further question on the "rublinda" correspondance

I'm interested to know what people make then, of this
piece by Ivan Pope.
I'll lay my cards on the table -I think it's good, but
it seems to me a lot of the "linda/flowers" discussion
applies here. Does it? Is it different? How? What do
folk think?
http://www.ivanpope.com/fragile/index.html
best
michael

=====
*DISCLAIMER:This email any advice it contains is for the use is that of the sender and does not bind the precautions to minimise authority in any way. If you copy or distribute this by software viruses email. We have taken the risk of transmitting software viruses, but we advise that you carry out your own virus attachment to this message. Internet email that you observe this lack is not a secure communication medium, and we advise of security when emailing us. District Postmaster. http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/ *

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
http://tax.yahoo.com

Comments

, joseph mcelroy

Couldn't really get it, seems to be broken up.

joseph & donna
www.electrichands.com
joseph franklyn mcelroy
corporate performance artist www.corporatepa.com

go shopping -> http://www.electrichands.com/shopindex.htm
call me 646 279 2309

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER CUPCAKEKALEIDOSCOPE - send email to
[email protected]





Quoting Michael Szpakowski <[email protected]>:

> I'm interested to know what people make then, of this
> piece by Ivan Pope.
> I'll lay my cards on the table -I think it's good, but
> it seems to me a lot of the "linda/flowers" discussion
> applies here. Does it? Is it different? How? What do
> folk think?
> http://www.ivanpope.com/fragile/index.html
> best
> michael
>
> =====
> *DISCLAIMER:This email any advice it contains is for the use is that of the
> sender and does not bind the precautions to minimise authority in any way. If
> you copy or distribute this by software viruses email. We have taken the risk
> of transmitting software viruses, but we advise that you carry out your own
> virus attachment to this message. Internet email that you observe this lack
> is not a secure communication medium, and we advise of security when
> emailing us. District Postmaster. http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/ *
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
> http://tax.yahoo.com
> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php

, marc garrett

HI Joseph,

That's the whole point - it is supposed to broken in various places…

marc


> Couldn't really get it, seems to be broken up.
>
> joseph & donna
> www.electrichands.com
> joseph franklyn mcelroy
> corporate performance artist www.corporatepa.com
>
> go shopping -> http://www.electrichands.com/shopindex.htm
> call me 646 279 2309
>
> SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER CUPCAKEKALEIDOSCOPE - send email to
> [email protected]
>
>
>
>
>
> Quoting Michael Szpakowski <[email protected]>:
>
> > I'm interested to know what people make then, of this
> > piece by Ivan Pope.
> > I'll lay my cards on the table -I think it's good, but
> > it seems to me a lot of the "linda/flowers" discussion
> > applies here. Does it? Is it different? How? What do
> > folk think?
> > http://www.ivanpope.com/fragile/index.html
> > best
> > michael
> >
> > =====
> > *DISCLAIMER:This email any advice it contains is for the use is that of
the
> > sender and does not bind the precautions to minimise authority in any
way. If
> > you copy or distribute this by software viruses email. We have taken the
risk
> > of transmitting software viruses, but we advise that you carry out your
own
> > virus attachment to this message. Internet email that you observe this
lack
> > is not a secure communication medium, and we advise of security when
> > emailing us. District Postmaster.
http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/ *
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
> > http://tax.yahoo.com
> > + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> > -> post: [email protected]
> > -> questions: [email protected]
> > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> > +
> > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>

, ruth catlow

Hi Michael,
I think it is different. Fragile does not use images of wounded and maimed civilians as a vehicle for sensational effect and ambiguous purpose. The images are very abstracted, we cannot see their faces, this preserves their anonymity. In the process of understanding the work I experience something about some slow and complex questions of representation rather than the quick effects of sensationalism. The pace of the image allows for reflection rather than activating a reflex which closes down thought.
cheers
ruth

Michael Szpakowski wrote:

