you to answer.) > >LOL! There is a certain amount of irony in =D8that=D8, isn't there? :) >I get quiet when I get busy with other things. Right now I'm between >jobs, so I'm a little more free. What does LOL mean? I have two kids, too (3 and 5) and don't work, per se, other than free-lance things once in awhile. (Are your kids little or big?) >Hmmm...I have also found that there are just certain personalities that >come across in technicolor on the net, and they tend to ask very >intriguing questions and (generally in a positive way) stir things up >a bit. That's interesting. "Come across in technicolor on the net..." Do you all find yourselves interpreted differently here, without your face, clothes, race, etc., coming before you (or at least *with* you)? Do you find that you get more or less attention or focus than you do in real life? =20 >I was, until recently, on a list that revolved around philosophy and >religious beliefs. It was quite well-established and high volume, and >I'd been on it, off and on, for about a year and a half. >They would never admit it in a million years, but there is very much an >"inner circle" on that list with an amusing cast of characters. >If you did anything to displease the inner circle (let's call them the >IC) you were either attacked or ignored, depending on your offense. >Anyone who showed themselves to be soft and/or vulnerable opened >themselves up to being picked on. Ugh. I can definitely be soft and >vulnerable, but I take no crap and fear no one and so they generally left >me alone (sometimes ignoring me, but *never* attacking). > >The IC seemed to perpetuate one another's dysfunctionality, and in >the end, three friends and I just left in disgust. The list management >were all members of the IC and therefore had NO objectivity about the >other members' behavior. I still wonder what the list owner must be >thinking... I was referring to a list on a speech/language disorder that my daughter has. The list owner's child has the same disorder (hence her motivation to start the list). There's a speech therapist on the list who doesn't realize, I assume, the list owner's experiences with speech therapy in the past and subsequent strong beliefs toward it. Or the list owner's knowledge of the subject. When the speech therapist says something naive, I find myself rolling my eyes. (Why do I do that? What's the point if no one can see?) It's great that she's there, on the list, but it gets a little awkward. I guess we don't like to see someone underestimate someone else's intelligence. Gina ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 11:57:27 -0500 Reply-To: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" Sender: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" From: Touche@AOL.COM Subject: Duchamp (Was: Introduction & What is art) Gina wrote: <> Wonderful characterization of Duchamp's work. I just bought the Tomkins biography. I had read his Time-Life book on Duchamp years ago, and more recently read the New Yorker excerpts from the biography. Has anyone here read the Cabanne interview with Duchamp? Donna ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 12:18:58 -0600 Reply-To: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" Sender: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" From: Gina Mikel Subject: Re: Duchamp (Was: Introduction & What is art) >I just bought the Tomkins >biography. I had read his Time-Life book on Duchamp years ago, and more >recently read the New Yorker excerpts from the biography. > >Has anyone here read the Cabanne interview with Duchamp? > >Donna > No. Are the excerpts online? I'd love to hear what your impressions are. I'll keep an eye out for the book. I've been reading artists' biographies lately (Picasso, Arbus, Mapplethorpe). It's been interesting for me, helps me put their work in a fuller context than looking at the books with pictures of their work in it. I like to see what motivates them, how much they enjoy and are absorbed by their work, what *they* thought of different pieces they produced. Gina ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 16:24:30 MDT Reply-To: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" Sender: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" From: edbaud@BBS.SLV.ORG Subject: Bambi, Mud God She seems to get by with it... (-_-) ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 20:17:29 -0500 Reply-To: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" Sender: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" From: ShamGarlan@AOL.COM Subject: Re: Duchamp (Was: Introduction & What is art) Good, now that someone has mentioned Duchamp, I can hack away at that stupid event in history that we know as the R. Mutt scandal. Duchamp's urinal was the beginning of "The Institutional Theory," which is what I believe to be the biggest bum steer the art world has ever received. It is merely the fact that some objects have been placed into the "Art Institution" that accounts for why those objects are called "art," or so we keep being told. This means that the Venus of Willlendorf has nothing in common with the Venus de Milo, other than the secondary fact that both can be found under the big tent we call "The Art Institution"- never mind that both are forms manipulated by the hand of man. This also means that any object sitting at "point A," over there, away from "The Art Institution" is not currently a work of art, but it could be, if only some obliging individual would move the thing to "point B," over here, within "The Art Institution." Aside from the fact that the financial gain from such a service can be quite high, I find it amazing that few will point out that giving a thing a change of venue is no great accomplishment. For those who have read the standard fare about the R. Mutt case, I'm sure that this will sound familiar- "Duchamp took an ordinary urinal and put it on its side." Yet, as many an art history student can tell you, this famous description is almost always found within an ich or two of an equally famous photograph, showing the urinal ON ITS BACK. As far as I