Digital BW, The Print

ternahan wrote:

> Did you see the story in yesterday's NY Times about the Damien Hirst
> installation?
> He set it all up in the gallery street window for his new show (Martin, I
> think it looked like our studios)....they had the opening reception and that
> night the custodian threw it out...said it looked like garbage...the gallery
> owner was quick to point out that he had only "set it aside" (meaning they
> were able to pull most of it out of the dumpster)...she was quoted as
> stating that it was worth hundreds of thousands of dollars...staff was able
> to put it back together, mostly. Hirst himself thought the whole thing was
> hysterically funny.
>
> Is art in the eye
> of the beholders or in
> the gallery's dumpster?

I read the article...Left me with my head shaking.  I obviously didn't think it was art, bu then again, I
don't 'get' a lot of modern art.  For me, art should be like that famous definition of pornography:  "I can't
describe it, but I know it when I see it."

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Trish, 

I did not see that story but I sure wish I had. Thanks for sending the headsup.  

That custodian probably has good taste....let's hope he got to keep his job.  

Steadman

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: ternahan 
  To: piezo 
  Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2001 3:59 PM
  Subject: [Digital BW] ART-what is it?


  Steadman et al,

  Did you see the story in yesterday's NY Times about the Damien Hirst
  installation?
  He set it all up in the gallery street window for his new show (Martin, I
  think it looked like our studios)....they had the opening reception and that
  night the custodian threw it out...said it looked like garbage...the gallery
  owner was quick to point out that he had only "set it aside" (meaning they
  were able to pull most of it out of the dumpster)...she was quoted as
  stating that it was worth hundreds of thousands of dollars...staff was able
  to put it back together, mostly. Hirst himself thought the whole thing was
  hysterically funny.

  Is art in the eye
  of the beholders or in
  the gallery's dumpster?

  ^  ^
  *  *
  \*/

  t
    


  Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

  Please follow these basic guidelines:
  - Include your full name with your message.
  - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
  - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
  - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
  - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
  - Complete your Yahoo profile.
  - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage. 




  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Once saw a show in the Chicago Art Institute many years ago. There were
about 20 canvases, about 4 square feet each, each one painted solid
black, no black on black images, just pitch black. No frames. People
came into the room, looked around for about 4 or 5 seconds and walked out.

Art?

What's that?



Jerry








ternahan wrote:

> 
> Steadman et al,
> 
> Did you see the story in yesterday's NY Times about the Damien Hirst
> installation?
> He set it all up in the gallery street window for his new show (Martin, I
> think it looked like our studios)....they had the opening reception and that
> night the custodian threw it out...said it looked like garbage...the gallery
> owner was quick to point out that he had only "set it aside" (meaning they
> were able to pull most of it out of the dumpster)...she was quoted as
> stating that it was worth hundreds of thousands of dollars...staff was able
> to put it back together, mostly. Hirst himself thought the whole thing was
> hysterically funny.
> 
> Is art in the eye
> of the beholders or in
> the gallery's dumpster?
> 
> ^  ^
> *  *
> \*/
> 
> t
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

That's more garbage...

Our Canadian government spent a lot of our tax dollars on something similair
a few years back... only it was orange.  A lady in our country got a large
government grant to gut dead rabbits, insert something in them, sew them up,
hang them in the forest and let them rot... while they rotted the "art"
emerged. ugh. I could think of a few things I'd rather have used *my* money
for...

Carolyn

> Once saw a show in the Chicago Art Institute many years ago. There were
> about 20 canvases, about 4 square feet each, each one painted solid
> black, no black on black images, just pitch black. No frames. People
> came into the room, looked around for about 4 or 5 seconds and walked out.
> 
> Art?
> 
> What's that?
> 
> 
> 
> Jerry
>

Many years ago I brought an oil painting in the US and drove back 
into Canada with the painting in my car. At custom, I duly declared 
the painting, expecting to pay duty on the frame but not on the 
painting which I knew to be exempt from duty (being a "... work of an 
artist executed in oil, water colour, charcoal..."). The custom 
officer on duty asked me what I had paid for "this" to which I 
replied $750. He then told me I would have to pay duty on it. I 
objected to be assessed duty and he called his supervisor on the 
phone for advise (this was a Sunday night in a small out of the way 
custom post). The supervisor directed him to the appropriate 
provisions of the code ("...work of an artist executed in oil...").
After reading this in the Code, the custom officer looked at me still 
dubious and said "How do I know this was made by an artist?"

PS   He finally relented and did not assess duty on the frame.
-- 
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Jean-Michel Paris 
Tél : (514) 744-3312
 
<jmparis@...>
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

snip
> custom post). The supervisor directed him to the appropriate
> provisions of the code ("...work of an artist executed in oil...").
> After reading this in the Code, the custom officer looked at me still
> dubious and said "How do I know this was made by an artist?"

That is just plain embarrassing... ;-(

Carolyn
Canadian

> 
> I read the article...Left me with my head shaking.  I obviously didn't think
> it was art, bu then again, I
> don't 'get' a lot of modern art.  For me, art should be like that famous
> definition of pornography:  "I can't
> describe it, but I know it when I see it."


It was a judge that said that right?  I really like that... and totally
agree. I don't think you have to *get* something to appreciate it. I can
appreciate a lot of things I don't like... but not garbage, literally or
metaphorically...

C

Does how long people stay in the room matter when deciding whether it 
is art?

Does art have to involve an image?

Would those have been better or worse if they had frames?

BTW, Damien Hirst (mentioned in the earlier story) is one of the best 
artists working today. I haven't seen or even heard about the current 
installation and I am not saying it is good or bad, but history would 
lead me to say there is probably something more to it then the fact 
that it looks like garbage. He has been known to intentionally leave 
holes in a plastic box containing rotting flesh just so the audience 
could smell it. ((health inspectors forced him to change that 
particular show I believe))  So it is not hard to see why a janitor 
might throw something of his away.

The art world is a world, it has it's members and it's history. The 
people that establish the value (especially monetarily) are those 
people. It is the same as any other group. The janitor that happens to 
glance at few people's stiches doesn't get to decide which surgeon is 
the best, the other surgeons do! The ones who deal with it every day.

-mikeH


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Jerry Olson <jerryolson@r...> 
wrote:
> Once saw a show in the Chicago Art Institute many years ago. There were
> about 20 canvases, about 4 square feet each, each one painted solid
> black, no black on black images, just pitch black. No frames. People
> came into the room, looked around for about 4 or 5 seconds and walked out.
> 
> Art?
> 
> What's that? 
> 
> Jerry
>
> 
> ternahan wrote:
> > 
> > Steadman et al,
> > 
> > Did you see the story in yesterday's NY Times about the Damien Hirst
> > installation?
> > He set it all up in the gallery street window for his new show (Martin, I
> > think it looked like our studios)....they had the opening reception and that
> > night the custodian threw it out...said it looked like garbage...the gallery
> > owner was quick to point out that he had only "set it aside" (meaning they
> > were able to pull most of it out of the dumpster)...she was quoted as
> > stating that it was worth hundreds of thousands of dollars...staff was able
> > to put it back together, mostly. Hirst himself thought the whole thing was
> > hysterically funny.
> > 
> > Is art in the eye
> > of the beholders or in
> > the gallery's dumpster?
> > 
> > ^  ^
> > *  *
> > \*/
> > 
> > t
> > 
> > 
> > Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> > 
> > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> > 
> > Please follow these basic guidelines:
> > - Include your full name with your message.
> > - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> > - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
> > - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> > - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> > - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> > - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage.
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/
terms/

> The art world is a world, it has it's members and it's history. The
> people that establish the value (especially monetarily) are those
> people. It is the same as any other group. The janitor that happens to
> glance at few people's stiches doesn't get to decide which surgeon is
> the best, the other surgeons do! The ones who deal with it every day.
>
> -mikeH
>
>
Sad isn't it. Art dealers support stuff they can sell, critics write about
things they can write about. None of this has anything to do with the work,
but with the concept behind the work. Arts education (and I used to be in
it) ,for a whole load of reasons that has very little to do with teachers,
is doing a poor job of educating people about art - and very often people
need the help of a dealer to interpret a 'concept'. And there is no causal
link between those who have money to buy art as having the skills to make a
judgement.

Julian

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Julian Thomas" <
julianthomas@t...> wrote:
> Sad isn't it. Art dealers support stuff they can sell, critics write about
> things they can write about. None of this has anything to do with the work,
> but with the concept behind the work. Arts education (and I used to be in
> it) ,for a whole load of reasons that has very little to do with teachers,
> is doing a poor job of educating people about art - and very often people
> need the help of a dealer to interpret a 'concept'. And there is no causal
> link between those who have money to buy art as having the skills to make a
> judgement.
> 
> Julian

I halfway don't agree with you. When talking about dealers, you need to 
differentiate between the high end and the low end. Low end dealers, 
the kind that are in every city, deal in stuff that they can sell, 
usually a lot of Terry Redlin type paintings. High end dealers don't 
care about whether the art will look good over a couch because, as we 
have all seen, they can sell about anything (my old bosses had a 
sculpture made out of manure in our studio) Nothing has changed in the 
low end art world for a long time, and you won't really come away with 
much other then a pretty picture (probably of something cute)  High end 
art is always changing, usually much more interesting and will make you 
think, but not always something you want in your house.

Critics mostly go along with the high end dealers, so they are not 
really hurting or helping things a lot of the time. The time when 
things become skewed is when a famous person (like a hollywood type) 
buys something and then all the other famous/rich people have to buy 
the same thing. We can only hope that there was someone knowledgeable 
in the field of art that influenced the original guy on his/her 
purchase.

Art is a very complex thing, most people think that the upper echelon 
is pretty strange because they have no basis to understand nor the 
patience or determination to follow up. I can describe this with 
another one of my interests: volleyball. Most people can take or leave 
volleyball. Some play it, but they prefer a soft $10 ball and play with 
a standard rotation. But once you get into it, you learn that the play 
at the higher end is a completely different game. You play with a $60 
ball that is made with different materials in a different way; there 
are positions, each with a different responsibility, and you learn 
lineups, hits, and rules that you never knew existed before. Some of it 
is based on history and tradition, some of it is based on new rules 
that everyone likes to complain and argue about. Most people play maybe 
once or twice a year in someone's backyard or at the beach, I play 
twice a week, year-round, now.  Is good art something that should 
require such a commitment? maybe not, but as the world gets older, and 
people have more time on their hands, and doing something original 
becomes more difficult, things naturally become intricate and 
complicated.


When you say this; "None of this has anything to do with the work,
> but with the concept behind the work"
you must remember that in a lot of those cases, the concept is the work 
and the concept is what the buyer is buying. You can go to some 
galleries and buy a piece in an edition and what you get are directions 
on how the create the piece yourself and a certificate that says you 
own number such and such out of such and such. Thankfully that is a 
moment in art history and I don't believe artists today are able to get 
away with such things. But if you come up with another twist, 
complexity, or concept that adds something new, you could probably sell 
an idea too.

This is how art varies from other fields. An artist with very little 
experience/knowledge of the art world, can create great art.  Studying 
art will help you recognize and understand other people's work. It will 
help you see greatness, and your own work will improve, but studying 
alone will not make your work great. (that is why so many artists are 
frustrated)

-mikeH
toomanyartists.com

ps 
The thing that is sad is not the high end art world, it is the low end/
popular art world and the populations lack of interest in anything more 
than a nature scene. Trendy-ness is something the art snobs love to 
hate, but in actuality is one of the only things that help bring better 
art to the masses. Offensive or outrageous pieces can do the same thing 
because of the press and attention they receive (see Piss Christ).

Mike - I half agree with you!

My background is in music - to me Schoenberg is standard repetoire and I can
trace how things happen as they emerge . I realised in my last post I was
coming off as a bit restrictive, but I firmly believe that if it is not 'in'
the work, then it is not part of the work. All art IMO is a balance between
a whole load o f factors, but I think there is a fundamental balance between
concept and product. If I can't, as a skilled reader, 'see' in the work the
concept, then it has failed and the concept stands 'in place of' the work as
the defining force.
I saw some of the kindof instruction-type work you described at the yoko ono
show, and it is poor stuff IMO. Now this is a personal view, and I would
take away anyone's right to make art in whatever way they choose, but when
this is placed in hierarchies, as 'better/best' then it produces problems
IMO. I don't think for e.g. that Hirst's work is that shocking or new, but
he has become a major media presence because he is writable about.

Anyway, thanks for the dicsussion!

Julian


----- Original Message -----
From: <mh@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 1:36 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] ART-what is it?


> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Julian Thomas" <
> julianthomas@t...> wrote:
> > Sad isn't it. Art dealers support stuff they can sell, critics write
about
> > things they can write about. None of this has anything to do with the
work,
> > but with the concept behind the work. Arts education (and I used to be
in
> > it) ,for a whole load of reasons that has very little to do with
teachers,
> > is doing a poor job of educating people about art - and very often
people
> > need the help of a dealer to interpret a 'concept'. And there is no
causal
> > link between those who have money to buy art as having the skills to
make a
> > judgement.
> >
> > Julian
>
> I halfway don't agree with you. When talking about dealers, you need to
> differentiate between the high end and the low end. Low end dealers,
> the kind that are in every city, deal in stuff that they can sell,
> usually a lot of Terry Redlin type paintings. High end dealers don't
> care about whether the art will look good over a couch because, as we
> have all seen, they can sell about anything (my old bosses had a
> sculpture made out of manure in our studio) Nothing has changed in the
> low end art world for a long time, and you won't really come away with
> much other then a pretty picture (probably of something cute)  High end
> art is always changing, usually much more interesting and will make you
> think, but not always something you want in your house.
>
> Critics mostly go along with the high end dealers, so they are not
> really hurting or helping things a lot of the time. The time when
> things become skewed is when a famous person (like a hollywood type)
> buys something and then all the other famous/rich people have to buy
> the same thing. We can only hope that there was someone knowledgeable
> in the field of art that influenced the original guy on his/her
> purchase.
>
> Art is a very complex thing, most people think that the upper echelon
> is pretty strange because they have no basis to understand nor the
> patience or determination to follow up. I can describe this with
> another one of my interests: volleyball. Most people can take or leave
> volleyball. Some play it, but they prefer a soft $10 ball and play with
> a standard rotation. But once you get into it, you learn that the play
> at the higher end is a completely different game. You play with a $60
> ball that is made with different materials in a different way; there
> are positions, each with a different responsibility, and you learn
> lineups, hits, and rules that you never knew existed before. Some of it
> is based on history and tradition, some of it is based on new rules
> that everyone likes to complain and argue about. Most people play maybe
> once or twice a year in someone's backyard or at the beach, I play
> twice a week, year-round, now.  Is good art something that should
> require such a commitment? maybe not, but as the world gets older, and
> people have more time on their hands, and doing something original
> becomes more difficult, things naturally become intricate and
> complicated.
>
>
> When you say this; "None of this has anything to do with the work,
> > but with the concept behind the work"
> you must remember that in a lot of those cases, the concept is the work
> and the concept is what the buyer is buying. You can go to some
> galleries and buy a piece in an edition and what you get are directions
> on how the create the piece yourself and a certificate that says you
> own number such and such out of such and such. Thankfully that is a
> moment in art history and I don't believe artists today are able to get
> away with such things. But if you come up with another twist,
> complexity, or concept that adds something new, you could probably sell
> an idea too.
>
> This is how art varies from other fields. An artist with very little
> experience/knowledge of the art world, can create great art.  Studying
> art will help you recognize and understand other people's work. It will
> help you see greatness, and your own work will improve, but studying
> alone will not make your work great. (that is why so many artists are
> frustrated)
>
> -mikeH
> toomanyartists.com
>
> ps
> The thing that is sad is not the high end art world, it is the low end/
> popular art world and the populations lack of interest in anything more
> than a nature scene. Trendy-ness is something the art snobs love to
> hate, but in actuality is one of the only things that help bring better
> art to the masses. Offensive or outrageous pieces can do the same thing
> because of the press and attention they receive (see Piss Christ).
>
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.

