Burning Down The House

The best thing about it was on last night's ten
o'clock news when the arts correspondent ( & I *know*
we should be grateful we *have* an arts correspondent
on the main nightly news) said something like "when
the history of art in our time comes to be written
this will be seen as a grievous and significant blow".
I might be wrong but she also seemed to be under the
impression that Edward Hopper was perhaps a drinking
companion of "bad boy of British art" (sic) Damien
Hirst and "bad girl of British art , Tracey Emin"
michael
— Rob Myers <[email protected]> wrote:
> Chapmans' "Hell" goes up in flames, Emin's tent sees
> some hot action,etc.:
>
>
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3748179.stm
>
http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/video/40197000/rm/_40197241_saatchi07_barnes_vi.ram
>
> I'm desperately trying to avoid schadenfreude, but
> I'm not doing very well. :-)
>
> Maybe Ruscha can do a painting of this to go with
> "Los Angeles County Museum on Fire"?
>
> It's definitely art…
>
> - Rob.
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is
> open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set
> out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at
http://rhizome.org/info/29.php





__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/

On Wednesday, May 26, 2004, at 10:07AM, Michael Szpakowski <[email protected]> wrote:

>The best thing about it was on last night's ten
>o'clock news when the arts correspondent ( & I *know*
>we should be grateful we *have* an arts correspondent
>on the main nightly news) said something like "when
>the history of art in our time comes to be written
>this will be seen as a grievous and significant blow".

That's just silly of them. No Rolf Harris paintings were lost, our legacy is safe. :-)

If I were the insurance investigator I'd be looking veeeeery carefully at the market value of the remaining work compared to the glut that's been mercifully lost.

Some good work will have been lost, but clearing out the Chapmans and Emin is the best thing that's happened to British art for a long time. Sigh, I suppose I can't say that about art, as someone else could say that about art I like if it was destroyed.

>I might be wrong but she also seemed to be under the
>impression that Edward Hopper was perhaps a drinking
>companion of "bad boy of British art" (sic) Damien
>Hirst and "bad girl of British art , Tracey Emin"
>michael

He isn't? What about the greatest living artist, Picasso, doesn't he drink with them either? :-)

- Rob.

HAHA, destruction of art – really funny!

Good thing it was the degenerate art which got destroyed and not the good stuff.


> On Wednesday, May 26, 2004, at 10:07AM, Michael Szpakowski
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >The best thing about it was on last night's ten
> >o'clock news when the arts correspondent ( & I *know*
> >we should be grateful we *have* an arts correspondent
> >on the main nightly news) said something like "when
> >the history of art in our time comes to be written
> >this will be seen as a grievous and significant blow".
>
> That's just silly of them. No Rolf Harris paintings were lost, our
> legacy is safe. :-)

I smell an insurance fraud.
Have they completely ruled out arson.

Saatchi will be getting a serious payout for all of the lost artworks.
Time for him to replace the stockpile.


On 5/26/04 12:45 PM, "t.whid" <[email protected]> wrote:

> HAHA, destruction of art – really funny!
>
> Good thing it was the degenerate art which got destroyed and not the good
> stuff.
>
>
>> On Wednesday, May 26, 2004, at 10:07AM, Michael Szpakowski
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> The best thing about it was on last night's ten
>>> o'clock news when the arts correspondent ( & I *know*
>>> we should be grateful we *have* an arts correspondent
>>> on the main nightly news) said something like "when
>>> the history of art in our time comes to be written
>>> this will be seen as a grievous and significant blow".
>>
>> That's just silly of them. No Rolf Harris paintings were lost, our
>> legacy is safe. :-)
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>

On 26 May 2004, at 17:45, t.whid wrote:

> HAHA, destruction of art – really funny!

The Chapmans have defaced Goya prints to make publicity -er- their art.
How funny was that?

> Good thing it was the degenerate art which got destroyed and not the
> good stuff.

Straw man and premature intrusion of Godwin's law aside, it isn't much
of a loss. The works are all series or recycled one-liners. That
adman's latrine has stunk out British art for far too long. I'm just
worried some Raes, Caulfields or early Hirsts may have been lost as
well.

- Rob.

–
"If record companies sold bottled water they'd demand that poison be
added to your taps."