> I'm interested to know what people make then, of this
> piece by Ivan Pope.
> I'll lay my cards on the table -I think it's good, but
> it seems to me a lot of the "linda/flowers" discussion
> applies here. Does it? Is it different? How? What do
> folk think?
> http://www.ivanpope.com/fragile/index.html
> best
> michael
>
> =====
> *DISCLAIMER:This email any advice it contains is for the use is that of the sender and does not bind the precautions to minimise authority in any way. If you copy or distribute this by software viruses email. We have taken the risk of transmitting software viruses, but we advise that you carry out your own virus attachment to this message. Internet email that you observe this lack is not a secure communication medium, and we advise of security when emailing us. District Postmaster. http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/ *
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
> http://tax.yahoo.com
> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php

, Ivan Pope

> I'm interested to know what people make then, of this
> piece by Ivan Pope.
> I'll lay my cards on the table -I think it's good, but
> it seems to me a lot of the "linda/flowers" discussion
> applies here. Does it? Is it different? How? What do
> folk think?
> http://www.ivanpope.com/fragile/index.html

Well, I sort of missed the RubLinda discussion and have only just looked at
the piece following this post. Generally I tend to avoid discussions on
ethics in art, cos I'm an existentialist anarchist at heart. I have no
problems with the Rub Linda piece personally, quite liked it.
I guess the supposed connection is to do with my use of images of people.
My piece is an attempt to make some connections between the structural
falliability of the networks and the structural falliability of our law
based democracy.
I don't like to make things obvious or easy or to really know what I'm on
about, so there may be more or less to it than that.
I certainly didn't want to make a point about 'those poor people locked up
in Guantanamo Bay'.
Yes, I used images of real people as part of a piece of art.
I stole the original image and repurposed it.
I thought the piece might draw some parallels between the process of
'disappearing' people as practised by various governments around the world.
As Joseph said 'Couldn't really get it, seems to be broken up.'
The parts of the image reside on various crappy free servers around the
world. I have no idea where they are. Sometimes they just break.
I like to make work that is so laconic, so half arsed that it just falls off
the table.
But, it is always serious.
I have worked with Lockerbie crash documentation and use a lot of images of
serial killers and killers of other types. Check my site. Did I do something
wrong? There are dead people all around, I can't avoid them.
I never made a lampshade out of a dead person's skin, but I ask this
question: If I make a lampshade out of the skin of a person who died in
nursing home, is that different to making a lampshade out of the skin of a
person who was tortured and killed by a third party?
'Full fathom five thy father lies
Of his bones are coral made
These are pearls that were his eyes.
Nothing of him that does fade,
but does suffer a sea change
Into something rich and strange.
Sea nymphs hourly ring his knell,
Hark, now I hear them, ding, dong, bell.'

Cheers,
Ivan

, marc garrett

Hi Ivan & Michael,

mmm - I believe that it is probably part of my own make up that I respect
people even they are dead. Especially the oppressed ones…for they have
fallen into the quagmire of (bourgeois) art product-making.

Easy pickings for those who wish to use their x-identities for a flag or
(suppozed) meaningful action.

I'm beginning to think that many on this list do not agree with my
misgivings of using the dead for art. Fair enough…

But if we do not question our own actions when making art, whether it be for
a cause or not, who is?

I'm not going to say much more about this subject matter now for I find it
hard to be objective about it & could get all angst ridden.