>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

So do you disagree with the notion that the concept alone can be the 
work?

I think Hirst was pretty new with a lot of his stuff, in medium and 
concept.  But as far as shocking, nothing is really shocking anymore.
The fact that he is nicely packaged and media friendly shouldn't take 
away from the work. I think they have had some good themes, that dig 
pretty deep, once you get over the controversial "wowzers, he did 
that!?" and "am I really seeing what I think I am" thoughts (I am 
thinking of the animals here). The controversial aspects attract media 
attention but in my opinion they aren't part of the meaning.

Speaking of pure shock, don't you think they are better than the guy 
who had his friend shoot him in the shoulder for his "performance" in a 
gallery? Or the woman who hung naked in grand central station and drew 
on the subway walls? These two are about the most famous performance 
artists.  We are beyond such shock now I think.

I found a funny quote about him;  "Sheep farmers like him too. He has 
been thanked for raising the profile of British lamb, and is said to be 
'a good judge of a sheep'."

all for now
-overnout,
mikeH

ps website about Damien Hirst=
http://dh.ryoshuu.com/

pps  I can say that I pretty much don't like his spin paintings. I want 
to believe that there is something more to them, but I haven't been let 
onto it so far. Their names are funny I guess.


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Julian Thomas" <
julianthomas@t...> wrote:

> Mike - I half agree with you!
> 
> My background is in music - to me Schoenberg is standard repetoire and I can
> trace how things happen as they emerge . I realised in my last post I was
> coming off as a bit restrictive, but I firmly believe that if it is not 'in'
> the work, then it is not part of the work. All art IMO is a balance between
> a whole load o f factors, but I think there is a fundamental balance between
> concept and product. If I can't, as a skilled reader, 'see' in the work the
> concept, then it has failed and the concept stands 'in place of' the work as
> the defining force.
> I saw some of the kindof instruction-type work you described at the yoko ono
> show, and it is poor stuff IMO. Now this is a personal view, and I would
> take away anyone's right to make art in whatever way they choose, but when
> this is placed in hierarchies, as 'better/best' then it produces problems
> IMO. I don't think for e.g. that Hirst's work is that shocking or new, but
> he has become a major media presence because he is writable about.
> 
> Anyway, thanks for the dicsussion!
> 
> Julian

Well Said Julian!

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Julian Thomas 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 2:41 AM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] ART-what is it?


  > The art world is a world, it has it's members and it's history. The
  > people that establish the value (especially monetarily) are those
  > people. It is the same as any other group. The janitor that happens to
  > glance at few people's stiches doesn't get to decide which surgeon is
  > the best, the other surgeons do! The ones who deal with it every day.
  >
  > -mikeH
  >
  >
  Sad isn't it. Art dealers support stuff they can sell, critics write about
  things they can write about. None of this has anything to do with the work,
  but with the concept behind the work. Arts education (and I used to be in
  it) ,for a whole load of reasons that has very little to do with teachers,
  is doing a poor job of educating people about art - and very often people
  need the help of a dealer to interpret a 'concept'. And there is no causal
  link between those who have money to buy art as having the skills to make a
  judgement.

  Julian


  Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

  Please follow these basic guidelines:
  - Include your full name with your message.
  - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
  - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
  - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
  - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
  - Complete your Yahoo profile.
  - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage. 




  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> So do you disagree with the notion that the concept alone can be the
> work?
>

yes, i think that there has to be a work-object for the viewer to engage
with. A lot of the stuff I saw at the yoko ono was therapy IMO 'draw a green
square on a canvea' 'hammer a nail into some wood' very dated. Musical
equivalent of bad John Cage

Julian

Mike and Julian, 

Both of you have interesting points that are well articulated.  Keep it up.  It is enlightening and certainly adds some "weight" to this forum.

But make sure you continue to play by the Rules of good sparring...

Regards and appreciation to both of you. 

Steadman

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: mh@... 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 6:36 AM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] ART-what is it?


  --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Julian Thomas" <
  julianthomas@t...> wrote:
  > Sad isn't it. Art dealers support stuff they can sell, critics write about
  > things they can write about. None of this has anything to do with the work,
  > but with the concept behind the work. Arts education (and I used to be in
  > it) ,for a whole load of reasons that has very little to do with teachers,
  > is doing a poor job of educating people about art - and very often people
  > need the help of a dealer to interpret a 'concept'. And there is no causal
  > link between those who have money to buy art as having the skills to make a
  > judgement.
  > 
  > Julian

  I halfway don't agree with you. When talking about dealers, you need to 
  differentiate between the high end and the low end. Low end dealers, 
  the kind that are in every city, deal in stuff that they can sell, 
  usually a lot of Terry Redlin type paintings. High end dealers don't 
  care about whether the art will look good over a couch because, as we 
  have all seen, they can sell about anything (my old bosses had a 
  sculpture made out of manure in our studio) Nothing has changed in the 
  low end art world for a long time, and you won't really come away with 
  much other then a pretty picture (probably of something cute)  High end 
  art is always changing, usually much more interesting and will make you 
  think, but not always something you want in your house.

  Critics mostly go along with the high end dealers, so they are not 
  really hurting or helping things a lot of the time. The time when 
  things become skewed is when a famous person (like a hollywood type) 
  buys something and then all the other famous/rich people have to buy 
  the same thing. We can only hope that there was someone knowledgeable 
  in the field of art that influenced the original guy on his/her 
  purchase.

  Art is a very complex thing, most people think that the upper echelon 
  is pretty strange because they have no basis to understand nor the 
  patience or determination to follow up. I can describe this with 
  another one of my interests: volleyball. Most people can take or leave 
  volleyball. Some play it, but they prefer a soft $10 ball and play with 
  a standard rotation. But once you get into it, you learn that the play 
  at the higher end is a completely different game. You play with a $60 
  ball that is made with different materials in a different way; there 
  are positions, each with a different responsibility, and you learn 
  lineups, hits, and rules that you never knew existed before. Some of it 
  is based on history and tradition, some of it is based on new rules 
  that everyone likes to complain and argue about. Most people play maybe 
  once or twice a year in someone's backyard or at the beach, I play 
  twice a week, year-round, now.  Is good art something that should 
  require such a commitment? maybe not, but as the world gets older, and 
  people have more time on their hands, and doing something original 
  becomes more difficult, things naturally become intricate and 
  complicated.


  When you say this; "None of this has anything to do with the work,
  > but with the concept behind the work"
  you must remember that in a lot of those cases, the concept is the work 
  and the concept is what the buyer is buying. You can go to some 
  galleries and buy a piece in an edition and what you get are directions 
  on how the create the piece yourself and a certificate that says you 
  own number such and such out of such and such. Thankfully that is a 
  moment in art history and I don't believe artists today are able to get 
  away with such things. But if you come up with another twist, 
  complexity, or concept that adds something new, you could probably sell 
  an idea too.

  This is how art varies from other fields. An artist with very little 
  experience/knowledge of the art world, can create great art.  Studying 
  art will help you recognize and understand other people's work. It will 
  help you see greatness, and your own work will improve, but studying 
  alone will not make your work great. (that is why so many artists are 
  frustrated)

  -mikeH
  toomanyartists.com

  ps 
  The thing that is sad is not the high end art world, it is the low end/
  popular art world and the populations lack of interest in anything more 
  than a nature scene. Trendy-ness is something the art snobs love to 
  hate, but in actuality is one of the only things that help bring better 
  art to the masses. Offensive or outrageous pieces can do the same thing 
  because of the press and attention they receive (see Piss Christ).



        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
              ADVERTISEMENT
             
       
       

  Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

  Please follow these basic guidelines:
  - Include your full name with your message.
  - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
  - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
  - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
  - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
  - Complete your Yahoo profile.
  - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage. 




  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> But make sure you continue to play by the Rules of good sparring...
>
> Regards and appreciation to both of you.
>
> Steadman
>
>
I suppose I should come clean really. I think one of prejudices against
concept art is that I used to do it. At one time I was heavily into John
Cage. I wrote 'instruction' pieces for musicians, got grants to do it too,
aleatoric pieces, graphic score pieces. And then I just stopped one day. I'd
lost the abilty to construct harmonies, I had no craftmanship. I was doing
what I was doing because I couldn't do anything else. I also felt that
whilst it was 'clever' it had no substance. I think there is always a place
for things that challenge the concept of 'what is art' and push people's
understanding and boundaries, otherwise we get 'stuck' ( a photographer
recently articulated this as 'if I have to look at yet another photo of ...
(insert your own over- exposure topic here)'). But I think that the high art
establishment is itself getting stuck.

Julian - we should be having this discussion on the arts lists!

>   ps 
>   The thing that is sad is not the high end art world, it is the low end/
>   popular art world and the populations lack of interest in anything more 
>   than a nature scene. Trendy-ness is something the art snobs love to 
>   hate, but in actuality is one of the only things that help bring better 
>   art to the masses. Offensive or outrageous pieces can do the same thing 
>   because of the press and attention they receive (see Piss Christ).
> 
But if the only alternative to hallmark card nature scenes that 
manages to elbow it's way to the public's attention is art who's main 
purpose is to outrage, they'll certainly not be that interested in 
seeking out something they may find more complelling.
Kinda like the difference between Michael Bolton and Madonna. It's 
barely music at all, yet there is a universe of music out there, 
including compelling leading edge stuff. How would you know?
The older I get, I'm of the mind that artists intent on being 
"offensive" (which is anything but these days, boring in fact) are 
really just trying to manipulate pop culture into giving them their 15 
minutes.
Tyler

on 10/23/01 9:02 AM, Julian Thomas at julianthomas@... wrote:

>> So do you disagree with the notion that the concept alone can be the
>> work?
>> 
> 
> yes, i think that there has to be a work-object for the viewer to engage
> with. A lot of the stuff I saw at the yoko ono was therapy IMO 'draw a green
> square on a canvea' 'hammer a nail into some wood' very dated. Musical
> equivalent of bad John Cage

think of what the word 'art' actually means outside this context

as in 'the artful dodger'

as in 'artifice'

as in 'artefact'

as in 'arts and crafts'

as in 'the art of the brewer'

This tells you, in my view anyway, that art is more than concept. It has to
do with something realized through physical skill and intellectual insight.
Both of those terms are necessary, or you have on the one hand a fine piece
of crafstmanship and on the other an unrealized idea.

Hirst's stuff is interesting because there clearly IS a craft element to
what he does, even if it is the craft of the embalmer.

The thing that bothers me most about conceptual art is that when you examine
the concepts they are frequently totally banal. You can see this in the
flatulent curatorspeak that surrounds them, which attempts to dress flawed
and uninteresting ideas in polysyllables.

Somebody said "there is nothing so mysterious as a fact plainly expressed",
and indeed when conceptual art (or indeed any art) does express a fact
plainly, it can be very powerful.

Too often however the 'art' part of conceptual art is simply a way of
obscuring what was not a very original, brilliant or striking idea in the
first place. Just as, IMO, the language of some of the French semioticians
like Derrida obscures a meaning which once disentangled doesn't stand up to
analysis. Compare and contrast with Wittgenstein or Barthes, who can amaze
you with a simple sentence, just as Paul Klee can amaze you with a line.

-- 
John Brownlow

http://www.pinkheadedbug.com

.
>
> Too often however the 'art' part of conceptual art is simply a way of
> obscuring what was not a very original, brilliant or striking idea in the
> first place. Just as, IMO, the language of some of the French semioticians
> like Derrida obscures a meaning which once disentangled doesn't stand up
to
> analysis. Compare and contrast with Wittgenstein or Barthes, who can amaze
> you with a simple sentence, just as Paul Klee can amaze you with a line.
>
> --
 I agree with you totally on this. I had a conversation with a friend
recently who is a keen amateur painter of the representational school. He
didn't think much of my street stuff, because it was 'just' a photo -
whereas his picture of roses took time and craft - all i did was click the
button. I tried explaining that it takes hours of working towards 'the'
moment, that the print takes time and craft, and that the vision to see the
moment is an 'artistic' vision. There is a balance in all this, between art
and craft, between concept and object which is almost one of dialectics with
the final piece being the synthesis. BTW my friend also didn't think much of
photoshop and digital printing :-)

Julian

Chaps,

You totally lose me with the references! But, can I suggest, or ask, that
you each try to summarise in a few sentences where the 'art' comes into the
process for you? Certainly, I know there is skill - but what I am trying to
get at here is that, whilst you may get up in the morning and not know what
objects you will find today... or know who will look at you in the right way
;) ... you are drawn (perhaps) to areas with 'the right light' and how
something may catch your eye... or ... whatever.

Then, you may develop the film, and have further revelations in the darkroom
or the digital workflow - perhaps you are trying to be representational
or... whatever.

For me? The most simple explanation is probably something like: I see
objects that I like, I compose in a way I find attractive... I develop
'normally'... I experiment in the digital darkroom to achieve a pleasing
print and a pleasing image. For me, many of my images seem to have simple
composition (often stright-on to a building, for example)... but the 'magic'
may come from the lighting, the reflections in glass... shadows falling and
the light... but most often, I would say the important element (to me) is
that somehow, these images portray an <arty mode on> unspoken history of the
building or surroudings </arty mode off>. I quite literally see a different
pattern of bricks or fallen plaster... and imagine what might have been
there before...

What I am thinking of getting here is not particularly artist's statements,
but emphasizing that the fact we end up printing off a digital printer in
the end does not impact the fact that we had a vision, or a revelation along
the way. It owuld be nice if this could then be used to back up 'the cause'
for 'inkhaus' or some of my thoughts for MWORDS.

Nij

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Julian Thomas [mailto:julianthomas@...]
> Sent: 23 October 2001 15:43
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] ART-what is it?
>
>
> .
> >
> > Too often however the 'art' part of conceptual art is simply a way of
> > obscuring what was not a very original, brilliant or striking
> idea in the
> > first place. Just as, IMO, the language of some of the French
> semioticians
> > like Derrida obscures a meaning which once disentangled doesn't stand up
> to
> > analysis. Compare and contrast with Wittgenstein or Barthes,
> who can amaze
> > you with a simple sentence, just as Paul Klee can amaze you with a line.
> >
> > --
>  I agree with you totally on this. I had a conversation with a friend
> recently who is a keen amateur painter of the representational school. He
> didn't think much of my street stuff, because it was 'just' a photo -
> whereas his picture of roses took time and craft - all i did was click the
> button. I tried explaining that it takes hours of working towards 'the'
> moment, that the print takes time and craft, and that the vision
> to see the
> moment is an 'artistic' vision. There is a balance in all this,
> between art
> and craft, between concept and object which is almost one of
> dialectics with
> the final piece being the synthesis. BTW my friend also didn't
> think much of
> photoshop and digital printing :-)
>
> Julian

We can only hope that there was someone knowledgeable in the field of art that influenced the original guy on his/her 
purchase.

....Ah , the taste police. After all , we cant have people just hanging any old thing on their wall now , can we? The proles , bless them , must be guided by us in the know..........
SteveW


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

mh@... wrote:

> The art world is a world, it has it's members and it's history. The
> people that establish the value (especially monetarily) are those
> people. It is the same as any other group. The janitor that happens to
> glance at few people's stiches doesn't get to decide which surgeon is
> the best, the other surgeons do! The ones who deal with it every day.

So what you are saying is that the 'French Academy' artists who literally ripped the early Impressionists'
paintings off the gallery walls were correct?

I do not think that the cleaning person's opinion is any less valid then the 'experts', who set the
prices...Think of 'The Emperor's New Clothes' if you want a classic rebuke to what you wrote.  :- )

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Julian Thomas wrote:

> Sad isn't it. Art dealers support stuff they can sell, critics write about
> things they can write about. None of this has anything to do with the work,
> but with the concept behind the work. Arts education (and I used to be in
> it) ,for a whole load of reasons that has very little to do with teachers,
> is doing a poor job of educating people about art - and very often people
> need the help of a dealer to interpret a 'concept'. And there is no causal
> link between those who have money to buy art as having the skills to make a
> judgement.