Hi Tim
<degenerate>
your word not mine -not a word I would *ever* use or
imply as I thought you would know (and of course its
an extraordinaarily *loaded* word!) but don't let the
facts get in the way of good polemic , especially if
you can imply someone's views tend towards those of
the Nazis!
My problem with it is that in my view its commerce ,
not art, and commerce of the most cynical kind -the
news tonight on the Beeb is all about how many million
of quid have gone up in smoke.
Neither of us knows in the long term whether the
Saatchi stable will have any staying power, my guess
would be no, yours clearly otherwise.
Though I can't pretend I'm sitting here shedding tears
over the loss of a few Hirsts of course I don't
advocate the destruction of art works ( well - objects
that may or may not prove to be so- we'll see, in
time).
Its strange how the mischievous sense of humour that
delights us so often on this list comes over a wee bit
po faced in this instance!
regards
michael
— "t.whid" <[email protected]> wrote:
> HAHA, destruction of art – really funny!
>
> Good thing it was the degenerate art which got
> destroyed and not the good stuff.
>
>
> > On Wednesday, May 26, 2004, at 10:07AM, Michael
> Szpakowski
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> > >The best thing about it was on last night's ten
> > >o'clock news when the arts correspondent ( & I
> *know*
> > >we should be grateful we *have* an arts
> correspondent
> > >on the main nightly news) said something like
> "when
> > >the history of art in our time comes to be
> written
> > >this will be seen as a grievous and significant
> blow".
> >
> > That's just silly of them. No Rolf Harris
> paintings were lost, our
> > legacy is safe. :-)
> +
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is
> open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set
> out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at
http://rhizome.org/info/29.php





__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/

On May 26, 2004, at 2:47 PM, Rob Myers wrote:

> On 26 May 2004, at 17:45, t.whid wrote:
>
>> HAHA, destruction of art – really funny!
>
> The Chapmans have defaced Goya prints to make publicity -er- their
> art. How funny was that?

Print = multiple, hence the destruction isn't as much of a loss as
one-of-a-kinds being destroyed.

But, I wouldn't defend that art practice. It does seem fairly stupid.
(and a conceptual rip-off of Rauchenberg's erased deKooning)

On the other hand, a conceptual gesture in the cause of art doesn't
equate to accidental (or purposeful if it was an insurance scam)
wholesale destruction of one-of-a-kind artworks which are now lost
forever.


>
>> Good thing it was the degenerate art which got destroyed and not the
>> good stuff.
>
> Straw man and premature intrusion of Godwin's law aside, it isn't much
> of a loss. The works are all series or recycled one-liners. That
> adman's latrine has stunk out British art for far too long. I'm just
> worried some Raes, Caulfields or early Hirsts may have been lost as
> well.

of course! destruction of art you don't like doesn't really matter,
such an obviously rational position.

You don't see the danger in that sort of thinking? Seems fairly obvious
to me. To bad there weren't any 'bad' books on the blaze either, aye?


===
<twhid>http://www.mteww.com</twhid>
===

On 26 May 2004, at 20:43, t.whid wrote:

> On the other hand, a conceptual gesture in the cause of art doesn't
> equate to accidental (or purposeful if it was an insurance scam)
> wholesale destruction of one-of-a-kind artworks which are now lost
> forever.

But the whole point is that they are *not* one-of-a-kind artworks.

And if something being art makes it OK, I'm dreading an increasingly
desperate Bush Jr. redescribing the Iraq debacle as an artwork.

> of course! destruction of art you don't like doesn't really matter,
> such an obviously rational position.

OK, OK. I'll pretend to like the work. Maybe I can fake a tear or two.
I'm not sure deception is more rational than schadenfreude, though.

> You don't see the danger in that sort of thinking? Seems fairly
> obvious to me. To bad there weren't any 'bad' books on the blaze
> either, aye?

I thought that accidental destruction didn't equate to a conceptual
gesture? I am amused in this one instance by the former, it does *not*
follow that I am an enemy of the people.

You are equating "bad" as in quality (Tom Clancy) with "bad" as
identified by the Adolf Schickelgruber Marching Band (any art that
isn't totalitarian dross). Before I invoke Godwin again, let me point
out that the Saatchi collection is not the poor, defenseless,
avant-garde "Degenerate Art" of our time, it is the totalitarian state
art dross .

