From: Cari Machet (email suppressed)
Date: Sat Mar 04 2006 - 12:18:29 PST
yes steven u get it
there is a weirdness in the van gogh
then his work is the highest priced art ever
by like millions of dollars
i highly recommend the book
by louis hyde
for deeper understanding of the purpose of art
as i am part native american
my conceptions of this purpose are not inside the capitalist regime
i am happy that ur mommy gets ur work
as my whole family is not even remotely awake to mine
i am jeallous
On 3/3/06, Steven Budden <email suppressed> wrote:
> Artists who work in their chosen medium are elitist? Their gestures are
> futile? What a bizarre rant.
> Art is not for John Q Public (whoever that is) and historically never was.
> You're living in a fantasy land where feces do stink, or you're not making
> I think what she's saying is she'd rather be making her own Art work in
> anonymity than be a slave to the populace, seeking approval from those who
> possess the knowledge needed to understand her work. Not to put words in
> mouth. But I understand the point.
> For instance, there are probably four people that I know of in the world
> understand/ appreciate my paintings. I am working off subtleties in art
> history that viewers needs to be aware of just like most late modern and
> post modern painters. Those four people mean a lot. Even if it were only
> apart from me, it wouldn't be masturbation obviously.
> Many of history's best works of art don't survive the transition from one
> medium to another. For instance, Beckett and Joyce don't translate well into
> film, because they're about words and the limitation of words.
> Anyway, my two odorless cents (tossed down from my ivory citadel).
> PS. Oh yeah, my dear old mother loves all my paintings. Five.
> In a message dated 3/3/2006 2:39:41 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,
> email suppressed writes:
> Isn't judgment, in one form or another, at the very heart of all critical
> thinking? Without judgment, aren't we no more than slavish parrots? If, as
> say, "the artists/thinkers on the list are not about jon q public" then
> are they about? Something better? What are they, Olympic Gods? If your
> concerns are not those of the public, and you truly live in an ivory tower
> feces has no odor, then good for you. You can do whatever you want. I'm
> telling you why I personally think avoiding video at all costs is not only
> form of suicide, but also an incredibly elitist and futile gesture. Your
> point strikes me as particularly inane, I have to say. There's no guarantee
> that a group of ten celluloid fetishists is going to "get" your work any
> than a room full of "average joes." And if you show your work to thousands
> people, you may be able to find 20 or 30 people who "get" your work instead
> of just the 10. Those extra 10 or 20 people you don't seem to care about
> might actually benefit from seeing your work. It seems it's only the
> of fetishists that you care about. If your work is so limited in effect
> it must be seen on film and no other medium in order to be "gotten," i.e.
> it is so focused on the medium that no other qualities in it are worth
> exploring, then nothing I have to say applies to you anyway, so just ignore
> me. I'm
> talking about work that has meaning and importance beyond
> and masturbation. I haven't seen your work, of course, I'm just going by
> way you present it here. I apologize if any of this sounds harsh, but I
> it was called for.
> For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.
For info on FrameWorks, contact Pip Chodorov at <email suppressed>.