Look at it this way:  Academics (those that write about and teach the history of art) fulfill a function and a
demand form the less thoughtful.  And that is to 'empiricalize' something that cannot be quantified.  It *is*
a conundrum.

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I'm not denigrating academics - I used to lecture in aesthetics! -

Julian
----- Original Message -----
From: "SKID Photography" <skid@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 7:53 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] ART-what is it?


> Julian Thomas wrote:
>
> > Sad isn't it. Art dealers support stuff they can sell, critics write
about
> > things they can write about. None of this has anything to do with the
work,
> > but with the concept behind the work. Arts education (and I used to be
in
> > it) ,for a whole load of reasons that has very little to do with
teachers,
> > is doing a poor job of educating people about art - and very often
people
> > need the help of a dealer to interpret a 'concept'. And there is no
causal
> > link between those who have money to buy art as having the skills to
make a
> > judgement.
>
> Look at it this way:  Academics (those that write about and teach the
history of art) fulfill a function and a
> demand form the less thoughtful.  And that is to 'empiricalize' something
that cannot be quantified.  It *is*
> a conundrum.
>
> Harvey Ferdschneider
> partner, SKID Photography, NYC
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.

>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

Julian Thomas wrote:

> I'm not denigrating academics - I used to lecture in aesthetics! -

Julian,
I was not saying you were, nor am I.  I was just trying to point out the impossibility of taking a subjective
field and trying to quantify it.

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC



> > Julian Thomas wrote:
> >
> > > Sad isn't it. Art dealers support stuff they can sell, critics write about
> > > things they can write about. None of this has anything to do with the work,
> > > but with the concept behind the work. Arts education (and I used to be in
> > > it) ,for a whole load of reasons that has very little to do with teachers,
> > > is doing a poor job of educating people about art - and very often people
> > > need the help of a dealer to interpret a 'concept'. And there is no causal
> > > link between those who have money to buy art as having the skills to make a
> > > judgement.
> >
> > Look at it this way:  Academics (those that write about and teach the history of art) fulfill a function
> and a
> > demand form the less thoughtful.  And that is to 'empiricalize' something that cannot be quantified.  It
> *is*
> > a conundrum.
> >
> > Harvey Ferdschneider
> > partner, SKID Photography, NYC





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

But what the below fails to account for is absolutely arbitrariness (read fashion) of art and art criticism.
I go back to the example of the 'French Academy' members and critics, who totally rejected the
Impressionists...And went so far as to literally rip the Impressionists' paintings off the walls of the
exhibit spaces....Were they right?   They allegedly had the most knowledge, credentials and technique of their
time.

It is all so subjective. I go back to that old Yiddish saying:  "There is no accounting for taste in fish and
women"  And the even cruder:  " Opinions are like assholes.....Everybody's got one, and they all stink but
mine"  ;- )

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC



mh@... wrote:

> <huge snip>

> Art is a very complex thing, most people think that the upper echelon
> is pretty strange because they have no basis to understand nor the
> patience or determination to follow up. I can describe this with
> another one of my interests: volleyball. Most people can take or leave
> volleyball. Some play it, but they prefer a soft $10 ball and play with
> a standard rotation. But once you get into it, you learn that the play
> at the higher end is a completely different game. You play with a $60
> ball that is made with different materials in a different way; there
> are positions, each with a different responsibility, and you learn
> lineups, hits, and rules that you never knew existed before. Some of it
> is based on history and tradition, some of it is based on new rules
> that everyone likes to complain and argue about. Most people play maybe
> once or twice a year in someone's backyard or at the beach, I play
> twice a week, year-round, now.  Is good art something that should
> require such a commitment? maybe not, but as the world gets older, and
> people have more time on their hands, and doing something original
> becomes more difficult, things naturally become intricate and
> complicated.
>
>
> When you say this; "None of this has anything to do with the work,
> > but with the concept behind the work"
> you must remember that in a lot of those cases, the concept is the work
> and the concept is what the buyer is buying. You can go to some
> galleries and buy a piece in an edition and what you get are directions
> on how the create the piece yourself and a certificate that says you
> own number such and such out of such and such. Thankfully that is a
> moment in art history and I don't believe artists today are able to get
> away with such things. But if you come up with another twist,
> complexity, or concept that adds something new, you could probably sell
> an idea too.
>
> This is how art varies from other fields. An artist with very little
> experience/knowledge of the art world, can create great art.  Studying
> art will help you recognize and understand other people's work. It will
> help you see greatness, and your own work will improve, but studying
> alone will not make your work great. (that is why so many artists are
> frustrated)
>
> -mikeH
> toomanyartists.com
>
> ps
> The thing that is sad is not the high end art world, it is the low end/
> popular art world and the populations lack of interest in anything more
> than a nature scene. Trendy-ness is something the art snobs love to
> hate, but in actuality is one of the only things that help bring better
> art to the masses. Offensive or outrageous pieces can do the same thing
> because of the press and attention they receive (see Piss Christ).
>
>





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Tyler, 
I am struck by what you wrote.  (that is not bad)  It got me thinking. 

I am thinking of the times when I saw conceptual artists (some good and some bad...personal opinion) and the times I saw mainstream artists (both low and high stream)...and the thought that those that are out to "shock" the public are often in the search of fame (who isnt?) of the "fifteen minutes" sort.  

While rotting carcasses of animals (or..at the opposite end.. formaldehyde preserved ones either) may be "screaming" to the "high" art world...it seems juvenile to me many times.  Juvenile in the desperate sense of "look at me and what I did."   Like what a petulant little kid does to get approval and attention.  That scream for attention....that need to make sculpture of "manure" (as witnessed in earlier post) ...seems ridiculous...even if it wins the approval of the art critics and is valued at "hundreds of thousands of dollars."  

Artists all want attention.   Some get it by producing art that is "appreciated" by the masses and some by producing art that is mainstream.  Others by producing "art" that is noteworthy only because of its shock value.  

Time usually tells the final lasting value of the art.  Of course tastes change with time (e.g. the acceptance of Van Gogh is just one of many examples)..but I find it hard to imagine that some time in the future someone is going to look at a pile of manure (or discarded trash) as a sign of "the art of a culture" unless it is a very low, base culture.  Funny to think of it that way.  The future may judge the "high art" (I am being generous calling piles of manure or rotting flesh..."high art") of today as the very lowest cultural expression.  

Thinking of time...if you lived far in the future...do you (anyone reading this now) think rotting carcasses or preserved fetal pigs or piles of "manure" will ever be considered "art?"

What will it take to "shock" the future?  Mass murders?  Genocide as an art form?  Sorry...it has already been done.  Back to the argument that there are no more original ideas....

Musing off now, 
Steadman

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Tyler Boley 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 8:48 AM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] ART-what is it?


  >   ps 
  >   The thing that is sad is not the high end art world, it is the low end/
  >   popular art world and the populations lack of interest in anything more 
  >   than a nature scene. Trendy-ness is something the art snobs love to 
  >   hate, but in actuality is one of the only things that help bring better 
  >   art to the masses. Offensive or outrageous pieces can do the same thing 
  >   because of the press and attention they receive (see Piss Christ).
  > 
  But if the only alternative to hallmark card nature scenes that 
  manages to elbow it's way to the public's attention is art who's main 
  purpose is to outrage, they'll certainly not be that interested in 
  seeking out something they may find more complelling.
  Kinda like the difference between Michael Bolton and Madonna. It's 
  barely music at all, yet there is a universe of music out there, 
  including compelling leading edge stuff. How would you know?
  The older I get, I'm of the mind that artists intent on being 
  "offensive" (which is anything but these days, boring in fact) are 
  really just trying to manipulate pop culture into giving them their 15 
  minutes.
  Tyler



        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
              ADVERTISEMENT
             
       
       

  Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

  Please follow these basic guidelines:
  - Include your full name with your message.
  - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
  - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
  - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
  - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
  - Complete your Yahoo profile.
  - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage. 




  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Anyone see the segmented cow exhibit? Some idiot froze a cow, and sawed
it into thin slices, then encased them in acrylic and placed each of
about a dozen or so pieces about 2 feet apart. Is this really art, or
just plain vanilla cow abuse?

Jerry

Picasso did the same thing with a drawing of cow evolving in several steps
(or devolving) into 3 triangles.

> From: Jerry Olson <jerryolson@...>
> Reply-To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 18:18:01 -0500
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] ART-what is it?
> 
> Anyone see the segmented cow exhibit? Some idiot froze a cow, and sawed
> it into thin slices, then encased them in acrylic and placed each of
> about a dozen or so pieces about 2 feet apart. Is this really art, or
> just plain vanilla cow abuse?
> 
> Jerry
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other
> resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
> resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> 
>

I for one am proud to be a Prole....

and I like to polka too 

along with my kielbalsa.  

Steadman

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Steve Woolfenden 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 11:28 AM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] ART-what is it?


  We can only hope that there was someone knowledgeable in the field of art that influenced the original guy on his/her 
  purchase.

  ....Ah , the taste police. After all , we cant have people just hanging any old thing on their wall now , can we? The proles , bless them , must be guided by us in the know..........
  SteveW


  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
              ADVERTISEMENT
             
       
       

  Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

  Please follow these basic guidelines:
  - Include your full name with your message.
  - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
  - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
  - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
  - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
  - Complete your Yahoo profile.
  - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage. 




  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Awesome!
t

> From: "Steadman Uhlich" <steadmanuhlich@...>
> Reply-To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 18:22:20 -0500
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] ART-what is it?
> 
> I for one am proud to be a Prole....
> 
> and I like to polka too
> 
> along with my kielbalsa.
> 
> Steadman
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Steve Woolfenden
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 11:28 AM
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] ART-what is it?
> 
> 
> We can only hope that there was someone knowledgeable in the field of art that
> influenced the original guy on his/her
> purchase.
> 
> ....Ah , the taste police. After all , we cant have people just hanging any
> old thing on their wall now , can we? The proles , bless them , must be guided
> by us in the know..........
> SteveW
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> 
> 
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other
> resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
> resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> 
> 
> 
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other
> resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
> them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
> resources on the homepage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
> 
>

on 10/23/01 7:18 PM, Jerry Olson at jerryolson@... wrote:

> Anyone see the segmented cow exhibit? Some idiot froze a cow, and sawed
> it into thin slices, then encased them in acrylic and placed each of
> about a dozen or so pieces about 2 feet apart. Is this really art, or
> just plain vanilla cow abuse?

one of the most popular exhibits in German of recent years (I think I have
this right) was some extraordinary peeled and preserved corpses of former
human beings. I only saw it on TV but it was pretty amazing.

Here are a few links that give you an idea. Makes Damien Hirst look tame
(and dull)


http://chinadaily.com.cn.net/star/2001/0913/fe19-1.html

http://www.beachbrowser.com/Archives/eVoid/April-2001/Plasticized-Corpse-Exh
ibit.htm

    
-- 
John Brownlow

http://www.pinkheadedbug.com

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Johnny Deadman <john@p...> wrote:
snip...
> one of the most popular exhibits in German of recent years (I think I have
> this right) was some extraordinary peeled and preserved corpses of former
> human beings...

"what the hell is wrong with the Germans?"

From South Park, The Movie.
My apologies to any Germans anywhere, you had to see the movie...
...well... I thought it was funny...
Tyler

Life always has a fascination with death.  

"We should not be ashamed of our bodies."

Think of PT Barnum or others who exhibit the macabre to excite us.

The good doktor in the black hat looks like a modern image of Death (in a black hood). 

I was appalled at the exhibition of these "volunteers" corpses for "edutainment."  Entertainment by showing the gruesome and "arty" poses of people's remains...the foetus in the woman for instance.

Appalled that someone can exhibit this in Germany (or anywhere)...where I thought the respect for life would have been "growing" since the Holocaust.    How insensitive can people be?  Of course, the exhibit moves on to Brussels and to Britain later...so it is not a German issue. 

Appalled that the exhibitor has thousands of volunteers who want to be eviscerated and shrink wrapped and put on display.  

Appalled at the emptiness. 

Appalled at the throngs of people (millions?) that have seen this for entertainment.

Appalled that this could be a sign of our times or defined as "art."  

It strikes me as...."evil."   

I don't say that lightly.  I have studied the horrors of WWII for my documentary film on WWII and read of many attrocities and the Holocaust and genocide and man's looking at man as something to display or use (thinking of human skin lampshades now).  

I watch my blinking cursor on this screen and I don't know what else to say...I am DISGUSTED!.

Steadman

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Johnny Deadman 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 7:05 PM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] ART-what is it?


  on 10/23/01 7:18 PM, Jerry Olson at jerryolson@... wrote:

  > Anyone see the segmented cow exhibit? Some idiot froze a cow, and sawed
  > it into thin slices, then encased them in acrylic and placed each of
  > about a dozen or so pieces about 2 feet apart. Is this really art, or
  > just plain vanilla cow abuse?

  one of the most popular exhibits in German of recent years (I think I have
  this right) was some extraordinary peeled and preserved corpses of former
  human beings. I only saw it on TV but it was pretty amazing.

  Here are a few links that give you an idea. Makes Damien Hirst look tame
  (and dull)


  http://chinadaily.com.cn.net/star/2001/0913/fe19-1.html

  http://www.beachbrowser.com/Archives/eVoid/April-2001/Plasticized-Corpse-Exh
  ibit.htm

      
  -- 
  John Brownlow

  http://www.pinkheadedbug.com


        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
              ADVERTISEMENT
             
       
       

  Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

  Please follow these basic guidelines:
  - Include your full name with your message.
  - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
  - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
  - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
  - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
  - Complete your Yahoo profile.
  - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage. 




  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Steadman Uhlich" <steadmanuhlich@k...> wrote:
snip...
> What will it take to "shock" the future?  Mass murders?  Genocide as an art form?  Sorry...it has already been done.  Back to the argument that there are no more original ideas....

One of the best comments I've heard, told me by an artist I highly respect-
That something must be original is not a very original idea.

Made me feel MUCH better.
Very little seems to shock now, it only seems slightly depressing when confronted yet again by someone wanting to do so. 
You are right, it seems to me that a presence built on outrageousness is eventually a dead end. You can't top yourself 
indefinitely. Maybe it's not a concern if you make enough to retire on during your 15 minutes.
On the other hand I think there will always be a new audience as each generation comes of age and realizes all is not as 
we were led to believe, and gets a bit miffed about it. I certainly reveled in my gleeful denouncements way back when, but I 
was probably also after attention.
I figure a time will come when simple well crafted images of an infinitely compelling natural world will seem really RAD. I'll 
be ready, waiting, price list in hand.
Hope this thread isn't too aggravating, there really doesn't seem to be much going on in printing developments.
Tyler

...actually, I suspect most just can help themselves and make whatever art they do because they can't stop, and we all think 
about it later...

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Steadman Uhlich" <steadmanuhlich@k...> wrote:
snip...
> I watch my blinking cursor on this screen and I don't know what else to say...I am DISGUSTED!.
> 
> Steadman

I understand your reaction completely, I just don't want to look at it long enough or read about it enough to spend the rest 
of the evening feeling the same way you do now.
Know what I mean?
Tyler

I know what you mean.  I wish I had not read that stuff. 

Steadman

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Tyler Boley 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 8:59 PM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] ART-what is it?


  --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Steadman Uhlich" <steadmanuhlich@k...> wrote:
  snip...
  > I watch my blinking cursor on this screen and I don't know what else to say...I am DISGUSTED!.
  > 
  > Steadman

  I understand your reaction completely, I just don't want to look at it long enough or read about it enough to spend the rest 
  of the evening feeling the same way you do now.
  Know what I mean?
  Tyler



        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
              ADVERTISEMENT
             
       
       

  Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

  Please follow these basic guidelines:
  - Include your full name with your message.
  - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
  - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
  - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
  - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
  - Complete your Yahoo profile.
  - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage. 




  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I've not visited the links, I saw it on TV and had to turn it off. I'm
sorry, but I really believe this man has crossed a line somewhere.