Do what thou will…………………

marc




>
> > I'm interested to know what people make then, of this
> > piece by Ivan Pope.
> > I'll lay my cards on the table -I think it's good, but
> > it seems to me a lot of the "linda/flowers" discussion
> > applies here. Does it? Is it different? How? What do
> > folk think?
> > http://www.ivanpope.com/fragile/index.html
>
> Well, I sort of missed the RubLinda discussion and have only just looked
at
> the piece following this post. Generally I tend to avoid discussions on
> ethics in art, cos I'm an existentialist anarchist at heart. I have no
> problems with the Rub Linda piece personally, quite liked it.
> I guess the supposed connection is to do with my use of images of people.
> My piece is an attempt to make some connections between the structural
> falliability of the networks and the structural falliability of our law
> based democracy.
> I don't like to make things obvious or easy or to really know what I'm on
> about, so there may be more or less to it than that.
> I certainly didn't want to make a point about 'those poor people locked up
> in Guantanamo Bay'.
> Yes, I used images of real people as part of a piece of art.
> I stole the original image and repurposed it.
> I thought the piece might draw some parallels between the process of
> 'disappearing' people as practised by various governments around the
world.
> As Joseph said 'Couldn't really get it, seems to be broken up.'
> The parts of the image reside on various crappy free servers around the
> world. I have no idea where they are. Sometimes they just break.
> I like to make work that is so laconic, so half arsed that it just falls
off
> the table.
> But, it is always serious.
> I have worked with Lockerbie crash documentation and use a lot of images
of
> serial killers and killers of other types. Check my site. Did I do
something
> wrong? There are dead people all around, I can't avoid them.
> I never made a lampshade out of a dead person's skin, but I ask this
> question: If I make a lampshade out of the skin of a person who died in
> nursing home, is that different to making a lampshade out of the skin of a
> person who was tortured and killed by a third party?
> 'Full fathom five thy father lies
> Of his bones are coral made
> These are pearls that were his eyes.
> Nothing of him that does fade,
> but does suffer a sea change
> Into something rich and strange.
> Sea nymphs hourly ring his knell,
> Hark, now I hear them, ding, dong, bell.'
>
> Cheers,
> Ivan
>
> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>
>

, MTAA

>Hi Ivan & Michael,

>
>But if we do not question our own actions when making art, whether it be for
>a cause or not, who is?
>


everybody else?

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

, Ivan Pope

> mmm - I believe that it is probably part of my own make up that I respect
> people even they are dead. Especially the oppressed ones…for they have
> fallen into the quagmire of (bourgeois) art product-making.
>
> Easy pickings for those who wish to use their x-identities for a flag or
> (suppozed) meaningful action.
>
> I'm beginning to think that many on this list do not agree with my
> misgivings of using the dead for art. Fair enough…
>
> But if we do not question our own actions when making art, whether it be
for
> a cause or not, who is?
> > Yes, I used images of real people as part of a piece of art.

> > I have worked with Lockerbie crash documentation and use a lot of images
> of
> > serial killers and killers of other types.
>>There are dead people all around, I can't avoid them.
> > I never made a lampshade out of a dead person's skin, but I ask this
> > question: If I make a lampshade out of the skin of a person who died in
> > nursing home, is that different to making a lampshade out of the skin of
a
> > person who was tortured and killed by a third party?

Marc,
Don't get all angsty. I also respect the dead. I always question my actions.
Did I say anything to the contrary?
Cheers,
Ivan

, marc garrett

Hi Ivan,

Did I say anything to the contrary?

No - not really, I think that I need to stear away from the subject matter
though…it ain't doing my cranium much good..especially after recent events
in Iraq. (Berlin Wall huh!)

marc


>
> > mmm - I believe that it is probably part of my own make up that I
respect
> > people even they are dead. Especially the oppressed ones…for they have
> > fallen into the quagmire of (bourgeois) art product-making.
> >
> > Easy pickings for those who wish to use their x-identities for a flag or
> > (suppozed) meaningful action.
> >
> > I'm beginning to think that many on this list do not agree with my
> > misgivings of using the dead for art. Fair enough…
> >
> > But if we do not question our own actions when making art, whether it be
> for
> > a cause or not, who is?
> > > Yes, I used images of real people as part of a piece of art.
>
> > > I have worked with Lockerbie crash documentation and use a lot of
images
> > of
> > > serial killers and killers of other types.
> >>There are dead people all around, I can't avoid them.
> > > I never made a lampshade out of a dead person's skin, but I ask this
> > > question: If I make a lampshade out of the skin of a person who died
in
> > > nursing home, is that different to making a lampshade out of the skin
of
> a
> > > person who was tortured and killed by a third party?
>
> Marc,
> Don't get all angsty. I also respect the dead. I always question my
actions.
> Did I say anything to the contrary?
> Cheers,
> Ivan
>
>

, Eryk Salvaggio

—– Original Message —–
From: "Ivan Pope" <[email protected]>
>
> Well, I sort of missed the RubLinda discussion and have only just looked
at
> the piece following this post. Generally I tend to avoid discussions on
> ethics in art, cos I'm an existentialist anarchist at heart.