can tell, "back" and "side" mean two different things, yet many art history writers have repeated this blunder, even to the present day. My guess is that one writer described the "artwork" in this way, and subsequent writers just mindlessly duplicated the mistake. Another familiar sentence might be this one- "Duchamp took an ordinary object and gave it new meaning by placing it in a context that divorced it from its intended use." Wow. What about when the stupid thing was in the plumbing supply house? Was there anyone pissing in it then? How about when it was on the truck on the way over there? Are those two instances examples of a urinal "divorced from its intended use" or not? Now we have a whole generation of "artists" who think that a mere change of venue will allow the open-minded to extract gobs of meaning from anything. This is known as "received wisdom." Mark Hall ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 22:06:58 -0500 Reply-To: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" Sender: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" From: "- John F. Cassily" Subject: Gina Mikel - and the 19 year old art major - It is good to tell the young ones the facts of life regarding survival in the artistic ocean where there are so few survivors; but I would avoid using the critic as any sort of guru as to the "guiding" of young artists. Critics are individuals devoid of passion and talent for any sort of creativity on their own, therefore they hold all artists in contempt - that is the crux of their function. Critics, showings, acclaim - these are all parts of the cutaneous, or "skin-deep" observations of the artistic process - the general admission seats; too far from the stage to perceive the evening's activities as anything more than a din of far-off noise and movement. The actual happening of art - the real creative processes are internal and intimate - unsharable and private from the world. It is a very inegalitarian thing I am afraid; being that art is solely the realm of the artist - and if it were not, then everyone would be an artist - one might say that "in there own way" everyone is an artist, but that is like saying that everyone, in their own way, is a neurosurgeon - What people cherish so much and wrongly consider the product of our work is only the empty chrysalis from the internal creative process - it is like the empty casing left after the bullet is fired. It may be beautiful, but it is not that what it is to perceived to be, and it is a 'tip of the iceberg' view of what we are doing. Art is a very complex way of life - it is a calling - perhaps like being a priest - and it is also a selfish endeavour - as you said "your purpose in life is to be yourself" - the true artist [as opposed to the "mall" variety] has devoted himself to "experience" rather than "interraction" to that end. It is the process of experience and creation over and over - as artists, if we wish to be dreadfully honest - we swim in self - it is what we do - just like we swim in the world . And as I said - the world is an ocean - and those of us who do not make the grade get eaten - like the humble Leopard Frog who produces her offspring in legion, so does life her artists by the millions in the hope that a few might survive. It is a tough way to live, but what I have found to be the most rewarding - here at 50, I also have my share of keloid tissue and healed bites, but it is part of the price. Art is not something compassionate, sensitive children do - all horses with flowing manes, and flowers and coloured pencils and such - it is the purview of the survivor - and I think, here in the era of IMGRAT [immediate gratification] it is important to point that out. It is the most rewarding, and hardest, thing one can ever do. I am a goldsmith, and even though I am now the artistic equivalent of the full-grown dominant male who yawns and shows his incisors and chitters and threatens the bachelor males of the troupe; the red, yellow and blue stripes on my muzzle proclaiming my age - I still remember being 19 and all the fears and confusion that go with it - and I wish they had had a course in artschool for us relating to artistic survival - suffice to say - like they told us a year later in preparation to go meet interesting and exotic foreigners [and kill them] during basic training - learn to think on your feet or die. By all means, young person, go for it and do your art - because if you do not - your life will be an empty and parched wasteland of deferred dreams and might have beens - but go into it knowing that it is hard - because it HAS to be - that is also part of the appeal - it is inegalitarian. I will get off my soapbox now [i can hear it creaking] and my best wishes to you. This is doubtless the longest thing I have written in ages - but I was as the Holy Rollers say - moved by the spirit - I have to be off now to enamel a copy I am doing of a LaLique brooch - [yes my young friend - one does have to be able to generate income with their work - I am not thrilled to be doing the occasional copy, but unlike other methodologies of prostitution, it carries no STD's - and if one exacts an almost cruelly prohibitive price - he does not have to do it nearly so often] - and I hope this missal does not cause me to find art students in my yard tomorrow night, waving torches, rakes and pitchforks, and daring me to come out. As they say on aol Artifex ========================================================================= Date: Mon, 27 Jan 1997 21:32:01 -0600 Reply-To: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" Sender: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" From: Gina Mikel Subject: Re: Duchamp (Was: Introduction & What is art) Hi Mark, The way I understood it was that Duchamp was trying to say the same thing you just said. In that context, I respect Duchamp's work. Not just one generation. Is there anyone in venue b. whose work you think belongs there? Why do you care what's put in venue b.? Venue b. contains a pretty good representation of what we're all capable of, far as I've seen. I see it as an