I know all the arguments and I've enjoyed reading this lists thoughts and
respect you all for your wisdom and educated differences, but this
disrespect for human kind is just ... well, I don't know what it is.

Carolyn

> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Steadman Uhlich"
> <steadmanuhlich@k...> wrote:
> snip...
>> I watch my blinking cursor on this screen and I don't know what else to
>> say...I am DISGUSTED!.
>> 
>> Steadman
> 
> I understand your reaction completely, I just don't want to look at it long
> enough or read about it enough to spend the rest
> of the evening feeling the same way you do now.
> Know what I mean?
> Tyler

Great questions! Great responce! Bravo!
"We" need to keep an open mind and be receptive to new and different 
ideas/thoughts/concepts/expressions.  Its all too easy to dismiss what is 
not easy or immediately apparent or understood.   SCB

From: mh@...
Reply-To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] ART-what is it?
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 07:32:36 -0000

Does how long people stay in the room matter when deciding whether it
is art?

Does art have to involve an image?

Would those have been better or worse if they had frames?

BTW, Damien Hirst (mentioned in the earlier story) is one of the best
artists working today. I haven't seen or even heard about the current
installation and I am not saying it is good or bad, but history would
lead me to say there is probably something more to it then the fact
that it looks like garbage. He has been known to intentionally leave
holes in a plastic box containing rotting flesh just so the audience
could smell it. ((health inspectors forced him to change that
particular show I believe))  So it is not hard to see why a janitor
might throw something of his away.

The art world is a world, it has it's members and it's history. The
people that establish the value (especially monetarily) are those
people. It is the same as any other group. The janitor that happens to
glance at few people's stiches doesn't get to decide which surgeon is
the best, the other surgeons do! The ones who deal with it every day.

-mikeH


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Jerry Olson <jerryolson@r...>
wrote:
 > Once saw a show in the Chicago Art Institute many years ago. There were
 > about 20 canvases, about 4 square feet each, each one painted solid
 > black, no black on black images, just pitch black. No frames. People
 > came into the room, looked around for about 4 or 5 seconds and walked 
out.
 >
 > Art?
 >
 > What's that?
 >
 > Jerry
 >
 >
 > ternahan wrote:
 > >
 > > Steadman et al,
 > >
 > > Did you see the story in yesterday's NY Times about the Damien Hirst
 > > installation?
 > > He set it all up in the gallery street window for his new show (Martin, 
I
 > > think it looked like our studios)....they had the opening reception and 
that
 > > night the custodian threw it out...said it looked like garbage...the 
gallery
 > > owner was quick to point out that he had only "set it aside" (meaning 
they
 > > were able to pull most of it out of the dumpster)...she was quoted as
 > > stating that it was worth hundreds of thousands of dollars...staff was 
able
 > > to put it back together, mostly. Hirst himself thought the whole thing 
was
 > > hysterically funny.
 > >
 > > Is art in the eye
 > > of the beholders or in
 > > the gallery's dumpster?
 > >
 > > ^  ^
 > > *  *
 > > \*/
 > >
 > > t
 > >
 > >
 > > Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls 
and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
 > >
 > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
 > >
 > > Please follow these basic guidelines:
 > > - Include your full name with your message.
 > > - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
 > > - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to 
keep them short.
 > > - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject 
header.
 > > - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or 
"flames."
 > > - Complete your Yahoo profile.
 > > - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the 
various resources on the homepage.
 > >
 > >
 > >
 > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/
terms/




_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

mikeH:  Right on!!!!!    SCB

From: mh@...
Reply-To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] ART-what is it?
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 11:36:44 -0000

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Julian Thomas" <
julianthomas@t...> wrote:
 > Sad isn't it. Art dealers support stuff they can sell, critics write 
about
 > things they can write about. None of this has anything to do with the 
work,
 > but with the concept behind the work. Arts education (and I used to be in
 > it) ,for a whole load of reasons that has very little to do with 
teachers,
 > is doing a poor job of educating people about art - and very often people
 > need the help of a dealer to interpret a 'concept'. And there is no 
causal
 > link between those who have money to buy art as having the skills to make 
a
 > judgement.
 >
 > Julian

I halfway don't agree with you. When talking about dealers, you need to
differentiate between the high end and the low end. Low end dealers,
the kind that are in every city, deal in stuff that they can sell,
usually a lot of Terry Redlin type paintings. High end dealers don't
care about whether the art will look good over a couch because, as we
have all seen, they can sell about anything (my old bosses had a
sculpture made out of manure in our studio) Nothing has changed in the
low end art world for a long time, and you won't really come away with
much other then a pretty picture (probably of something cute)  High end
art is always changing, usually much more interesting and will make you
think, but not always something you want in your house.

Critics mostly go along with the high end dealers, so they are not
really hurting or helping things a lot of the time. The time when
things become skewed is when a famous person (like a hollywood type)
buys something and then all the other famous/rich people have to buy
the same thing. We can only hope that there was someone knowledgeable
in the field of art that influenced the original guy on his/her
purchase.

Art is a very complex thing, most people think that the upper echelon
is pretty strange because they have no basis to understand nor the
patience or determination to follow up. I can describe this with
another one of my interests: volleyball. Most people can take or leave
volleyball. Some play it, but they prefer a soft $10 ball and play with
a standard rotation. But once you get into it, you learn that the play
at the higher end is a completely different game. You play with a $60
ball that is made with different materials in a different way; there
are positions, each with a different responsibility, and you learn
lineups, hits, and rules that you never knew existed before. Some of it
is based on history and tradition, some of it is based on new rules
that everyone likes to complain and argue about. Most people play maybe
once or twice a year in someone's backyard or at the beach, I play
twice a week, year-round, now.  Is good art something that should
require such a commitment? maybe not, but as the world gets older, and
people have more time on their hands, and doing something original
becomes more difficult, things naturally become intricate and
complicated.


When you say this; "None of this has anything to do with the work,
 > but with the concept behind the work"
you must remember that in a lot of those cases, the concept is the work
and the concept is what the buyer is buying. You can go to some
galleries and buy a piece in an edition and what you get are directions
on how the create the piece yourself and a certificate that says you
own number such and such out of such and such. Thankfully that is a
moment in art history and I don't believe artists today are able to get
away with such things. But if you come up with another twist,
complexity, or concept that adds something new, you could probably sell
an idea too.

This is how art varies from other fields. An artist with very little
experience/knowledge of the art world, can create great art.  Studying
art will help you recognize and understand other people's work. It will
help you see greatness, and your own work will improve, but studying
alone will not make your work great. (that is why so many artists are
frustrated)

-mikeH
toomanyartists.com

ps
The thing that is sad is not the high end art world, it is the low end/
popular art world and the populations lack of interest in anything more
than a nature scene. Trendy-ness is something the art snobs love to
hate, but in actuality is one of the only things that help bring better
art to the masses. Offensive or outrageous pieces can do the same thing
because of the press and attention they receive (see Piss Christ).




_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

JT:  If one dosen't "get it" or understand, then the art may have failed to 
communicate to that individual; however, it does not automatically translate 
that the art is not good or not understandable to others.  Personal opinion 
isn't worth much by itself.  SCB

From: "Julian Thomas" <julianthomas@...>
Reply-To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] ART-what is it?
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 13:47:59 +0200

Mike - I half agree with you!

My background is in music - to me Schoenberg is standard repetoire and I can
trace how things happen as they emerge . I realised in my last post I was
coming off as a bit restrictive, but I firmly believe that if it is not 'in'
the work, then it is not part of the work. All art IMO is a balance between
a whole load o f factors, but I think there is a fundamental balance between
concept and product. If I can't, as a skilled reader, 'see' in the work the
concept, then it has failed and the concept stands 'in place of' the work as
the defining force.
I saw some of the kindof instruction-type work you described at the yoko ono
show, and it is poor stuff IMO. Now this is a personal view, and I would
take away anyone's right to make art in whatever way they choose, but when
this is placed in hierarchies, as 'better/best' then it produces problems
IMO. I don't think for e.g. that Hirst's work is that shocking or new, but
he has become a major media presence because he is writable about.

Anyway, thanks for the dicsussion!

Julian


----- Original Message -----
From: <mh@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 1:36 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] ART-what is it?


 > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Julian Thomas" <
 > julianthomas@t...> wrote:
 > > Sad isn't it. Art dealers support stuff they can sell, critics write
about
 > > things they can write about. None of this has anything to do with the
work,
 > > but with the concept behind the work. Arts education (and I used to be
in
 > > it) ,for a whole load of reasons that has very little to do with
teachers,
 > > is doing a poor job of educating people about art - and very often
people
 > > need the help of a dealer to interpret a 'concept'. And there is no
causal
 > > link between those who have money to buy art as having the skills to
make a
 > > judgement.
 > >
 > > Julian
 >
 > I halfway don't agree with you. When talking about dealers, you need to
 > differentiate between the high end and the low end. Low end dealers,
 > the kind that are in every city, deal in stuff that they can sell,
 > usually a lot of Terry Redlin type paintings. High end dealers don't
 > care about whether the art will look good over a couch because, as we
 > have all seen, they can sell about anything (my old bosses had a
 > sculpture made out of manure in our studio) Nothing has changed in the
 > low end art world for a long time, and you won't really come away with
 > much other then a pretty picture (probably of something cute)  High end
 > art is always changing, usually much more interesting and will make you
 > think, but not always something you want in your house.
 >
 > Critics mostly go along with the high end dealers, so they are not
 > really hurting or helping things a lot of the time. The time when
 > things become skewed is when a famous person (like a hollywood type)
 > buys something and then all the other famous/rich people have to buy
 > the same thing. We can only hope that there was someone knowledgeable
 > in the field of art that influenced the original guy on his/her
 > purchase.
 >
 > Art is a very complex thing, most people think that the upper echelon
 > is pretty strange because they have no basis to understand nor the
 > patience or determination to follow up. I can describe this with
 > another one of my interests: volleyball. Most people can take or leave
 > volleyball. Some play it, but they prefer a soft $10 ball and play with
 > a standard rotation. But once you get into it, you learn that the play
 > at the higher end is a completely different game. You play with a $60
 > ball that is made with different materials in a different way; there
 > are positions, each with a different responsibility, and you learn
 > lineups, hits, and rules that you never knew existed before. Some of it
 > is based on history and tradition, some of it is based on new rules
 > that everyone likes to complain and argue about. Most people play maybe
 > once or twice a year in someone's backyard or at the beach, I play
 > twice a week, year-round, now.  Is good art something that should
 > require such a commitment? maybe not, but as the world gets older, and
 > people have more time on their hands, and doing something original
 > becomes more difficult, things naturally become intricate and
 > complicated.
 >
 >
 > When you say this; "None of this has anything to do with the work,
 > > but with the concept behind the work"
 > you must remember that in a lot of those cases, the concept is the work
 > and the concept is what the buyer is buying. You can go to some
 > galleries and buy a piece in an edition and what you get are directions
 > on how the create the piece yourself and a certificate that says you
 > own number such and such out of such and such. Thankfully that is a
 > moment in art history and I don't believe artists today are able to get
 > away with such things. But if you come up with another twist,
 > complexity, or concept that adds something new, you could probably sell
 > an idea too.
 >
 > This is how art varies from other fields. An artist with very little
 > experience/knowledge of the art world, can create great art.  Studying
 > art will help you recognize and understand other people's work. It will
 > help you see greatness, and your own work will improve, but studying
 > alone will not make your work great. (that is why so many artists are
 > frustrated)
 >
 > -mikeH
 > toomanyartists.com
 >
 > ps
 > The thing that is sad is not the high end art world, it is the low end/
 > popular art world and the populations lack of interest in anything more
 > than a nature scene. Trendy-ness is something the art snobs love to
 > hate, but in actuality is one of the only things that help bring better
 > art to the masses. Offensive or outrageous pieces can do the same thing
 > because of the press and attention they receive (see Piss Christ).
 >
 >
 >
 >
 > Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
 >
 > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
 >
 > Please follow these basic guidelines:
 > - Include your full name with your message.
 > - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
 > - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to 
keep
them short.
 > - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
 > - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
 > - Complete your Yahoo profile.
 > - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.
 >
 >
 >
 >
 > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 >
 >
 >



_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

I guess it's time for me to step in and upset everyone (more than they already are), from the perspective of a
jaded New Yorker. ;-)

I have to disagree about what is 'right' or 'wrong' with that sort of exhibit.  Not that I think I,
personally, would ever go see it (I had trouble getting through that museum in Mexico with all the naturally
mummified bodies on display.)  It's just that I don't find anything wrong with it.  The exhibit is not that
different from the famous DaVinci drawings in his sketch books.  He broke into morgues and made detailed
drawings of essentially filleted people parts and how the human body was put together.  I suspect that if he
had the technology back then, he might have done the same as that German exhibit.

When they showed his sketch books several years ago, and specifically including, some of *those* drawings,
they were praised for their beauty.  So...that brings us to the question of why is it ok to have made drawings
of such things and not to exhibit the reality in plasticized bodies?

It is about learning.  It's not like these bodies are being exploited without permission...so what's wrong
with it?  I think we get too squeamish about our mortal (human) remains...And are too dislocated from the
'naturalness' of death.  And let's not even get into the hypocrisy of eating meat and not wanting to know
where that cello packed chicken really comes from (for the record, I am not a vegetarian, and yes, I have
raised and slaughtered my own animal food).

This issue also reminds me of how people negatively react to people whose sexual practices do not fit within
the normal middle-class parameters.  Is it for me?..No.  Is it ok?  Yes.

Again...Is it art...I don't know.  Is it proper...In my opinion, yes.  Who are they hurting?

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC



> I've not visited the links, I saw it on TV and had to turn it off. I'm
> sorry, but I really believe this man has crossed a line somewhere.
>
> I know all the arguments and I've enjoyed reading this lists thoughts and
> respect you all for your wisdom and educated differences, but this
> disrespect for human kind is just ... well, I don't know what it is.
>
> Carolyn
>
> >
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Steadman Uhlich"
> > <steadmanuhlich@k...> wrote:
> > snip...
> >> I watch my blinking cursor on this screen and I don't know what else to
> >> say...I am DISGUSTED!.
> >>
> >> Steadman
> >
> > I understand your reaction completely, I just don't want to look at it long
> > enough or read about it enough to spend the rest
> > of the evening feeling the same way you do now.
> > Know what I mean?
> > Tyler


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., SKID Photography <skid@b...> 
wrote:
snip...
The exhibit is not that
> different from the famous DaVinci drawings in his sketch books.  He 
broke into morgues and made detailed
> drawings of essentially filleted people parts and how the human body 
was put together.

Harvey, I agree with everything you said in general. But somehow, 
personally, I feel this particular show is different than the 
DaVincis, I can't articulate why.
Aren't you the one who said I don't know what art is, but I know it 
when I see it?

Madonna - one of the great femminists of our time. A modern Carmen (in the 
Bizet sense).  I'm not sure its making her happy - but hopefully she will 
continue the effort in commercial and artistic interpretation of our times.  
If only Madonna and Prince would team up!  SCB

From: "Tyler Boley" <tyler@...>
Reply-To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] ART-what is it?
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 13:48:48 -0000

 >   ps
 >   The thing that is sad is not the high end art world, it is the low end/
 >   popular art world and the populations lack of interest in anything more
 >   than a nature scene. Trendy-ness is something the art snobs love to
 >   hate, but in actuality is one of the only things that help bring better
 >   art to the masses. Offensive or outrageous pieces can do the same thing
 >   because of the press and attention they receive (see Piss Christ).
 >
But if the only alternative to hallmark card nature scenes that
manages to elbow it's way to the public's attention is art who's main
purpose is to outrage, they'll certainly not be that interested in
seeking out something they may find more complelling.
Kinda like the difference between Michael Bolton and Madonna. It's
barely music at all, yet there is a universe of music out there,
including compelling leading edge stuff. How would you know?
The older I get, I'm of the mind that artists intent on being
"offensive" (which is anything but these days, boring in fact) are
really just trying to manipulate pop culture into giving them their 15
minutes.
Tyler




_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

The abstract expressionists and others demonstrated that art may, in part, 
be accidental.  Not all art is "attractive."   SCB

From: "Nij" <nigel@...>
Reply-To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: RE: [Digital BW] ART-what is it?
Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 16:02:05 +0100

Chaps,

You totally lose me with the references! But, can I suggest, or ask, that
you each try to summarise in a few sentences where the 'art' comes into the
process for you? Certainly, I know there is skill - but what I am trying to
get at here is that, whilst you may get up in the morning and not know what
objects you will find today... or know who will look at you in the right way
;) ... you are drawn (perhaps) to areas with 'the right light' and how
something may catch your eye... or ... whatever.