- Rob.

I feel the most sorry for the artists.
Their work is gone.

In the late 80's in Chicago the Superior Street arts complex which housed a
good number of the best galleries in town practically burned to the ground.
Total loss for everyone especially the artists, most of which only had the
art on consignment, insurance paid only a small % of the value. It hit the
Chicago art world very hard and practically took a decade for the scene to
properly regroup.

Art should be hung on the walls and in homes not in storage.
That

hi Tim,

I think in this case, the incident is fair game for critical comment, not simply because the art was bad (if it even was), but because hirst and emin are such intentionally object-incidental artists, which by extension makes their work inherently ephemeral. So the fact that everyone is so up in arms about the "loss of value" is kind of like a sand sculptor being aghast that the tide came in and eroded his castle. To trace it all back, it wasn't supposed to be about that particular urinal, just any urinal. But tell that to whoever owns the original urinal. If you see the buddha on the road, aren't you supposed to kill him? Duchamp probably would have. Saatchi would have sued him for copyright infringement.

This incident is quintessentially telling and instructive to me:
http://www.renewal.org.au/artcrime/pages/yoko_ono.html
I'm punk until you actually take me up on it, then I'm a whining, capitalistic wussy.

http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passageiC2:11 ,
curt

_


t.whid wrote:

> HAHA, destruction of art – really funny!
>
> Good thing it was the degenerate art which got destroyed and not the
> good stuff.

Hiya Curt,

It all comes down to book-burning IMO…

If this was fundamentalist christians/muslims burning Burrows/Rushdie
we wouldn't have so many self-identified artists on this list gleefully
dancing around the fire. Of course (i'll assume) this was an accidental
fire, but it seems many on this list would have willingly tossed the
match.

the NYTimes fills us in on what was destroyed, which includes paintings
– gasp! yes – paintings, one-of-a-kind paintings, and even – yikes!
– sculptures.. but who cares? they suck and their old media anyway..
the artists will just make more, right?

And again I ask myself, why do so many artists seem to hate art?

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/27/arts/27FIRE.html


On May 26, 2004, at 9:20 PM, curt cloninger wrote:

> hi Tim,
>
> I think in this case, the incident is fair game for critical comment,
> not simply because the art was bad (if it even was), but because hirst
> and emin are such intentionally object-incidental artists, which by
> extension makes their work inherently ephemeral. So the fact that
> everyone is so up in arms about the "loss of value" is kind of like a
> sand sculptor being aghast that the tide came in and eroded his
> castle. To trace it all back, it wasn't supposed to be about that
> particular urinal, just any urinal. But tell that to whoever owns the
> original urinal. If you see the buddha on the road, aren't you
> supposed to kill him? Duchamp probably would have. Saatchi would
> have sued him for copyright infringement.
>
> This incident is quintessentially telling and instructive to me:
> http://www.renewal.org.au/artcrime/pages/yoko_ono.html
> I'm punk until you actually take me up on it, then I'm a whining,
> capitalistic wussy.
>
> http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passageiC2:11 ,
> curt
>
> _
>
>
> t.whid wrote:
>
>> HAHA, destruction of art – really funny!
>>
>> Good thing it was the degenerate art which got destroyed and not the
>> good stuff.
–
<t.whid>
www.mteww.com
</t.whid>

On May 26, 2004, at 11:16 PM, twhid wrote:

> Hiya Curt,
>
> It all comes down to book-burning IMO…
>
> If this was fundamentalist christians/muslims burning Burrows/Rushdie
> we wouldn't have so many self-identified artists on this list
> gleefully dancing around the fire.


I meant to type Burroughs, (William S.)


–
<t.whid>
www.mteww.com
</t.whid>

I would have rather loaded a truck at midnight than tossed a match.

There was this student in school that used to diss any other student that
would paint realistically. Near the end of our studies she admitted to me
that she wished she had learned to really paint.

Any self-proclaimed artist that says they hate art is a fraud and should be
kicked out of the art world for good and left to rot a hellish life as a
clerk kissing ass never going anywhere to be fired again and again and again
because they hate their job and their life and would probably kill
themselves but they don

On Thursday, May 27, 2004, at 04:16AM, twhid <[email protected]> wrote:

>It all comes down to book-burning IMO…

No books were burnt. There was no intentionality. It does not come down to book burning. It comes down to shadenfreude.