The problem with anarchy is most anarchists don't admit that anarchy is an
ethical structure- and that the glue that binds a society together under
anarchist principles is either Darwinian Self-Interest [in which case
anarchy simply becomes despotism, which annhilates anarchy as soon as
someone steals from you, forces you to do something, etc] or Personal
Responsibility- which ends up being completely impossible because human
beings will resist the word "responsibility" in conjunction w/ thier own
actions to thier dying day.


I have no
> problems with the Rub Linda piece personally, quite liked it.
> I guess the supposed connection is to do with my use of images of people.
> My piece is an attempt to make some connections between the structural
> falliability of the networks and the structural falliability of our law
> based democracy.

That said, I agree with Ruth Catlow, your piece does not possess the cheap
and all encompassing exploitation that "rub" did.


> I certainly didn't want to make a point about 'those poor people locked up
> in Guantanamo Bay'.

If you had, your work would have failed ethically because it didn't
accomplish that. It did make the connection that you claim to have wanted
here- and therefore the piece works within the structure that you set up for
it, anarchist or not. :)

> I never made a lampshade out of a dead person's skin, but I ask this
> question: If I make a lampshade out of the skin of a person who died in
> nursing home, is that different to making a lampshade out of the skin of a
> person who was tortured and killed by a third party?

Depends. In the case of political-oriented murder there's a higher degree of
responsibility w/in people who are "against" that political system to avoid
using the tactics of such a system in the course of fighting it. Not for any
moral reason, but simply because being "against something" comes with the
assumption that you do not want it replaced under a different name. [Unless
you are not "against war" but rather "want war somewhere else or about
somthing else"] A nursing home patient is a hypothetical and surely you can
support details that would make it an appalling display and you could also
find details that simply make it an odd behavior and yes, even art. Depends
on what structure you are working with when you make it.


-e.

, Eryk Salvaggio

Seems more like a small minority. For the most part all people ever say
about art is "yeah that's cool dude." If anyone ever does question the
artists responsibility there is usually violent opposition to the idea that
artists have any responsibilities, even if that responsibility is simply to
"stay true to one self as an artist." Ie, to actually accomplish what you
set out to do, particularly in political statements. There is a
responsibility to make more than simple angst expressions, of course the
consequences for not doing this range from merely creating utterly
disposable art all the way up to making effective propaganda "for" the party
you want to be "against."

-e.


—– Original Message —–
From: "t.whid" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2003 9:53 AM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: further question on the "rublinda" correspondance


> >Hi Ivan & Michael,
>
> >
> >But if we do not question our own actions when making art, whether it be
for
> >a cause or not, who is?
> >
>
>
> everybody else?
> –
> <twhid>
> http://www.mteww.com
> </twhid>
> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> -> post: [email protected]
> -> questions: [email protected]
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>

, curt cloninger

this piece seems somehow pertinent:
http://www.WatchMeDance.com/war/

i realize it's merely a remix of his earlier work:
http://www.watchmedance.com/episode7/episode7qt.mov

and not as provocative/gender-ambivalent as his mid-era work:
http://www.watchmedance.com/episode14/episode14qt.mov

still, i think it raises some important issues.

curt


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

> >Hi Ivan & Michael,
>
> >
> >But if we do not question our own actions when making art, whether it
> be for
> >a cause or not, who is?
> >
>
>
> everybody else?
> –
> <twhid>
> http://www.mteww.com
> </twhid>

, D42 Kandinskij

Or is everybodi fit to be an artist?