Then, you may develop the film, and have further revelations in the darkroom
or the digital workflow - perhaps you are trying to be representational
or... whatever.

For me? The most simple explanation is probably something like: I see
objects that I like, I compose in a way I find attractive... I develop
'normally'... I experiment in the digital darkroom to achieve a pleasing
print and a pleasing image. For me, many of my images seem to have simple
composition (often stright-on to a building, for example)... but the 'magic'
may come from the lighting, the reflections in glass... shadows falling and
the light... but most often, I would say the important element (to me) is
that somehow, these images portray an <arty mode on> unspoken history of the
building or surroudings </arty mode off>. I quite literally see a different
pattern of bricks or fallen plaster... and imagine what might have been
there before...

What I am thinking of getting here is not particularly artist's statements,
but emphasizing that the fact we end up printing off a digital printer in
the end does not impact the fact that we had a vision, or a revelation along
the way. It owuld be nice if this could then be used to back up 'the cause'
for 'inkhaus' or some of my thoughts for MWORDS.

Nij


 > -----Original Message-----
 > From: Julian Thomas [mailto:julianthomas@...]
 > Sent: 23 October 2001 15:43
 > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
 > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] ART-what is it?
 >
 >
 > .
 > >
 > > Too often however the 'art' part of conceptual art is simply a way of
 > > obscuring what was not a very original, brilliant or striking
 > idea in the
 > > first place. Just as, IMO, the language of some of the French
 > semioticians
 > > like Derrida obscures a meaning which once disentangled doesn't stand 
up
 > to
 > > analysis. Compare and contrast with Wittgenstein or Barthes,
 > who can amaze
 > > you with a simple sentence, just as Paul Klee can amaze you with a 
line.
 > >
 > > --
 >  I agree with you totally on this. I had a conversation with a friend
 > recently who is a keen amateur painter of the representational school. He
 > didn't think much of my street stuff, because it was 'just' a photo -
 > whereas his picture of roses took time and craft - all i did was click 
the
 > button. I tried explaining that it takes hours of working towards 'the'
 > moment, that the print takes time and craft, and that the vision
 > to see the
 > moment is an 'artistic' vision. There is a balance in all this,
 > between art
 > and craft, between concept and object which is almost one of
 > dialectics with
 > the final piece being the synthesis. BTW my friend also didn't
 > think much of
 > photoshop and digital printing :-)
 >
 > Julian



_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

Tyler Boley wrote:

> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., SKID Photography <skid@b...>
> wrote:
> snip...
> The exhibit is not that
> > different from the famous DaVinci drawings in his sketch books.  He
> broke into morgues and made detailed
> > drawings of essentially filleted people parts and how the human body
> was put together.
>
> Harvey, I agree with everything you said in general. But somehow,
> personally, I feel this particular show is different than the
> DaVincis, I can't articulate why.
> Aren't you the one who said I don't know what art is, but I know it
> when I see it?

Oh yes...I used that quote.  But it's not the art aspect that I was addressing, it was the revulsive rejection
of the 'imagery' (if you will).

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

"I know it when I see it" quote/reference originally related to an opinion 
of a supeme court justice when commenting on pornography.  Can pornography 
also be art?  Does art have to be ethical or moral?   SCB

From: "Tyler Boley" <tyler@...>
Reply-To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] ART-what is it?
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 04:21:51 -0000

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., SKID Photography <skid@b...>
wrote:
snip...
The exhibit is not that
 > different from the famous DaVinci drawings in his sketch books.  He
broke into morgues and made detailed
 > drawings of essentially filleted people parts and how the human body
was put together.

Harvey, I agree with everything you said in general. But somehow,
personally, I feel this particular show is different than the
DaVincis, I can't articulate why.
Aren't you the one who said I don't know what art is, but I know it
when I see it?



_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

Sanford Barnes wrote:

> "I know it when I see it" quote/reference originally related to an opinion
> of a supeme court justice when commenting on pornography.  Can pornography
> also be art?  Does art have to be ethical or moral?   SCB

Sanford,
Uh...Yeah.  You should have been here 2 days ago when the quote was originally posted, and discussed (in
full).

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC




> From: "Tyler Boley" <tyler@...>
> Reply-To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] ART-what is it?
> Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 04:21:51 -0000
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., SKID Photography <skid@b...>
> wrote:
> snip...
> The exhibit is not that
> > different from the famous DaVinci drawings in his sketch books.  He
> broke into morgues and made detailed
> > drawings of essentially filleted people parts and how the human body
> was put together.
>
> Harvey, I agree with everything you said in general. But somehow,
> personally, I feel this particular show is different than the
> DaVincis, I can't articulate why.
> Aren't you the one who said I don't know what art is, but I know it
> when I see it?
>





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I sometimes respect opinions (Only sometimes?  I am only human after all.)  Sometimes I share them.  Sometimes I don't.  

I think the exhibit in question (of eviscerated bodies in Germany) is not only repulsive in an esthetic sense, but also repulsive in a humanitarian sense.  

I see no art in the display of mutilated bodies. Period.  (tattooed or pierced folks may of course disagree).  

I see no art in the display of a corpse (plastic coated/injected) holding in one "hand' a brain of a man and in the other hand the brain of a horse, while displayed like a manequin.  

I see no art in the display of a preserved foetus in the exposed womb of a dead woman.  No art at all. 

The art of DaVinci?  I see his anatomical drawings as art...as drawings.  

Does the art of the corpse exhibitor compare?  Not even close.  

DaVinci used his drawings to study form for his works which included the flesh, namely sculptures (some of art's most beautiful) and paintings. 

The exhibitor has real corpses playing chess, riding a horse, and positioned in faux tableau that mimic paintings.  

How is this different from thousands of years of drawings or paintings depicting skeletons or bodies or ghosts or anatomy?  I think the difference is that the exhibit in question presents the bodies for entertainment purposes, for "art."  Yet these are not wax manequins at Madame Toussads.

I wish I could articulate this with the language that would seem sophisticated to those that need that sort of language to argue a position.  Instead, I am left with simple "disgust" and the disbelief that anyone would consider it "art."

I suppose it boils down to my revulsion at the thought that anyone could take real human bodies, cut them up ("in a drawer fashion like a Picasso") and display them for entertainment.  

Steadman

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: SKID Photography 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 11:48 PM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] ART-what is it?


  Tyler Boley wrote:

  > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., SKID Photography <skid@b...>
  > wrote:
  > snip...
  > The exhibit is not that
  > > different from the famous DaVinci drawings in his sketch books.  He
  > broke into morgues and made detailed
  > > drawings of essentially filleted people parts and how the human body
  > was put together.
  >
  > Harvey, I agree with everything you said in general. But somehow,
  > personally, I feel this particular show is different than the
  > DaVincis, I can't articulate why.
  > Aren't you the one who said I don't know what art is, but I know it
  > when I see it?

  Oh yes...I used that quote.  But it's not the art aspect that I was addressing, it was the revulsive rejection
  of the 'imagery' (if you will).

  Harvey Ferdschneider
  partner, SKID Photography, NYC





  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
              ADVERTISEMENT
             
       
       

  Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

  Please follow these basic guidelines:
  - Include your full name with your message.
  - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
  - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
  - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
  - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
  - Complete your Yahoo profile.
  - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage. 




  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I thought "imagery" was the issue.   SCB

From: SKID Photography <skid@...>
Reply-To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] ART-what is it?
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 01:09:42 -0400

Sanford Barnes wrote:

 > "I know it when I see it" quote/reference originally related to an 
opinion
 > of a supeme court justice when commenting on pornography.  Can 
pornography
 > also be art?  Does art have to be ethical or moral?   SCB

Sanford,
Uh...Yeah.  You should have been here 2 days ago when the quote was 
originally posted, and discussed (in
full).

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC




 > From: "Tyler Boley" <tyler@...>
 > Reply-To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
 > To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
 > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] ART-what is it?
 > Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 04:21:51 -0000
 >
 > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., SKID Photography <skid@b...>
 > wrote:
 > snip...
 > The exhibit is not that
 > > different from the famous DaVinci drawings in his sketch books.  He
 > broke into morgues and made detailed
 > > drawings of essentially filleted people parts and how the human body
 > was put together.
 >
 > Harvey, I agree with everything you said in general. But somehow,
 > personally, I feel this particular show is different than the
 > DaVincis, I can't articulate why.
 > Aren't you the one who said I don't know what art is, but I know it
 > when I see it?
 >





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

Sanford Barnes wrote:

>   Can pornography
> also be art?  Does art have to be ethical or moral?   SCB

Ethics, morality, pornography?  All are pretty relative to the society one is in.  These are *not* concrete,
never changing concepts.

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID Photography, NYC





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Yeah you are dead right, wasn't really expressing myself too well - if you
follow my argument you end up with a dumbing down process which i loathe. I
stick with my claim though that the meaning of the work has to be 'in' the
work - the viewer may have to work hard (a good thing) or gain new skills or
insights, or vocabulary, but what the work is about has to be somewhere in
the text of the object. I'm a bit worried that I'm coming across as a
populist which I'm not at all. Art should challenge, be difficult, make us
rethink our preconceptions, learn new visual or aural vocabularies etc etc.
The kind of stuff that i was knocking in the yoko ono exhibit, like much
Cage, is important historically. But for me, it stays in its historical
moment and doesn't reach out across time. It has travelled badly. One of my
personal definitions I suppose is that art remains relevent outside of it's
socio-historic period. Beethoven, Picasso, Atget, Stieglitz, etc all have a
message today precisely because the content of the work is in the object.
Just to embarrass myself further, in 1981 I gave a recital which included
Berg, Brahms, Tippett, and a piece which consisted of passing a huge length
of rope around the audience into which was woven  bells, rattles -
noisemakers. The piece was the sounds generated by the audience. Now I still
think that at the time it was valid - a way of making the audience question
their passivity, to hopefully promote the idea that going to a concert is an
active experience - but that kind of piece stays in that period, it hasn't
travelled, now the response would be 'oh, we're doing this passe audience
involvement stuff'. I went on to do a whole recital based on giving the
audience cards with instructions on. Great fun, and again ok for the time,
but there was nothing for the audience to engage with.
On a slightly different note i've always been bemused by the fact that
people accept abstract art in publick places, but play the musical quivalent
and, is there trouble!

Julian


----- Original Message -----
From: "Sanford Barnes" <sanfordcbarnes@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 5:55 AM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] ART-what is it?


> JT:  If one dosen't "get it" or understand, then the art may have failed
to
> communicate to that individual; however, it does not automatically
translate
> that the art is not good or not understandable to others.  Personal
opinion
> isn't worth much by itself.  SCB
>
>
> From: "Julian Thomas" <julianthomas@...>
> Reply-To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] ART-what is it?
> Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 13:47:59 +0200
>
> Mike - I half agree with you!
>
> My background is in music - to me Schoenberg is standard repetoire and I
can
> trace how things happen as they emerge . I realised in my last post I was
> coming off as a bit restrictive, but I firmly believe that if it is not
'in'
> the work, then it is not part of the work. All art IMO is a balance
between
> a whole load o f factors, but I think there is a fundamental balance
between
> concept and product. If I can't, as a skilled reader, 'see' in the work
the
> concept, then it has failed and the concept stands 'in place of' the work
as
> the defining force.
> I saw some of the kindof instruction-type work you described at the yoko
ono
> show, and it is poor stuff IMO. Now this is a personal view, and I would
> take away anyone's right to make art in whatever way they choose, but when
> this is placed in hierarchies, as 'better/best' then it produces problems
> IMO. I don't think for e.g. that Hirst's work is that shocking or new, but
> he has become a major media presence because he is writable about.
>
> Anyway, thanks for the dicsussion!
>
> Julian
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: <mh@...>
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 1:36 PM
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] ART-what is it?
>
>
>  > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Julian Thomas" <
>  > julianthomas@t...> wrote:
>  > > Sad isn't it. Art dealers support stuff they can sell, critics write
> about
>  > > things they can write about. None of this has anything to do with the
> work,
>  > > but with the concept behind the work. Arts education (and I used to
be
> in
>  > > it) ,for a whole load of reasons that has very little to do with
> teachers,
>  > > is doing a poor job of educating people about art - and very often
> people
>  > > need the help of a dealer to interpret a 'concept'. And there is no
> causal
>  > > link between those who have money to buy art as having the skills to
> make a
>  > > judgement.
>  > >
>  > > Julian
>  >
>  > I halfway don't agree with you. When talking about dealers, you need to
>  > differentiate between the high end and the low end. Low end dealers,
>  > the kind that are in every city, deal in stuff that they can sell,
>  > usually a lot of Terry Redlin type paintings. High end dealers don't
>  > care about whether the art will look good over a couch because, as we
>  > have all seen, they can sell about anything (my old bosses had a
>  > sculpture made out of manure in our studio) Nothing has changed in the
>  > low end art world for a long time, and you won't really come away with
>  > much other then a pretty picture (probably of something cute)  High end
>  > art is always changing, usually much more interesting and will make you
>  > think, but not always something you want in your house.
>  >
>  > Critics mostly go along with the high end dealers, so they are not
>  > really hurting or helping things a lot of the time. The time when
>  > things become skewed is when a famous person (like a hollywood type)
>  > buys something and then all the other famous/rich people have to buy
>  > the same thing. We can only hope that there was someone knowledgeable
>  > in the field of art that influenced the original guy on his/her
>  > purchase.
>  >
>  > Art is a very complex thing, most people think that the upper echelon
>  > is pretty strange because they have no basis to understand nor the
>  > patience or determination to follow up. I can describe this with
>  > another one of my interests: volleyball. Most people can take or leave
>  > volleyball. Some play it, but they prefer a soft $10 ball and play with
>  > a standard rotation. But once you get into it, you learn that the play
>  > at the higher end is a completely different game. You play with a $60
>  > ball that is made with different materials in a different way; there
>  > are positions, each with a different responsibility, and you learn
>  > lineups, hits, and rules that you never knew existed before. Some of it
>  > is based on history and tradition, some of it is based on new rules
>  > that everyone likes to complain and argue about. Most people play maybe
>  > once or twice a year in someone's backyard or at the beach, I play
>  > twice a week, year-round, now.  Is good art something that should
>  > require such a commitment? maybe not, but as the world gets older, and
>  > people have more time on their hands, and doing something original
>  > becomes more difficult, things naturally become intricate and
>  > complicated.
>  >
>  >
>  > When you say this; "None of this has anything to do with the work,
>  > > but with the concept behind the work"
>  > you must remember that in a lot of those cases, the concept is the work
>  > and the concept is what the buyer is buying. You can go to some
>  > galleries and buy a piece in an edition and what you get are directions
>  > on how the create the piece yourself and a certificate that says you
>  > own number such and such out of such and such. Thankfully that is a
>  > moment in art history and I don't believe artists today are able to get
>  > away with such things. But if you come up with another twist,
>  > complexity, or concept that adds something new, you could probably sell
>  > an idea too.
>  >
>  > This is how art varies from other fields. An artist with very little
>  > experience/knowledge of the art world, can create great art.  Studying
>  > art will help you recognize and understand other people's work. It will
>  > help you see greatness, and your own work will improve, but studying
>  > alone will not make your work great. (that is why so many artists are
>  > frustrated)
>  >
>  > -mikeH
>  > toomanyartists.com
>  >
>  > ps
>  > The thing that is sad is not the high end art world, it is the low end/
>  > popular art world and the populations lack of interest in anything more
>  > than a nature scene. Trendy-ness is something the art snobs love to
>  > hate, but in actuality is one of the only things that help bring better
>  > art to the masses. Offensive or outrageous pieces can do the same thing
>  > because of the press and attention they receive (see Piss Christ).
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls
and
> other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>  >
>  > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>  >
>  > Please follow these basic guidelines:
>  > - Include your full name with your message.
>  > - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
>  > - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to
> keep
> them short.
>  > - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject
header.
>  > - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
"flames."
>  > - Complete your Yahoo profile.
>  > - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the
various
> resources on the homepage.
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>  >
>  >
>  >
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.