>If this was fundamentalist christians/muslims burning Burrows/Rushdie
>we wouldn't have so many self-identified artists on this list gleefully
>dancing around the fire.

You seem to be demanding that the sanctity of "art" be protected against the threat of fascism by appealing to fear of religious groups.

>Of course (i'll assume) this was an accidental
>fire, but it seems many on this list would have willingly tossed the
>match.

I would not. I would rugby-tackle anyone holding a match anywhere near anything that claims to be art. I was an intern at the ICA when Jake & Dinos Chapman installed their f***faces. I didn't even say anything negative to the camera shoved in my face, let alone have any accidents with matches.

>the NYTimes fills us in on what was destroyed, which includes paintings
>– gasp! yes – paintings, one-of-a-kind paintings, and even – yikes!
>– sculptures.. but who cares?

Video and installation are the State Art of New Labour Britain. They get the funding, they fill the galleries, they win the awards. You are appealing for totalitarian art, not against it.

>they suck and their old media anyway..

What does media have to do with suckiness? The only piece I liked in the last Turner Prize was the video.

And what's new media about stitchwork (Emin), painted metal figures and carved wood (Chapmans) and ceramics (various)? Video and computer are 40-50 years old, installation older. I can't think of any "new" media in the Saatchi collection.

Oh, I tell a lie. There was that frozen blood head that defrosted when Nigella's kitchen was being put in. Which was also funny.

>the artists will just make more, right?

Tracey Emin says she's more concerned about children dying in Iraq.

>And again I ask myself, why do so many artists seem to hate art?

This is precisely the kind of art that Saatchi collects, art that hates art.

I will volunteer that I love art, but it's a sincere and deep love, not an ostentatious, conformist, sentimental, neurotic, desperate love. It would seem this is a love that dare not speak its name.

- Rob.

Hi Tim,

To liken religious book burnings to apathy/glee over the saatchi fire seems a stretch. Even if some critics here find the works in saatchi's collection lame, morality and aesthetics are two different things. Relativists miss this. Just because I dare say some art is aesthetically "better" than some other art, that has nothing to do with an imposition of morality or political totalitarianism. Actually, your underlying assumption that everyone "ought to" revere anything that presumes to call itself "art," regardless of its aesthetic appeal to them personally – that smacks a bit of totalitarianism (or at least political correctness) to me. "Everyone is free to believe whatever they like, as long we all agree to believe in relativism."

I agree with Rob. A champion of chivalry is not obliged to defend every street walking tranvestite who calls himself a woman. In fact, he's obliged not to, lest chivalry become a diluted sham. Likewise, as an "art" lover, I'm not obliged to defend the artistic sanctity of Tracy Emin's work. Not simply because her work is "bad," but because of the specific way in which it's "bad." It's anti-art that laughs at craft and questions the practice of assigning aesthetic value to artwork in the first place. But she has no problem assigning monetary value to her work, and then bemoaning the loss of that monetary value. Forgive me if I'm not touched.

_

t.whid wrote:

> Hiya Curt,
>
> It all comes down to book-burning IMO…
>
> If this was fundamentalist christians/muslims burning Burrows/Rushdie
> we wouldn't have so many self-identified artists on this list
> gleefully
> dancing around the fire. Of course (i'll assume) this was an
> accidental
> fire, but it seems many on this list would have willingly tossed the
> match.
>
> the NYTimes fills us in on what was destroyed, which includes
> paintings
> – gasp! yes – paintings, one-of-a-kind paintings, and even –
> yikes!
> – sculptures.. but who cares? they suck and their old media anyway..
> the artists will just make more, right?
>
> And again I ask myself, why do so many artists seem to hate art?
>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/27/arts/27FIRE.html

> Just because I dare say some art is aesthetically "better"
> than some other art,

It is very brave of you, but it does not make it true.

> Likewise, as an "art" lover, I'm not obliged
> to defend the artistic sanctity of Tracy Emin's work. Not
> simply because her work is "bad," but because of the specific
> way in which it's "bad." It's anti-art that laughs at craft
> and questions the practice of assigning aesthetic value to
> artwork in the first place.

