Re: steal this message

From: Cari Machet (email suppressed)
Date: Tue Feb 07 2006 - 17:13:49 PST

draco would be so proud

i am so happy that my otherwise tight assed
critical theory professor
showed us "superstar" by todd hanes

art has been known to have a life of it's own
seperate fr: the maker
maybe it's intent is different at times
'respect' and 'deserve'
anybody that knows anything about a psych way
knows there ain't no deserve
i respect art sometimes more than the artist - depends

fetishistically fetishizing is generally only for the descriminating

kim's sucks at dubbing vhs's onto dvd
being able to hear (sort of) dali announce "the devine dali"
over and over is worth the pain


On 2/7/06, Phil Rowe <email suppressed> wrote:
> David Tetzlaff wrote:
> "and while i'm ranting, i might note that i can't recall anyone here ever
> explaining _why_ we should fetishize the artist's intent. it just get
> asserted over and over."
> David, before the usual and tiresome piling on Fred ("fascist", "purist")
> continues I would like you to explain how you are supporting a position
> with
> substance by using a word like "fetishize" in the above sentence. It is
> an assertion, a mean-spirited one. (Calling it part of a rant makes it no
> less mean.) It is also a distortion of the position of those--I am one of
> them--who believe one should "respect" the artist's intent.
> I mean nothing slavish or literal (or fascist or purist). We all know the
> exceptions, the changes in the world no dead artist could have foreseen,
> the
> famous names who wanted their works to be burnt. I don't think people who
> use phrases like "fetishize the artist's intent" are talking about
> anything
> involving Kafka. By my measure, respect is a deserved courtesy, a
> thoughtful and fair consideration that includes the artist in what
> decisions
> we may make.
> I'll add, before the epistemology fog gets any thicker, that I think there
> are many cases in which the artist's intent is perfectly clear; when, for
> example, he says, "I made this on film and if you show it on video you're
> showing something I didn't make or intend." In cases like this I think
> it
> only common decency to acknowledge the difference between what the artist
> made (yes, I actually think artists are often the makers of art) and
> what's
> being shown. It's even possible that a fair contemplation of that
> difference might reduce the piracies this thread began by talking about.
> Phil Rowe

For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.