>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

The "shocking" or controversial art that has received the art world's 
attention has actually been good art (in my opinion at least) that has 
value beyond being shocking. The manure piece that I mentioned is from 
an artist that, as far as I can tell, has not received the art world's 
praise (probably for good reason). I believe there are a lot of 
shocking works of art out there that we have never heard about because 
they have little to offer.  So in that sense, the art world is working 
I think.

The people I find that don't like the more shocking yet praised artists 
are the people who either can't get beyond the shock value and think 
the artist's motives are purely for shock or fame (like most of the 
list members here I suppose) or are offended by the material/ don't 
want to deal with such issues in the art that they view (for example 
religion, animal rights, sexuality).

You guys can't have it both ways, you're saying that the high-art world 
should concern itself with what appeals to the public at large but at 
the same time think that anything that appeals to the media is bad. 
Should we all take pictures of pretty flowers and paint watercolors of 
Cape Cod?  What appeals to the public is either folk art (craft) with 
very little substance or something that is interesting via shock, 
controversy, money, or fame. There are some exceptions of course, but 
you get the genereal idea.

Everyone complains when art is too boring (black squares) and when it 
is too interesting (dead cows, vagina scrolls), where is the happy 
medium? I am hoping that the happy medium is upon us and that the too 
minimalist and too shocking periods are now in the past ; that the art 
world is looking to the future. Maybe we will fit in there.

I hope I am not coming off as offensive to anyone here, I just like to 
voice the other side sometimes. A lot of times, the medium of 
photography gets a bad rap in the art world, and the more we can think 
in their terms, the better we will be, maybe
.     : )

-mikeH
toomanyartists.com


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Steadman Uhlich" <
steadmanuhlich@k...> wrote:
> Tyler, 
> I am struck by what you wrote.  (that is not bad)  It got me thinking. 
> 
> I am thinking of the times when I saw conceptual artists (some good and s=
ome bad...personal opinion) and the times I saw mainstream artists (both low=
 and high stream)...and the thought that those that are out to "shock" the p=
ublic are often in the search of fame (who isnt?) of the "fifteen minutes" s=
ort.  
> 
> While rotting carcasses of animals (or..at the opposite end.. formaldehyd=
e preserved ones either) may be "screaming" to the "high" art world...it see=
ms juvenile to me many times.  Juvenile in the desperate sense of "look at m=
e and what I did."   Like what a petulant little kid does to get approval an=
d attention.  That scream for attention....that need to make sculpture of "m=
anure" (as witnessed in earlier post) ...seems ridiculous...even if it wins =
the approval of the art critics and is valued at "hundreds of thousands of d=
ollars."  
> 
> Artists all want attention.   Some get it by producing art that is "appre=
ciated" by the masses and some by producing art that is mainstream.  Others =
by producing "art" that is noteworthy only because of its shock value.  
> 
> Time usually tells the final lasting value of the art.  Of course tastes =
change with time (e.g. the acceptance of Van Gogh is just one of many exampl=
es)..but I find it hard to imagine that some time in the future someone is g=
oing to look at a pile of manure (or discarded trash) as a sign of "the art =
of a culture" unless it is a very low, base culture.  Funny to think of it t=
hat way.  The future may judge the "high art" (I am being generous calling p=
iles of manure or rotting flesh..."high art") of today as the very lowest cu=
ltural expression.  
> 
> Thinking of time...if you lived far in the future...do you (anyone readin=
g this now) think rotting carcasses or preserved fetal pigs or piles of "man=
ure" will ever be considered "art?"
> 
> What will it take to "shock" the future?  Mass murders?  Genocide as an a=
rt form?  Sorry...it has already been done.  Back to the argument that there=
 are no more original ideas....
> 
> Musing off now, 
> Steadman
> 
> 
>   ----- Original Message ----- 
>   From: Tyler Boley 
>   To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y... 
>   Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 8:48 AM
>   Subject: Re: [Digital BW] ART-what is it?
> 
> 
>   >   ps 
>   >   The thing that is sad is not the high end art world, it is the low =
end/
>   >   popular art world and the populations lack of interest in anything =
more 
>   >   than a nature scene. Trendy-ness is something the art snobs love to=
 
>   >   hate, but in actuality is one of the only things that help bring be=
tter 
>   >   art to the masses. Offensive or outrageous pieces can do the same t=
hing 
>   >   because of the press and attention they receive (see Piss Christ).
>   > 
>   But if the only alternative to hallmark card nature scenes that 
>   manages to elbow it's way to the public's attention is art who's main 
>   purpose is to outrage, they'll certainly not be that interested in 
>   seeking out something they may find more complelling.
>   Kinda like the difference between Michael Bolton and Madonna. It's 
>   barely music at all, yet there is a universe of music out there, 
>   including compelling leading edge stuff. How would you know?
>   The older I get, I'm of the mind that artists intent on being 
>   "offensive" (which is anything but these days, boring in fact) are 
>   really just trying to manipulate pop culture into giving them their 15 =

>   minutes.
>   Tyler
> 
> 
> 
>         Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
>               ADVERTISEMENT
>              
>        
>        
> 
>   Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls an=
d other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
> 
>   http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
> 
>   Please follow these basic guidelines:
>   - Include your full name with your message.
>   - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
>   - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to k=
eep them short.
>   - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject heade=
r.
>   - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames=
."
>   - Complete your Yahoo profile.
>   - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the variou=
s resources on the homepage. 

> 
> 
> 
> 
>   Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 
> 
> 
> 
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

If this started in the US then people would have freaked out 
completely. People really are more open in a lot of other places in the 
world.

This one sounds particularly funny for some reason;
"One exhibit shows the corpse of a man seated on a rearing horse 
holding a human brain in his left hand and a horse's brain in his right 
- for purposes of comparison."

I think the ones that take on an unnatural form (muscles flying off in 
weird directions etc..) are more vulgar/unethical for the reasons of 
respect to the dead etc..

-mh

ps I think you can't really compare them to Hirst. He dealt more with 
death (trapped, rotting, etc..) while these seem to be more about life 
and anatomy (plastic appearance w/ natural, almost playful, poses)


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Johnny Deadman <john@p...> 
wrote:

> on 10/23/01 7:18 PM, Jerry Olson at jerryolson@r... wrote:
> 
> > Anyone see the segmented cow exhibit? Some idiot froze a cow, and sawed
> > it into thin slices, then encased them in acrylic and placed each of
> > about a dozen or so pieces about 2 feet apart. Is this really art, or
> > just plain vanilla cow abuse?
> 
> one of the most popular exhibits in German of recent years (I think I have
> this right) was some extraordinary peeled and preserved corpses of former
> human beings. I only saw it on TV but it was pretty amazing.
> 
> Here are a few links that give you an idea. Makes Damien Hirst look tame
> (and dull)
> 
> 
> http://chinadaily.com.cn.net/star/2001/0913/fe19-1.html
> 
> http://www.beachbrowser.com/Archives/eVoid/April-2001/Plasticized-Corpse-Exh
> ibit.htm
> 
>     
> -- 
> John Brownlow
> 
> http://www.pinkheadedbug.com

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Julian Thomas" <
julianthomas@t...> wrote:
snip...
... Art should challenge, be difficult, make us
> rethink our preconceptions, learn new visual or aural vocabularies etc etc.

This may be what I would like art to do, among other things 
significantly less rational, but I'm not sure it has that 
responsibility outright, and I think an artist consumed with these 
goals during creation will be off the mark.

> On a slightly different note i've always been bemused by the fact that
> people accept abstract art in publick places, but play the musical quivalent
> and, is there trouble!

Very interesting. But if you're referring to abstract sculpture in 
public places, I would link that more to music like Stravinsky than 
more contemporary abstract music (an example of which currantly 
escapes me). Just a thought.
Tyler

> This may be what I would like art to do, among other things
> significantly less rational, but I'm not sure it has that
> responsibility outright, and I think an artist consumed with these
> goals during creation will be off the mark.
>
Yeah I agree totally - during creation all you can do is follow good 'ol
Polonius - unto thine own self be true. Think about htis stuff before and
after, but when shooting turn the brain off.

Julian

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Tyler Boley" <tyler@t...> 
wrote:
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., SKID Photography <skid@b...> 
> wrote:
> snip...
> The exhibit is not that
> > different from the famous DaVinci drawings in his sketch books.  He 
> broke into morgues and made detailed
> > drawings of essentially filleted people parts and how the human body 
> was put together.
> 
> Harvey, I agree with everything you said in general. But somehow, 
> personally, I feel this particular show is different than the 
> DaVincis, I can't articulate why.
> Aren't you the one who said I don't know what art is, but I know it 
> when I see it?

I think I can answer this.  There is a difference between sketching 
something in a natural environment (if you can consider the morgue 
natural) and turning a human body into a plastic exhibit, put in 
unnatural positions for all eternity, for the purpose of edutainment. 
This strikes a sour chord with most people's upbringing (especially 
when it comes to religion)

But that must be weighed against one's own right to do what they want 
with their body and our own responsibility to protect their wishes. I 
personally think that displaying them in slightly amusing poses or with 
muscles hanging out in unnatural ways ("as if in the wind") is just 
past where the line should have been drawn. 

One must consider two things;  intent of the creators/participants and 
any particular consequences. I think the intent is okay (I don't think 
they are doing it for fun or sensationalism) but I hope the next person 
that tries something like that doesn't take it further. 

-mh

Anything can be art. But ethics and morals come into play with 
everything.

these days,
I think almost anything can be pornography too  : )



--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Sanford Barnes" <
sanfordcbarnes@h...> wrote:
> "I know it when I see it" quote/reference originally related to an opinion 
> of a supeme court justice when commenting on pornography.  Can pornography 
> also be art?  Does art have to be ethical or moral?   SCB
> 
> 
> From: "Tyler Boley" <tyler@t...>
> Reply-To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y...
> To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y...
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] ART-what is it?
> Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 04:21:51 -0000
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., SKID Photography <skid@b...>
> wrote:
> snip...
> The exhibit is not that
>  > different from the famous DaVinci drawings in his sketch books.  He
> broke into morgues and made detailed
>  > drawings of essentially filleted people parts and how the human body
> was put together.
> 
> Harvey, I agree with everything you said in general. But somehow,
> personally, I feel this particular show is different than the
> DaVincis, I can't articulate why.
> Aren't you the one who said I don't know what art is, but I know it
> when I see it?
> 
> 
> 
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/
intl.asp

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., mh@t... wrote:
snip...
> The people I find that don't like the more shocking yet praised artists 
> are the people who either can't get beyond the shock value and think 
> the artist's motives are purely for shock or fame (like most of the 
> list members here I suppose) or are offended by the material/ don't 
> want to deal with such issues in the art that they view (for example 
> religion, animal rights, sexuality).
Mike, there are times I can hear myself saying something like this. 
The problem I'm beginning to have with this is that it comes from a 
stance that assumes an intellectual and emotional superiority over 
those who "don't like it". Don't get me wrong, I'm the first to rant 
about brain dead people, but the older I get, the less satisfying it 
is, and the less interesting I find work attempting to point out my 
inferiority, because I think it's really trying to point out the 
artist's superiority.
> 
snip..
> Everyone complains when art is too boring (black squares) and when it 
> is too interesting (dead cows, vagina scrolls), where is the happy 
> medium? I am hoping that the happy medium is upon us and that the too 
> minimalist and too shocking periods are now in the past ; that the art 
> world is looking to the future. Maybe we will fit in there.
I agree, but your two examples seem to me to be at the same end of the 
scale with no in between, neither interesting. I suppose the 
difference is that one has obvious literal content, but I would 
question whether or not it evokes any more ideas than black squares.
> 
> I hope I am not coming off as offensive to anyone here, I just like to 
> voice the other side sometimes. A lot of times, the medium of 
> photography gets a bad rap in the art world, and the more we can think 
> in their terms, the better we will be, maybe….
Certainly didn't offend me Mike, I thought it was all well put.
Another comment, about the missing elements of these disscussions. 
There is a musician named Chris Whitley, he defies catagorization, has 
ancient deep blues elements, modern atonal elements, extremely 
literate interesting lyrics, is an impecable and adventuresome master 
of his tools (guitar, voice, composition, sound), he always pushes 
forward (no album sounds like the last), has immense respect of his 
peers and critics while failing to find a way within the structure of 
the hit machine to be successful and bucks it anyway. He is at once 
well crafted and totally irreverant. All these things I like, and like 
to think about...
But if you see this guy perform it all goes out the window. He starts 
to focus, get's in the zone, and all that stuff evaporates. It just 
hits you on a level far deeper and inclusive than all these topics, 
and comes together as a responce that is a new experience, this to me 
is what art has to offer me beyond all else. I could go on and on 
about it, I'm probably getting boring.
Tyler

interesting reactions to this

Personally I have no problem with the exhibit at all. If it was in town I'd
go to see it. But that's just me.

An exhibit like this is a lot less shocking in a deeply rationalistic
society. As for asking "What is it with the Germans?" you might just as well
ask "What is it with North Americans?". After all the only city where Hirst
seems to have caused a big problem is NYC.

-- 
John Brownlow

http://www.pinkheadedbug.com

Mike,
Very well put!

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID photography, NYC

mh@... wrote:

>
> The "shocking" or controversial art that has received the art world's
> attention has actually been good art (in my opinion at least) that has
> value beyond being shocking. The manure piece that I mentioned is from
> an artist that, as far as I can tell, has not received the art world's
> praise (probably for good reason). I believe there are a lot of
> shocking works of art out there that we have never heard about because
> they have little to offer.  So in that sense, the art world is working
> I think.
>
> The people I find that don't like the more shocking yet praised artists
> are the people who either can't get beyond the shock value and think
> the artist's motives are purely for shock or fame (like most of the
> list members here I suppose) or are offended by the material/ don't
> want to deal with such issues in the art that they view (for example
> religion, animal rights, sexuality).
>
> You guys can't have it both ways, you're saying that the high-art world
> should concern itself with what appeals to the public at large but at
> the same time think that anything that appeals to the media is bad.
> Should we all take pictures of pretty flowers and paint watercolors of
> Cape Cod?  What appeals to the public is either folk art (craft) with
> very little substance or something that is interesting via shock,
> controversy, money, or fame. There are some exceptions of course, but
> you get the genereal idea.
>
> Everyone complains when art is too boring (black squares) and when it
> is too interesting (dead cows, vagina scrolls), where is the happy
> medium? I am hoping that the happy medium is upon us and that the too
> minimalist and too shocking periods are now in the past ; that the art
> world is looking to the future. Maybe we will fit in there.
>
> I hope I am not coming off as offensive to anyone here, I just like to
> voice the other side sometimes. A lot of times, the medium of
> photography gets a bad rap in the art world, and the more we can think
> in their terms, the better we will be, maybeÖ.     : )
>
> -mikeH
> toomanyartists.com


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., Johnny Deadman <john@p...> wrote:
> 
> An exhibit like this is a lot less shocking in a deeply rationalistic
> society.
I think that's a real valid point. It also leaves room for me to decline attendance, as an offspring of this society, and I don't 
mean that as dismissive.


>... As for asking "What is it with the Germans?"
sorry about that, it was just a joke...