archive system for my use. I don't need my stuff to be there. I don't think venue a. is "not art". It might not be art to a whole lot of people, but that, to me, doesn't make it "not art". "Artist" in your last paragraph is also a marketing person to at least a certain degree. I'm assuming your problem is in how much of a marketer the "artist" is? I don't know if it's possible to be only a marketer of your art or only an artist. You don't like the way the scales tend to be tipped? I think it's temporary. What do you think something should have to have to be in venue b.? Integrity? Timeliness? Gina ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 13:34:19 -0500 Reply-To: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" Sender: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" From: Motoridge@AOL.COM Subject: Re: Duchamp (Was: Introduction & What is art) Hooray for you. Debunk Duchamp! ========================================================================= Date: Tue, 28 Jan 1997 13:16:15 -0500 Reply-To: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" Sender: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" From: "Bryan S. User" Subject: Thank you Artifex Dear Artifex, 19 year old art major here. Thank you for the heartfelt reply. I need such boosts to continue on my path. I am frightened and I do have worries, but I realized two years ago that the experience is what matters. I have always had a talent for creativity. I have been gifted in the realms of painting, drawing, writing, and even in the telling of extravagant lies. My creative engine is always going, but I haven't always been able to release it. When I first decided to go to college, I wanted to do something more intellectual than artistic because I didn't believe in my ability. I was also afraid of the struggle. I don't like work. And I don't like going on faith. The path I've chosen has required large amounts of both. So I was going to give up before I even started. I probably would have hated myself for giving up so easily. Friends of mine let me know what was in my heart. They told me that I would have to be doing something that is artistic or I would go crazy. They told me that the value of what I have is defined by the struggle I go through to achieve it. So I took a leap of faith and became an art major. And it has been hard. I have no doubt that it will get harder, but I am not going to panick (hopefully). I know that the more stress you put on the skin of your hands, the thicker the skin gets. I don't say that to mean that I expect to become callous or numb to the pains of growing, but I know I will rise to each occasion. Such has been my experience in life. Though I am only 19, I am no stranger to hardships and stress. I am a recovering drugg addict and alcoholic. I have been sober for over two years. And I suffer from bi-polar disorder (manic depression). Also, I was raped by another boy when I was five years old at a childrens psych unit in Baltimore, Maryland. I have had to work hard simply to retain my sanity. My will to live is astoundingly strong, and it has served me well in school. I am stubborn, idealistic, and full of energy. One might say that I have all the emotional credentials to be the next Great Artist or something. But despite all the idealism and illusionism I dwell in, I believe in a few things with all my heart. I believe that I have a purpose. And I believe in a God that absolutely loves me. I believe that He has brought me here for a reason that I am unaware of, and that He will carry me on. I have not suffered in vain. And I am not gifted with creative talent for no reason. Does this make sense to you? Please don't get me wrong, I know this is a difficult path. I am not full of half-baked dreams of grandure. I believe in things that continue to provide me with the will to move on, despite the fear and the pain. I believe in things that allow me to be me. And I see nothing wrong with swimming in self. When I create from the heart, I express God. My consciousness is nothing more than a piece of His. I am not a Holy Roller either. I am Bryan. Make no mistake about that. And please do not be offended by my talk of spiritual matters. It is not my intention to push you away or to close your mind, or to convert you to any set of beliefs. That would be an act of spiritual arrogance. My beliefs are not so weak that I would strengthen them by having you beleve them along with me. They are a part of me. And I share them for the same reason I share my name: it is who I am. Now about critics. Who cares? Let them talk amoungst themselves. They are like the obnoxious little boys that use to heckle other children on the play ground. They concern themselves with the lives of others because they have no sense of their own lives, or they do not like their own lives. So let them try to interpret what is ours. They can never know the truth anyway. Once again, thank you Artifex. I hope to hear from you again. Bryan ========================================================================= Date: Wed, 29 Jan 1997 11:23:10 -0600 Reply-To: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" Sender: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" From: Gina Mikel Subject: Arco: me - and the 19 year old art major - Hi John Artifex and ALL, Critics to me are people who include art historians, art teachers, and people in general who have a certain amount of knowledge of the visual language. People who can critique art. Their input on my work can help me see what's working and what isn't. You're referring to people who write up an article in a newspaper somewhere? I don't know any of those people. There are a lot of inept people in any profession, but there must be some who are good at what they do. (Though I understand that your premise is that it is inherent in art that it's not understandable by anyone but the one who created the art.) >and if >it were not, then everyone would be an artist - one might say that "in there >own way" everyone is an artist, but that is like saying that everyone, in >their own way, is a neurosurgeon - As