Do you mean it's anti-art _because_ it laughs at craft? Can't art laugh at
craft? Can't art question the practice of assigning aesthetic value? Isn't
that part of the job of art?

Or - whose aesthetic value do we want to assign to artwork? Yours? My dads?
George Bush's?

Ivan

c:
> > Just because I dare say some art is aesthetically "better"
> > than some other art,

i:
>It is very brave of you, but it does not make it true.

c:
obviously. but just because something can't be proved beyond a doubt
doesn't relegate all opinion to the rubish bin (otherwise art would
be science). I'm not looking for unilateral concensus. I'm just
looking for dialogue, thought, and critical engagement.

c:
> > Likewise, as an "art" lover, I'm not obliged
>> to defend the artistic sanctity of Tracy Emin's work. Not
>> simply because her work is "bad," but because of the specific
>> way in which it's "bad." It's anti-art that laughs at craft
>> and questions the practice of assigning aesthetic value to
> > artwork in the first place.

i:
>Do you mean it's anti-art _because_ it laughs at craft? Can't art laugh at
>craft? Can't art question the practice of assigning aesthetic value? Isn't
>that part of the job of art?

c:
all well and good, but when such anti-art suddenly finds iteslf
defending the value of its own object-craftiness, I laugh at it.

i:
>Or - whose aesthetic value do we want to assign to artwork? Yours? My dads?
>George Bush's?

c:
I want to assign my aesthetic value to it. You feel free to assign
yours. Or not. You can even feel free to try and keep me from
assigning my aesthetic value to it (but that's not a very tenable
position). We should probably leave my father and gw out of it.

On Thursday, May 27, 2004, at 03:56PM, Ivan Pope <[email protected]> wrote:

>> Just because I dare say some art is aesthetically "better"
>> than some other art,
>
>It is very brave of you, but it does not make it true.

Nor does pointing that out make it false. Aesthetics is concerned with value. Suspension of aesthetic value judgements is a historical wart of Cultural Studies (CS) expansionism. It is still a value judgement: everything has equal value, and that value is positive (art has the value of being a useful subject excuse for poststructuralist essays). So every artwork becomes a masterpiece (maximum possible value), CSers are happy, and, disturbingly, the market is happy.

>Do you mean it's anti-art _because_ it laughs at craft? Can't art laugh at
>craft? Can't art question the practice of assigning aesthetic value? Isn't
>that part of the job of art?

In much the same way that the job of commerce is to maximise shareholder value. By which I mean that "questioning" is only a virtue to a particular entrenched and self-serving current view of art that has little to do with art itself and provides little value to the people actually doing the work.

>Or - whose aesthetic value do we want to assign to artwork? Yours? My dads?
>George Bush's?

Definitely George's. If you think Saatchi's outhouse burning down isn't funny, George on art would be a riot. "Uhhhhhh. It's a face?"

Seriously, artworks have value, otherwise why are people protesting? Discussing why we believe works have value can be illuminating. Conforming to the position that "all artworks are equally useful for the writing of essays" is not very useful for art, and is not avant-garde, being decades old in any educational institution.

- Rob.

Wow.



On Thu, 27 May 2004, Lee Wells wrote:

> I would have rather loaded a truck at midnight than tossed a match.
>
> There was this student in school that used to diss any other student that
> would paint realistically. Near the end of our studies she admitted to me
> that she wished she had learned to really paint.
>
> Any self-proclaimed artist that says they hate art is a fraud and should =
be
> kicked out of the art world for good and left to rot a hellish life as a
> clerk kissing ass never going anywhere to be fired again and again and ag=
ain
> because they hate their job and their life and would probably kill
> themselves but they don

Rob Myers responded:

> Subject: RE: RHIZOME_RAW: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Burning Down The House
>
> Aesthetics is
> concerned with value. Suspension of aesthetic value
> judgements is a historical wart of Cultural Studies (CS)
> expansionism. It is still a value judgement: everything has
> equal value, and that value is positive.
> So every artwork becomes a masterpiece (maximum possible
> value)… disturbingly, the market is happy.