>... you might just as well
> ask "What is it with North Americans?"
Probably a good idea to be asking that question a lot these days.
Tyler

Julian Thomas wrote:

> Yeah I agree totally - during creation all you can do is follow good 'ol
> Polonius - unto thine own self be true. Think about htis stuff before and
> after, but when shooting turn the brain off.

I could not agree more!!!

Harvey Ferdschneider
partner, SKID photography, NYC





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I for one am proud to be a Prole....
and I like to polka too 
along with my kielbalsa.  

Nothing wrong with that - my own views on art tend to the proletarian , unlike some of the views previously expressed in this thread...
However , I would never publicly own up to liking Polka music ;-)
SteveW



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

You just need a good looking friendly Prolish girl to dance around with you a while...then you get hooked.

Steadman

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Steve Woolfenden 
  To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 4:10 PM
  Subject: Re: [Digital BW] ART-what is it?


  I for one am proud to be a Prole....
  and I like to polka too 
  along with my kielbalsa.  

  Nothing wrong with that - my own views on art tend to the proletarian , unlike some of the views previously expressed in this thread...
  However , I would never publicly own up to liking Polka music ;-)
  SteveW



  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


        Yahoo! Groups Sponsor 
              ADVERTISEMENT
             
       
       

  Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:

  http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint

  Please follow these basic guidelines:
  - Include your full name with your message.
  - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
  - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep them short.
  - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
  - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
  - Complete your Yahoo profile.
  - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various resources on the homepage. 




  Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Part of the abstract paintings vs. abstract music issue is the fact 
that the public gets a lot more exposure to abstract paintings than 
abstract music. Possibly because of the fame/cost of some abstract 
paintings. And the fact that music is time based and takes more effort 
on the part of the audience.


--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Tyler Boley" <tyler@t...> 
wrote:

> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Julian Thomas" <
> julianthomas@t...> wrote:
> snip...
> ... Art should challenge, be difficult, make us
> > rethink our preconceptions, learn new visual or aural vocabularies etc etc.
> 
> This may be what I would like art to do, among other things 
> significantly less rational, but I'm not sure it has that 
> responsibility outright, and I think an artist consumed with these 
> goals during creation will be off the mark.
> 
> > On a slightly different note i've always been bemused by the fact that
> > people accept abstract art in publick places, but play the musical quivalent
> > and, is there trouble!
> 
> Very interesting. But if you're referring to abstract sculpture in 
> public places, I would link that more to music like Stravinsky than 
> more contemporary abstract music (an example of which currantly 
> escapes me). Just a thought.
> Tyler

Julian:  I always enjoy your posts - interesting, immediate, provocative.  
Are you proposing a deconstructed view or definition of art - ie."meaning in 
the work"; "remains relevant outside its socio-historical period."???  I 
propose that some art, by intention, does not last for even more than a 
short period, ie, draping buildings/or the environment.  Some art lasts only 
a limited period, ie. photography/cinema.  Even art lasting centuries 
ultimately crumbles, is lost, or otherwise disappears.  Also, the future is 
difficult and for the present impossible to predict pending additional 
breakthrough in Physics.  Who knows if Beethoven will be more remembered 
than Phillip Glass, Benjamin Britten, or someone currently unknown in a 
hundred years + from now.  I empathize with your concerns about hypocrisy in 
the acceptance of art in various places. A frontal male nude is great art in 
institutional display in Florence; but, may well be considered an 
outrage/unacceptable in a U.S. business foyer or "public" place.  It appears 
"art" has something to do with context as well as the character/nature of 
the viewer.  On another "note" abstract visual art has achieved limited 
public acceptance; but, some abstract auditory art has gained, for now, 
enormous public acceptance, ie. rock $ roll.  (I'm relatively sure Andy 
Wharhol would have loved to argue the latter reference.) Buy the way, why 
does Miles Davis get most of the credit for inventing fusion, when Jimi 
Hendrix anticipated and performed fusion before Bitches Brew; and is Tristan 
und Isolde truely the departure point for all of 20th C classical music?  
I'd better stop as this is becoming free/loose association(s).       
Regards, SCB

From: "Julian Thomas" <julianthomas@...>
Reply-To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] ART-what is it?
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 09:22:02 +0200

Yeah you are dead right, wasn't really expressing myself too well - if you
follow my argument you end up with a dumbing down process which i loathe. I
stick with my claim though that the meaning of the work has to be 'in' the
work - the viewer may have to work hard (a good thing) or gain new skills or
insights, or vocabulary, but what the work is about has to be somewhere in
the text of the object. I'm a bit worried that I'm coming across as a
populist which I'm not at all. Art should challenge, be difficult, make us
rethink our preconceptions, learn new visual or aural vocabularies etc etc.
The kind of stuff that i was knocking in the yoko ono exhibit, like much
Cage, is important historically. But for me, it stays in its historical
moment and doesn't reach out across time. It has travelled badly. One of my
personal definitions I suppose is that art remains relevent outside of it's
socio-historic period. Beethoven, Picasso, Atget, Stieglitz, etc all have a
message today precisely because the content of the work is in the object.
Just to embarrass myself further, in 1981 I gave a recital which included
Berg, Brahms, Tippett, and a piece which consisted of passing a huge length
of rope around the audience into which was woven  bells, rattles -
noisemakers. The piece was the sounds generated by the audience. Now I still
think that at the time it was valid - a way of making the audience question
their passivity, to hopefully promote the idea that going to a concert is an
active experience - but that kind of piece stays in that period, it hasn't
travelled, now the response would be 'oh, we're doing this passe audience
involvement stuff'. I went on to do a whole recital based on giving the
audience cards with instructions on. Great fun, and again ok for the time,
but there was nothing for the audience to engage with.
On a slightly different note i've always been bemused by the fact that
people accept abstract art in publick places, but play the musical quivalent
and, is there trouble!

Julian


----- Original Message -----
From: "Sanford Barnes" <sanfordcbarnes@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 5:55 AM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] ART-what is it?


 > JT:  If one doesn't "get it" or understand, then the art may have failed
to
 > communicate to that individual; however, it does not automatically
translate
 > that the art is not good or not understandable to others.  Personal
opinion
 > isn't worth much by itself.  SCB
 >
 >
 > From: "Julian Thomas" <julianthomas@...>
 > Reply-To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
 > To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
 > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] ART-what is it?
 > Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 13:47:59 +0200
 >
 > Mike - I half agree with you!
 >
 > My background is in music - to me Schoenberg is standard repetoire and I
can
 > trace how things happen as they emerge . I realised in my last post I was
 > coming off as a bit restrictive, but I firmly believe that if it is not
'in'
 > the work, then it is not part of the work. All art IMO is a balance
between
 > a whole load o f factors, but I think there is a fundamental balance
between
 > concept and product. If I can't, as a skilled reader, 'see' in the work
the
 > concept, then it has failed and the concept stands 'in place of' the work
as
 > the defining force.
 > I saw some of the kindof instruction-type work you described at the yoko
ono
 > show, and it is poor stuff IMO. Now this is a personal view, and I would
 > take away anyone's right to make art in whatever way they choose, but 
when
 > this is placed in hierarchies, as 'better/best' then it produces problems
 > IMO. I don't think for e.g. that Hirst's work is that shocking or new, 
but
 > he has become a major media presence because he is writable about.
 >
 > Anyway, thanks for the dicsussion!
 >
 > Julian
 >
 >
 > ----- Original Message -----
 > From: <mh@...>
 > To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
 > Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 1:36 PM
 > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] ART-what is it?
 >
 >
 >  > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Julian Thomas" <
 >  > julianthomas@t...> wrote:
 >  > > Sad isn't it. Art dealers support stuff they can sell, critics write
 > about
 >  > > things they can write about. None of this has anything to do with 
the
 > work,
 >  > > but with the concept behind the work. Arts education (and I used to
be
 > in
 >  > > it) ,for a whole load of reasons that has very little to do with
 > teachers,
 >  > > is doing a poor job of educating people about art - and very often
 > people
 >  > > need the help of a dealer to interpret a 'concept'. And there is no
 > causal
 >  > > link between those who have money to buy art as having the skills to
 > make a
 >  > > judgement.
 >  > >
 >  > > Julian
 >  >
 >  > I halfway don't agree with you. When talking about dealers, you need 
to
 >  > differentiate between the high end and the low end. Low end dealers,
 >  > the kind that are in every city, deal in stuff that they can sell,
 >  > usually a lot of Terry Redlin type paintings. High end dealers don't
 >  > care about whether the art will look good over a couch because, as we
 >  > have all seen, they can sell about anything (my old bosses had a
 >  > sculpture made out of manure in our studio) Nothing has changed in the
 >  > low end art world for a long time, and you won't really come away with
 >  > much other then a pretty picture (probably of something cute)  High 
end
 >  > art is always changing, usually much more interesting and will make 
you
 >  > think, but not always something you want in your house.
 >  >
 >  > Critics mostly go along with the high end dealers, so they are not
 >  > really hurting or helping things a lot of the time. The time when
 >  > things become skewed is when a famous person (like a hollywood type)
 >  > buys something and then all the other famous/rich people have to buy
 >  > the same thing. We can only hope that there was someone knowledgeable
 >  > in the field of art that influenced the original guy on his/her
 >  > purchase.
 >  >
 >  > Art is a very complex thing, most people think that the upper echelon
 >  > is pretty strange because they have no basis to understand nor the
 >  > patience or determination to follow up. I can describe this with
 >  > another one of my interests: volleyball. Most people can take or leave
 >  > volleyball. Some play it, but they prefer a soft $10 ball and play 
with
 >  > a standard rotation. But once you get into it, you learn that the play
 >  > at the higher end is a completely different game. You play with a $60
 >  > ball that is made with different materials in a different way; there
 >  > are positions, each with a different responsibility, and you learn
 >  > lineups, hits, and rules that you never knew existed before. Some of 
it
 >  > is based on history and tradition, some of it is based on new rules
 >  > that everyone likes to complain and argue about. Most people play 
maybe
 >  > once or twice a year in someone's backyard or at the beach, I play
 >  > twice a week, year-round, now.  Is good art something that should
 >  > require such a commitment? maybe not, but as the world gets older, and
 >  > people have more time on their hands, and doing something original
 >  > becomes more difficult, things naturally become intricate and
 >  > complicated.
 >  >
 >  >
 >  > When you say this; "None of this has anything to do with the work,
 >  > > but with the concept behind the work"
 >  > you must remember that in a lot of those cases, the concept is the 
work
 >  > and the concept is what the buyer is buying. You can go to some
 >  > galleries and buy a piece in an edition and what you get are 
directions
 >  > on how the create the piece yourself and a certificate that says you
 >  > own number such and such out of such and such. Thankfully that is a
 >  > moment in art history and I don't believe artists today are able to 
get
 >  > away with such things. But if you come up with another twist,
 >  > complexity, or concept that adds something new, you could probably 
sell
 >  > an idea too.
 >  >
 >  > This is how art varies from other fields. An artist with very little
 >  > experience/knowledge of the art world, can create great art.  Studying
 >  > art will help you recognize and understand other people's work. It 
will
 >  > help you see greatness, and your own work will improve, but studying
 >  > alone will not make your work great. (that is why so many artists are
 >  > frustrated)
 >  >
 >  > -mikeH
 >  > toomanyartists.com
 >  >
 >  > ps
 >  > The thing that is sad is not the high end art world, it is the low 
end/
 >  > popular art world and the populations lack of interest in anything 
more
 >  > than a nature scene. Trendy-ness is something the art snobs love to
 >  > hate, but in actuality is one of the only things that help bring 
better
 >  > art to the masses. Offensive or outrageous pieces can do the same 
thing
 >  > because of the press and attention they receive (see Piss Christ).
 >  >
 >  >
 >  >
 >  >
 >  > Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls
and
 > other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
 >  >
 >  > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
 >  >
 >  > Please follow these basic guidelines:
 >  > - Include your full name with your message.
 >  > - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
 >  > - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to
 > keep
 > them short.
 >  > - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject
header.
 >  > - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
"flames."
 >  > - Complete your Yahoo profile.
 >  > - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the
various
 > resources on the homepage.
 >  >
 >  >
 >  >
 >  >
 >  > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 >  >
 >  >
 >  >
 >
 >
 >
 > _________________________________________________________________
 > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at 
http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
 >
 >
 >
 > Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
 >
 > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
 >
 > Please follow these basic guidelines:
 > - Include your full name with your message.
 > - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
 > - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to 
keep
them short.
 > - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
 > - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
 > - Complete your Yahoo profile.
 > - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.
 >
 >
 >
 >
 > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
 >
 >
 >



_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

Hopefully art will continue to strike multiple "sour chords" and challenge 
existing beliefs.  SCB

From: mh@...
Reply-To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] ART-what is it?
Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 15:28:32 -0000

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Tyler Boley" <tyler@t...>
wrote:
 > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., SKID Photography <skid@b...>
 > wrote:
 > snip...
 > The exhibit is not that
 > > different from the famous DaVinci drawings in his sketch books.  He
 > broke into morgues and made detailed
 > > drawings of essentially filleted people parts and how the human body
 > was put together.
 >
 > Harvey, I agree with everything you said in general. But somehow,
 > personally, I feel this particular show is different than the
 > DaVincis, I can't articulate why.
 > Aren't you the one who said I don't know what art is, but I know it
 > when I see it?

I think I can answer this.  There is a difference between sketching
something in a natural environment (if you can consider the morgue
natural) and turning a human body into a plastic exhibit, put in
unnatural positions for all eternity, for the purpose of edutainment.
This strikes a sour chord with most people's upbringing (especially
when it comes to religion)

But that must be weighed against one's own right to do what they want
with their body and our own responsibility to protect their wishes. I
personally think that displaying them in slightly amusing poses or with
muscles hanging out in unnatural ways ("as if in the wind") is just
past where the line should have been drawn.

One must consider two things;  intent of the creators/participants and
any particular consequences. I think the intent is okay (I don't think
they are doing it for fun or sensationalism) but I hope the next person
that tries something like that doesn't take it further.

-mh





_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp

Yeah, I also think that art is easier to ignore!

Jul;ian
----- Original Message -----
From: <mh@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2001 1:59 AM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] ART-what is it?


> Part of the abstract paintings vs. abstract music issue is the fact
> that the public gets a lot more exposure to abstract paintings than
> abstract music. Possibly because of the fame/cost of some abstract
> paintings. And the fact that music is time based and takes more effort
> on the part of the audience.
>
>
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Tyler Boley" <tyler@t...>
> wrote:
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Julian Thomas" <
> > julianthomas@t...> wrote:
> > snip...
> > ... Art should challenge, be difficult, make us
> > > rethink our preconceptions, learn new visual or aural vocabularies etc
etc.
> >
> > This may be what I would like art to do, among other things
> > significantly less rational, but I'm not sure it has that
> > responsibility outright, and I think an artist consumed with these
> > goals during creation will be off the mark.
> >
> > > On a slightly different note i've always been bemused by the fact that
> > > people accept abstract art in publick places, but play the musical
quivalent
> > > and, is there trouble!
> >
> > Very interesting. But if you're referring to abstract sculpture in
> > public places, I would link that more to music like Stravinsky than
> > more contemporary abstract music (an example of which currantly
> > escapes me). Just a thought.
> > Tyler
>
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.

>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

I'm making a personal claim, I guess. I did a lot of work on Adorno at one
time, and one of his claims was the for art to be relevent it had to be true
to its socio-historic moment i.e. essentially what Ansell Adams did was
relevent to his time, and whilst it is good art and can be appreciated now,
what is not ok to keep replicating AA, or folks pastiching Mozart. This
ignores all the pomo irony stuff of course. The difference is between the
production or the viewing. I'd say great cinima is always great cinema -
Casablanca is just a great film period. I'm not too sure if I mean that old
masters will be 'remembered' as this is too much down to fashion and taste.
One of my pet hates is a throw away culture, for me this is a facet of
capitalism thatis rather ugly - buy a photo this week in this style, keeop
it for a week and then buy another one. But as I've said I'm an old
fashioned modernist! All this is personal and I'm not trying to set up an
autocratic view of art - just trying to describe for me what I like to see.
As to Hendrix, well MD wanted to do some stuff with him but H died. A lot of
stuff is written about Tristan, but basically it heralded polytonality, the
'Tristan chord' at the beginning is totally tonally ambiguous. Wagnerian
excess lead to Schoenberg having to invent some kind of organising system as
Wagner had busted evrything wide open. Wow this is getting way OT - thanks
go to the moderators!