When the very adorable fluxus artists
complimented the audience as their artwork
+ offered them liberation from the
institutionalized prisons of museums
which are constructs of their delusions

the very unadorable audience respondi:

"we should build our own 'world'"

thusly demonstrating their inner lack
+ ability to accept compliment
+ status of absolutely undesirable
princesses
+ flippantly + idolatrously destroying
their "fathers"

+ demanding a double-secure imprisonment
both in their own perversion + that of museum

01 spartacus spoke: je suis ici to liberate vous
from the imprisonment of
the museum-stone grave of
blind physical manifestation

the ignorant audiensz responded: nei! we are going to change
the unchangeable
destroy + revolt

+hensz spartacus was killed

01 jesus spoke: have come to liberate toi

+ the ignorant audiensz perverted his words into religion

+hensz jesus was crucified

"freedom is impoooooooooooooossible"

bleat the ignorant + masochistic masses screaming

(breaking the laws is ultra "fashionable"
since 6576 AD)

+ bashing down those who try to act apropos
the laws of consciousness

the "responsibility" of the artist is to face itself
in all its cowardice + filth + its contribution to
world misery

only then + then, when he truly sees + faces himself
as he is_ can he begin la creacion of that which is
capable of genuine good

-IID42 Kandinskij @27+
[email protected]


http://www.fastmail.fm - The professional email service

, D42 Kandinskij

On Thu, 10 Apr 2003 12:41:06 -0400, "curt cloninger" <[email protected]>
said:

> still, i think it raises some important issues.

du think

+ continue to think that you think

+ lies, lies, lies

however, you're not thinking

tra le la

who holds your hand when you type

likely a fly

voila: 21c humanity

ridden by dustbunnies + vermin

-IID42 Kandinskij @27+
[email protected]


http://www.fastmail.fm - mmm… fastmail

, Michael Szpakowski

Hmmm -I agree it's an altogether slower burning and
more complex piece of work than Josephs' which are
essentially very effective bits of agitprop, and I do
like Ivan's work a lot, but I can't see that the
substance is different - Ivan is using images of
people who have been detained by the US government
without any recourse to any sort of law, subjected to
humiliating and degrading treatment and what one could
call either pressure or torture.
Actually, despite Ivan's protestations, one of the
ways that the piece works for me is that it reminds of
the *fragility* of those human beings, those lives, in
the face of the might if the US state, and therefore
it does read to me to some extent like a "protest
piece" (and I'm glad Ivan has the confidence in his
work not to tell us what we should be thinking in
advance -this seems to me to be an admirable quality.)
I'm not being remotely disingenuous here when I say
I'm genuinely interested in what people think; after
the initial spat I think it's been a valuable
discussion and I entirely endorse Eryk's point that we
should think about and discuss critically the work we
see more.
(I would prefer however that we were as civil as
possible to our fellow artists outside of the polemic
itself.)
best
michael

— ruth catlow <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hi Michael,
> I think it is different. Fragile does not use images
> of wounded and maimed civilians as a vehicle for
> sensational effect and ambiguous purpose. The images
> are very abstracted, we cannot see their faces, this
> preserves their anonymity. In the process of
> understanding the work I experience something about
> some slow and complex questions of representation
> rather than the quick effects of sensationalism. The
> pace of the image allows for reflection rather than
> activating a reflex which closes down thought.
> cheers
> ruth
>
> Michael Szpakowski wrote:
>
> > I'm interested to know what people make then, of
> this
> > piece by Ivan Pope.
> > I'll lay my cards on the table -I think it's good,
> but
> > it seems to me a lot of the "linda/flowers"
> discussion
> > applies here. Does it? Is it different? How? What
> do
> > folk think?
> > http://www.ivanpope.com/fragile/index.html
> > best
> > michael
> >
> > =====
> > *DISCLAIMER:This email any advice it contains is
> for the use is that of the sender and does not bind
> the precautions to minimise authority in any way. If
> you copy or distribute this by software viruses
> email. We have taken the risk of transmitting
> software viruses, but we advise that you carry out
> your own virus attachment to this message. Internet
> email that you observe this lack is not a secure
> communication medium, and we advise of security when
> emailing us. District Postmaster.
> http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/ *
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators,
> forms, and more
> > http://tax.yahoo.com
> > + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> > -> post: [email protected]
> > -> questions: [email protected]
> > -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> > +
> > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms
> set out in the
> > Membership Agreement available online at
> http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
>