If you look to the market to assign value, obviously not every artwork
becomes a masterpiece, or prices would not vary so widely (i.e. my work is
worth zilch). But once work is accepted into the system, once it is
available to be judged, then it is and remains _art_. If aesthetics is
concerned with value, then the market is one way of making that judgement.
Other ways include academic or popular methods of assigning value. They are
each as valid as another and as full of contradictions. But you can't have
it both ways - that everything has equal value. Markets don't work like
that. Nor do academic institutions, all are compromised.

> Seriously, artworks have value, otherwise why are people
> protesting? Discussing why we believe works have value can be
> illuminating. Conforming to the position that "all artworks
> are equally useful for the writing of essays" is not very
> useful for art, and is not avant-garde, being decades old in
> any educational institution.

Just questioning the genuflection to aesthetics.

Ivan

sniff, sniff I smell something burning, or is it just pretense…
mixed with the odor of a plant… now what is it?
oh yes…
Poison Envy!


AE04

P.S. The "kill the buddha" phrase is a paradox, not to be taken literally!

On Wednesday, May 26, 2004, at 04:44 America/New_York, Rob Myers wrote:

> Chapmans' "Hell" goes up in flames, Emin's tent sees some hot
> action,etc.:

HA!

>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3748179.stm
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/video/40197000/rm/
> _40197241_saatchi07_barnes_vi.ram
>
> I'm desperately trying to avoid schadenfreude, but I'm not doing very
> well. :-)
>
> Maybe Ruscha can do a painting of this to go with "Los Angeles County
> Museum on Fire"?
>
> It's definitely art…

If people like Saatchi still think software art is not art or even a
good investment, FCUK 'EM!
Let their precious little objects burn in hell.
MWAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

/ l i z a "satan herself" sabater

On Thursday, May 27, 2004, at 05:13 America/New_York, Rob Myers wrote:

>
>> And again I ask myself, why do so many artists seem to hate art?

Because ridicule without wit is so easy. Wit is so 19th century

> This is precisely the kind of art that Saatchi collects, art that
> hates art.

It's a shtick, it's a marketing hook. It's makes it easier for the
publicists to hype.

/ l i z a

On Friday, May 28, 2004, at 03:31PM, liza sabater <[email protected]> wrote:

> …I asked most of the artists there
>and they really did not care if their work survived the next windows
>upgrade or not.

I asked Harold Cohen if he would release any of the old code to AARON. He responded to the effect that he didn't keep old code, he wasn't any more interested in remaking old work than any other artist would be.

This is a guy who has been writing (effectively) the same program for thirty years.

There's a fetishism to wanting to see old work or to see source code, but that's how we learn, and history can be important. Aside from anything else, we can avoid pointlessly repeating the past like so much yBA work. We can also build on the work of others, something that is a more immediate prospect with procedural work (code) than with sketchbooks. Everyone should GPL or CC-SA their work and put it into CVS. Where are the art CVS servers? SourceForge haven't got back to me about hosting my art project…

One thing people generally don't like hearing is that ephemerality is a good play to the market. It makes things more collectible.

- Rob.

> your underlying assumption that everyone "ought to" revere anything
> that presumes to call itself "art," regardless of its aesthetic appeal
> to them personally – that smacks a bit of totalitarianism (or at
> least political correctness) to me.

This reminds me of Leni Riefenstahl. I feel people dismissed her being
a nazi because she got some really hot pics of naked African men. I
still feel like those pics are fundamentally or at least aesthetically
nazi. Weren't her videos and photographs responsible for cementing a
vision of the fascist aesthetic? They've always bothered me.

/ l i z a

c [to tim]:
>>your underlying assumption that everyone "ought to" revere anything
>>that presumes to call itself "art," regardless of its aesthetic
>>appeal to them personally – that smacks a bit of totalitarianism
>>(or at least political correctness) to me.

l:
>This reminds me of Leni Riefenstahl. I feel people dismissed her
>being a nazi because she got some really hot pics of naked African
>men. I still feel like those pics are fundamentally or at least
>aesthetically nazi. Weren't her videos and photographs responsible
>for cementing a vision of the fascist aesthetic? They've always
>bothered me.

c:
that in turn makes me think about collier schorr's staged nazi pics.
what is she trying to come to terms with, reconcile/redeem?
http://www.modernartinc.com/collierschorr/
http://www.pbs.org/art21/artists/schorr/clip1.html

[and now we're way off topic]