Julian

----- Original Message -----
From: "Sanford Barnes" <sanfordcbarnes@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2001 8:10 AM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] ART-what is it?


> Julian:  I always enjoy your posts - interesting, immediate, provocative.
> Are you proposing a deconstructed view or definition of art - ie."meaning
in
> the work"; "remains relevant outside its socio-historical period."???  I
> propose that some art, by intention, does not last for even more than a
> short period, ie, draping buildings/or the environment.  Some art lasts
only
> a limited period, ie. photography/cinema.  Even art lasting centuries
> ultimately crumbles, is lost, or otherwise disappears.  Also, the future
is
> difficult and for the present impossible to predict pending additional
> breakthrough in Physics.  Who knows if Beethoven will be more remembered
> than Phillip Glass, Benjamin Britten, or someone currently unknown in a
> hundred years + from now.  I empathize with your concerns about hypocrisy
in
> the acceptance of art in various places. A frontal male nude is great art
in
> institutional display in Florence; but, may well be considered an
> outrage/unacceptable in a U.S. business foyer or "public" place.  It
appears
> "art" has something to do with context as well as the character/nature of
> the viewer.  On another "note" abstract visual art has achieved limited
> public acceptance; but, some abstract auditory art has gained, for now,
> enormous public acceptance, ie. rock $ roll.  (I'm relatively sure Andy
> Wharhol would have loved to argue the latter reference.) Buy the way, why
> does Miles Davis get most of the credit for inventing fusion, when Jimi
> Hendrix anticipated and performed fusion before Bitches Brew; and is
Tristan
> und Isolde truely the departure point for all of 20th C classical music?
> I'd better stop as this is becoming free/loose association(s).
> Regards, SCB
>
>
> From: "Julian Thomas" <julianthomas@...>
> Reply-To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] ART-what is it?
> Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2001 09:22:02 +0200
>
> Yeah you are dead right, wasn't really expressing myself too well - if you
> follow my argument you end up with a dumbing down process which i loathe.
I
> stick with my claim though that the meaning of the work has to be 'in' the
> work - the viewer may have to work hard (a good thing) or gain new skills
or
> insights, or vocabulary, but what the work is about has to be somewhere in
> the text of the object. I'm a bit worried that I'm coming across as a
> populist which I'm not at all. Art should challenge, be difficult, make us
> rethink our preconceptions, learn new visual or aural vocabularies etc
etc.
> The kind of stuff that i was knocking in the yoko ono exhibit, like much
> Cage, is important historically. But for me, it stays in its historical
> moment and doesn't reach out across time. It has travelled badly. One of
my
> personal definitions I suppose is that art remains relevent outside of
it's
> socio-historic period. Beethoven, Picasso, Atget, Stieglitz, etc all have
a
> message today precisely because the content of the work is in the object.
> Just to embarrass myself further, in 1981 I gave a recital which included
> Berg, Brahms, Tippett, and a piece which consisted of passing a huge
length
> of rope around the audience into which was woven  bells, rattles -
> noisemakers. The piece was the sounds generated by the audience. Now I
still
> think that at the time it was valid - a way of making the audience
question
> their passivity, to hopefully promote the idea that going to a concert is
an
> active experience - but that kind of piece stays in that period, it hasn't
> travelled, now the response would be 'oh, we're doing this passe audience
> involvement stuff'. I went on to do a whole recital based on giving the
> audience cards with instructions on. Great fun, and again ok for the time,
> but there was nothing for the audience to engage with.
> On a slightly different note i've always been bemused by the fact that
> people accept abstract art in publick places, but play the musical
quivalent
> and, is there trouble!
>
> Julian
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Sanford Barnes" <sanfordcbarnes@...>
> To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2001 5:55 AM
> Subject: Re: [Digital BW] ART-what is it?
>
>
>  > JT:  If one doesn't "get it" or understand, then the art may have
failed
> to
>  > communicate to that individual; however, it does not automatically
> translate
>  > that the art is not good or not understandable to others.  Personal
> opinion
>  > isn't worth much by itself.  SCB
>  >
>  >
>  > From: "Julian Thomas" <julianthomas@...>
>  > Reply-To: DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com
>  > To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
>  > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] ART-what is it?
>  > Date: Tue, 23 Oct 2001 13:47:59 +0200
>  >
>  > Mike - I half agree with you!
>  >
>  > My background is in music - to me Schoenberg is standard repetoire and
I
> can
>  > trace how things happen as they emerge . I realised in my last post I
was
>  > coming off as a bit restrictive, but I firmly believe that if it is not
> 'in'
>  > the work, then it is not part of the work. All art IMO is a balance
> between
>  > a whole load o f factors, but I think there is a fundamental balance
> between
>  > concept and product. If I can't, as a skilled reader, 'see' in the work
> the
>  > concept, then it has failed and the concept stands 'in place of' the
work
> as
>  > the defining force.
>  > I saw some of the kindof instruction-type work you described at the
yoko
> ono
>  > show, and it is poor stuff IMO. Now this is a personal view, and I
would
>  > take away anyone's right to make art in whatever way they choose, but
> when
>  > this is placed in hierarchies, as 'better/best' then it produces
problems
>  > IMO. I don't think for e.g. that Hirst's work is that shocking or new,
> but
>  > he has become a major media presence because he is writable about.
>  >
>  > Anyway, thanks for the dicsussion!
>  >
>  > Julian
>  >
>  >
>  > ----- Original Message -----
>  > From: <mh@...>
>  > To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
>  > Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2001 1:36 PM
>  > Subject: Re: [Digital BW] ART-what is it?
>  >
>  >
>  >  > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Julian Thomas" <
>  >  > julianthomas@t...> wrote:
>  >  > > Sad isn't it. Art dealers support stuff they can sell, critics
write
>  > about
>  >  > > things they can write about. None of this has anything to do with
> the
>  > work,
>  >  > > but with the concept behind the work. Arts education (and I used
to
> be
>  > in
>  >  > > it) ,for a whole load of reasons that has very little to do with
>  > teachers,
>  >  > > is doing a poor job of educating people about art - and very often
>  > people
>  >  > > need the help of a dealer to interpret a 'concept'. And there is
no
>  > causal
>  >  > > link between those who have money to buy art as having the skills
to
>  > make a
>  >  > > judgement.
>  >  > >
>  >  > > Julian
>  >  >
>  >  > I halfway don't agree with you. When talking about dealers, you need
> to
>  >  > differentiate between the high end and the low end. Low end dealers,
>  >  > the kind that are in every city, deal in stuff that they can sell,
>  >  > usually a lot of Terry Redlin type paintings. High end dealers don't
>  >  > care about whether the art will look good over a couch because, as
we
>  >  > have all seen, they can sell about anything (my old bosses had a
>  >  > sculpture made out of manure in our studio) Nothing has changed in
the
>  >  > low end art world for a long time, and you won't really come away
with
>  >  > much other then a pretty picture (probably of something cute)  High
> end
>  >  > art is always changing, usually much more interesting and will make
> you
>  >  > think, but not always something you want in your house.
>  >  >
>  >  > Critics mostly go along with the high end dealers, so they are not
>  >  > really hurting or helping things a lot of the time. The time when
>  >  > things become skewed is when a famous person (like a hollywood type)
>  >  > buys something and then all the other famous/rich people have to buy
>  >  > the same thing. We can only hope that there was someone
knowledgeable
>  >  > in the field of art that influenced the original guy on his/her
>  >  > purchase.
>  >  >
>  >  > Art is a very complex thing, most people think that the upper
echelon
>  >  > is pretty strange because they have no basis to understand nor the
>  >  > patience or determination to follow up. I can describe this with
>  >  > another one of my interests: volleyball. Most people can take or
leave
>  >  > volleyball. Some play it, but they prefer a soft $10 ball and play
> with
>  >  > a standard rotation. But once you get into it, you learn that the
play
>  >  > at the higher end is a completely different game. You play with a
$60
>  >  > ball that is made with different materials in a different way; there
>  >  > are positions, each with a different responsibility, and you learn
>  >  > lineups, hits, and rules that you never knew existed before. Some of
> it
>  >  > is based on history and tradition, some of it is based on new rules
>  >  > that everyone likes to complain and argue about. Most people play
> maybe
>  >  > once or twice a year in someone's backyard or at the beach, I play
>  >  > twice a week, year-round, now.  Is good art something that should
>  >  > require such a commitment? maybe not, but as the world gets older,
and
>  >  > people have more time on their hands, and doing something original
>  >  > becomes more difficult, things naturally become intricate and
>  >  > complicated.
>  >  >
>  >  >
>  >  > When you say this; "None of this has anything to do with the work,
>  >  > > but with the concept behind the work"
>  >  > you must remember that in a lot of those cases, the concept is the
> work
>  >  > and the concept is what the buyer is buying. You can go to some
>  >  > galleries and buy a piece in an edition and what you get are
> directions
>  >  > on how the create the piece yourself and a certificate that says you
>  >  > own number such and such out of such and such. Thankfully that is a
>  >  > moment in art history and I don't believe artists today are able to
> get
>  >  > away with such things. But if you come up with another twist,
>  >  > complexity, or concept that adds something new, you could probably
> sell
>  >  > an idea too.
>  >  >
>  >  > This is how art varies from other fields. An artist with very little
>  >  > experience/knowledge of the art world, can create great art.
Studying
>  >  > art will help you recognize and understand other people's work. It
> will
>  >  > help you see greatness, and your own work will improve, but studying
>  >  > alone will not make your work great. (that is why so many artists
are
>  >  > frustrated)
>  >  >
>  >  > -mikeH
>  >  > toomanyartists.com
>  >  >
>  >  > ps
>  >  > The thing that is sad is not the high end art world, it is the low
> end/
>  >  > popular art world and the populations lack of interest in anything
> more
>  >  > than a nature scene. Trendy-ness is something the art snobs love to
>  >  > hate, but in actuality is one of the only things that help bring
> better
>  >  > art to the masses. Offensive or outrageous pieces can do the same
> thing
>  >  > because of the press and attention they receive (see Piss Christ).
>  >  >
>  >  >
>  >  >
>  >  >
>  >  > Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls
> and
>  > other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>  >  >
>  >  > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>  >  >
>  >  > Please follow these basic guidelines:
>  >  > - Include your full name with your message.
>  >  > - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
>  >  > - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages
to
>  > keep
>  > them short.
>  >  > - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject
> header.
>  >  > - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
> "flames."
>  >  > - Complete your Yahoo profile.
>  >  > - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the
> various
>  > resources on the homepage.
>  >  >
>  >  >
>  >  >
>  >  >
>  >  > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>  >  >
>  >  >
>  >  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > _________________________________________________________________
>  > Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at
> http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls
and
> other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>  >
>  > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>  >
>  > Please follow these basic guidelines:
>  > - Include your full name with your message.
>  > - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
>  > - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to
> keep
> them short.
>  > - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject
header.
>  > - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or
"flames."
>  > - Complete your Yahoo profile.
>  > - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the
various
> resources on the homepage.
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  >
>  > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>  >
>  >
>  >
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.

>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Julian Thomas" 
<julianthomas@t...> wrote:
snip
...essentially what Ansell Adams did was
> relevent to his time, and whilst it is good art and can be 
appreciated now,
> what is not ok to keep replicating AA...
This may sound suprising coming from someone involved in B&W landscape 
work, but I couldn't agree more.

> As to Hendrix, well MD wanted to do some stuff with him but H died. 
Jeez, you can't possibly be as old as I am. I think fusion was a 
product of the times, but MD has to be given more credit than JH since 
he brought a broader and deeper awareness of the diverse elements they 
were patching together. And as you suggest, MD was seeking out JH's 
participation before the reverse. In the bigger picture of music in 
general, I think JH did more to blow walls down, an example of someone 
grasping the attention of pop culture, political culture, and having a 
major impact on the "fine art" of music at the same time. 
Extraordinary.
Well, discussing AA is kinda sorta almost barely on topic isn'

> Extraordinary.
> Well, discussing AA is kinda sorta almost barely on topic isn'
Sorta...!
BTW the current Lenswork (only read the preview) has an article on ARAT
photography - Another Rock Another Tree.

Julian

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Julian Thomas" 
<julianthomas@t...> wrote:
> 
> > Extraordinary.
> > Well, discussing AA is kinda sorta almost barely on topic isn'
> Sorta...!
> BTW the current Lenswork (only read the preview) has an article on 
ARAT
> photography - Another Rock Another Tree.
> 
> Julian

I'll have to check it out, I think I qualify. Finally, something like 
Phd, or Md, I can use to bolster confidence.
Tyler Boley, ARAT

Feeling slightly defensive though, I have to suggest another article, 
AFAH.
Another face another hand.
Ty

The point the issue makes is that it isn't the subject that matters but how
the photographer approaches the subject. Kinda links in with my comments on
AA.

Julian
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tyler Boley" <tyler@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2001 4:30 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] ART-what is it?


> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Julian Thomas"
> <julianthomas@t...> wrote:
> >
> > > Extraordinary.
> > > Well, discussing AA is kinda sorta almost barely on topic isn'
> > Sorta...!
> > BTW the current Lenswork (only read the preview) has an article on
> ARAT
> > photography - Another Rock Another Tree.
> >
> > Julian
>
> I'll have to check it out, I think I qualify. Finally, something like
> Phd, or Md, I can use to bolster confidence.
> Tyler Boley, ARAT
>
> Feeling slightly defensive though, I have to suggest another article,
> AFAH.
> Another face another hand.
> Ty
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.

>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>

--- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Julian Thomas" <
julianthomas@t...> wrote:
> The point the issue makes is that it isn't the subject that matters but how
> the photographer approaches the subject. Kinda links in with my comments on
> AA.
> 
> Julian

Absolutely, I hope I didn't sound like you or the article suggested 
otherwise, I'll have to read it. I've heard the "oh no, more rocks and 
trees" thing for years, so am sensitive to it. Particularly since most 
of the work I'm seeing in the last 10-20 years deserves the comment, 
and am constantly asking myself if I'm simply contributing to that.
Must be the only two awake right now...
Tyler

Whenever I'm emailing it means I'm stuck to the PC waiting for another print
or scan. I've found that if I have my email active and get it to the top
immediately after hitting  'print', piezo lets me email whilst printing!

Julian
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tyler Boley" <tyler@...>
To: <DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2001 4:52 PM
Subject: Re: [Digital BW] ART-what is it?


> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@y..., "Julian Thomas" <
> julianthomas@t...> wrote:
> > The point the issue makes is that it isn't the subject that matters but
how
> > the photographer approaches the subject. Kinda links in with my comments
on
> > AA.
> >
> > Julian
>
> Absolutely, I hope I didn't sound like you or the article suggested
> otherwise, I'll have to read it. I've heard the "oh no, more rocks and
> trees" thing for years, so am sensitive to it. Particularly since most
> of the work I'm seeing in the last 10-20 years deserves the comment,
> and am constantly asking myself if I'm simply contributing to that.
> Must be the only two awake right now...
> Tyler
>
>
>
>
> Please visit the Group Homepage to check the Files, Bookmarks, Polls and
other resources as they are often being updated. The page is at:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint
>
> Please follow these basic guidelines:
> - Include your full name with your message.
> - Include the address of your website, if you have one.
> - As threads develop, trim off excess portions of earlier messages to keep
them short.
> - As the topic of a thread changes remember to change the subject header.
> - Good manners are required at all time. No personal attacks or "flames."
> - Complete your Yahoo profile.
> - Before posting a question, search the message archives and the various
resources on the homepage.

>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>