=====
*DISCLAIMER:This email any advice it contains is for the use is that of the sender and does not bind the precautions to minimise authority in any way. If you copy or distribute this by software viruses email. We have taken the risk of transmitting software viruses, but we advise that you carry out your own virus attachment to this message. Internet email that you observe this lack is not a secure communication medium, and we advise of security when emailing us. District Postmaster. http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/ *

__________________________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
http://tax.yahoo.com

, Ivan Pope

—– Original Message —–
From: "Michael Szpakowski" <[email protected]>

> I can't see that the
> substance [of Ivan's work, Fragile] is different - Ivan is using images of
> people who have been detained by the US government
> without any recourse to any sort of law, subjected to
> humiliating and degrading treatment and what one could
> call either pressure or torture.

I'm interested in how images work, how we use them and how we can use them.
I don't quite understand how images that we assume to be of dead and
injured people, and that we assume to be of people killed very recently
(though Joseph may well have pulled images from some historic massacre for
all we really know, or even be using images of his friends and family play
acting dead) are the same in substance as images of shrouded and manacled
people that we can easily recognise as being of a specific time, place and
action (though of course these could also be my friends acting out the
scene, how would we know?).
In what way is the substance the same?
1. Images of people used without their knowledge or permission.
2. Said images used by western 'artists' in the furtherance of their own
agendas.
3. These images are all of people who are not from the western world.
These are undeniable, but don't get us very far.
4. It is abusive to use images of powerless people in this way.
5. It furthers the agenda of the dominating west to use these images in this
way.
6. It's bad art or at least bad practice to use images in this way.
These are moot. They may be starting points for criticism, but they are more
to do with politics or ethical standpoints than to do with art.
There are probably more ways in which use of these images make the substance
of the pieces the same, but I can't go that far.
In essense I'm trying to point out that it doesn't make good art criticism
to bring ethical or political points to bear, even though it may make us
feel better.

> Actually, despite Ivan's protestations, one of the
> ways that the piece works for me is that it reminds of
> the *fragility* of those human beings, those lives, in
> the face of the might if the US state, and therefore
> it does read to me to some extent like a "protest
> piece"

Well, it is called Fragile for a bunch of reasons. I try to make work that
has a bunch of layers, and hopefully some that I haven't gone into. I was
aware of the fragility of the people in the image, in fact that was almost
certainly what started the piece and what sparked its title. As for being a
protest piece, I would like to think all my work is protest work. In fact,
one thing that I spend a lot of time pondering is where the sensible line is
between overt protest and art. I mean, I would hate to make a direct
political point in the same way as I would hate to make a simply pretty
image. But I try to subsume the protest in the work, to make it fight for
air. And what am I protesting about? The fact that we have to live, that we
live in an unfair world, that we are hypocritical about it, that there is no
sense to it, that we all have to die yet we fight death. I believe that the
personal is political but I also believe in a load of existentialist stuff,
because it eases my thinking.

> I'm not being remotely disingenuous here when I say
> I'm genuinely interested in what people think; after
> the initial spat I think it's been a valuable
> discussion and I entirely endorse Eryk's point that we
> should think about and discuss critically the work we
> see more.

I enjoy the robust discourse and I try to be civil at all times while being
robust in my argument :-)
Cheers,
Ivan

, Eryk Salvaggio

—– Original Message —–
From: "Ivan Pope" <[email protected]>
> In essense I'm trying to point out that it doesn't make good art criticism
> to bring ethical or political points to bear, even though it may make us
> feel better.

Actual ethical considerations only challenge people and never really make
them feel better unless they rise to thier own self defined challenge.
Political points are a different story.