though nature is art. I agree there's a distinction between everyone and an artist. Using the neurosurgeon idea, I read (on the Internet of course) about a man who drilled a hole in his head. He practiced neurosurgery by doing that. The point is, when we think of neurosurgeon, we think of a good one or a great one. We dismiss anyone who doesn't have a PhD in it. I don't think art requires a PhD. No one's life is at stake. I do think it takes a degree of ability. I think I have enough of a knowledge of the brain that I can theorize about what's going on in mine. It's mine, afterall. I'm not going to call myself a neurosurgeon because I think about my mind, and maybe I'm only seeing a speck of sand of what neurosurgery consists of, but I think I'm looking at the most interesting part of neurosurgery. I can't experience the neurosurgeon's pride, thrill of success, the culmination of the study and practice, directly. I am capable of inferring how the neurosurgeon feels because of the experiences I've had. I see doctors on other lists who, if someone posts an idea, ask if the person has a reference to that. It's an idea and, in that context, is appropriate to speculate about. It doesn't need a reference to back it up. In other words, in our hurry to talk about what we think, I wonder how much we push away other people's ideas, something I'm trying (hard) to draw out of all of you, selfishly, because I want to think further about my own ideas. You know, in literature, it seems like sometimes a person will write one book an entire lifetime that's really great. Do you think there are people who have done that with art? One great piece, not a career of great pieces? >It may be beautiful, but it is >not that what it is to perceived to be, and it is a 'tip of the iceberg' view >of what we are doing. I've seen people looking at art and experiencing it as deeply as I'm able to. I think the idea that it's the tip of the iceberg is sometimes perceived by people when they look at art. >has devoted himself to "experience" rather than "interraction" to that end. > It is the process of experience and creation over and over - as artists, if >we wish to be dreadfully honest - we swim in self - it is what we do - just >like we swim in the world . Is it a conflict in you that you're here, that you've interacted? Yes, selfish, and dreadfully honest about something that must be utterly apparent. >Art is not something compassionate, sensitive children do Do you know one? Oh, you're speaking of metaphorical children. >It is the most rewarding, and hardest, thing one can ever do. I'm finding parenting is, for me, harder. It pulls more emotions out of me. Most rewarding -- art might be that for me. >I am a goldsmith You work in gold? What do you do? Interesting that your medium is inherently beautiful (and expensive). I do scientific illustration sometimes. I wonder why I do that, since again, it has that general beauty. I'm wondering if I need that to remain accessible. To whom? I don't know why. Gina ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 04:07:44 -0500 Reply-To: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" Sender: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" From: "Bryan S. User" Subject: Re: Arco: me - and the 19 year old art major - Gina, This is the 19 year old again. Please forgive me for making an unobjective appraisal of art critics. And yes, I was speaking of those faceless voices who write columns in newspapers and such. But please don't get the wrong idea. I am not as close minded as you may think. When I wrote to the group about art, I was writing from the point of view of someone who spends most of their time creating works in pastel and charcoal. I also write poetry. What I mean is that I devote my time to the study of artistic expression. I create physically tangible expressions of my perceptions, feelings, ideas, ad nauseum... That to me is a so-called artist. Right now, I create for the purpose of learning to create in better ways. I am learning to combine the power of my imagination with a degree of craftsmanship that will one day make me a profesional of some sort. I do not get payed. Learning is my profession. But that, in my eyes, makes me an artist. We often tend to get so confused in our word-play that we end up not communicating. When I speak of critics, I speak of people who spend most of their time critiquing for the purpose of critiquing. I realize that art history teachers and studio teachers must critique to give understanding to the students, but that does not make them critics. And we all have opinions about anything we look at, wether we are looking at works in a museum or at an advertisement on a billboard, but does that make us "critics"? I said what I said about critics in my last letter to simply get a point across: if I create something and leave it to others to give it value or meaning, then I have created it for the wrong reason. I find that if creating the thing itself does not please me, then no finished product and no amount of applause will either. I have to consistantly seek reward through the action itself and not through results, for results, like people, tend to let me down. Also, I do believe that beauty is very much in the eye of the beholder. And I absolutely love to get good reactions from my works. I too believe that the audience is necessary, and most useful. Why say something if there is no one to here it? Please forgive me if I sound hostile in my letters. I am very passionate about everything. I am sometimes too intense for my own good. I have joined this mailing list for stimulation just as you did. It is not my intent to offend anyone. I hope I have provided some stimulation for you. Sincerely, Bryan ========================================================================= Date: Thu, 30 Jan 1997 08:00:01 -0600 Reply-To: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" Sender: "Arco/Art & Literature, Psychology and Communication" From: Gina Mikel Subject: Re: Arco: me - and the 19 year old art major - Hi Bryan, No, I wasn't offended at all, by any of it. Gina