On the idea of meanness, I agree in part.
Of course, there are some on the list who would argue that any list should
not have any focus except whatever any one person on the list feels like
talking about, that the limitation of that is a halt to 'free speech' (as
was mentioned, this was questioned in even existing at all), etc.
But in general, this is about the 3rd or fourth time in the past 2-3 years
when a soapbox battle has erupted that has turned into endless posing and
smack. It isn't interesting to me, and although I don't propose to anyone
what they should want to talk about, this is the reason why I subscribe to
about 10 lists that have different foci and moderation levels.
I have many takes on the 'meanness' issue, but in some way, an ideologue
gets it in their mind that they can actually change someone else or part of
the art world by blabbering on on Rhiz, Thing, Syndicate, or wherever. As
if one can either disrupt or gain power, or something by engaging in this
sort of thing on a list. It's just performance art to me, and not very good
art either. I've written extensively on this, so I won't repeat myself.
The other thing is that the artists who are 'making it' won't engage in the
smack. They're too busy. (Guess that locates me… :) ) Therefore,
anyone wishing to touch the 'A-list' people aren't doing it. Just reminds me
of splashing around in the city pool. A lot of storm and bluster,
signifying nothing. But of course, in the current discussion, this is part
of the point.
I think there's just a lot of bitterness….
meanness
-
Type: discussion
Comments
On Mon, 16 Sep 2002, Patrick Lichty wrote:
And that's really a bunch of nonsense, what you wrote.
Including your re-peated 'hints' that people do what they do because
they don't have enough grants / don't spend enough time 'making art'.
Judgementalism en masse is not being inattentive, it's shooting
your head off. Wasn't it Duchamp who said, the only thing that is not art
is inattention (paraphrase because I don't have the quote here)?
Not that Duchamp saying it makes its value, but the man was quite 'right'.
`, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42
I am not 'relative' to your point of view.
Well, NN and Me were both able to touch the A-list. I have a much different
take on the meanness.
For example, I noticed how Klima's Context Breeder mentions me and Napier,
which was fairly odd to me, just saw it yesterday, plus the drawings, which
are circular like my g2k drawings sometimes are.
This is home, this is mean streets!
Dim
++
>From: "Patrick Lichty" <[email protected]>
>Reply-To: "Patrick Lichty" <[email protected]>
>To: <[email protected]>
>Subject: RHIZOME\_RAW: meanness
>Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2002 08:04:14 -0500
>
>On the idea of meanness, I agree in part.
>Of course, there are some on the list who would argue that any list should
>not have any focus except whatever any one person on the list feels like
>talking about, that the limitation of that is a halt to 'free speech' (as
>was mentioned, this was questioned in even existing at all), etc.
>
>But in general, this is about the 3rd or fourth time in the past 2-3 years
>when a soapbox battle has erupted that has turned into endless posing and
>smack. It isn't interesting to me, and although I don't propose to anyone
>what they should want to talk about, this is the reason why I subscribe to
>about 10 lists that have different foci and moderation levels.
>
>I have many takes on the 'meanness' issue, but in some way, an ideologue
>gets it in their mind that they can actually change someone else or part of
>the art world by blabbering on on Rhiz, Thing, Syndicate, or wherever. As
>if one can either disrupt or gain power, or something by engaging in this
>sort of thing on a list. It's just performance art to me, and not very
>good
>art either. I've written extensively on this, so I won't repeat myself.
>
>The other thing is that the artists who are 'making it' won't engage in the
>smack. They're too busy. (Guess that locates me… :) ) Therefore,
>anyone wishing to touch the 'A-list' people aren't doing it. Just reminds
>me
>of splashing around in the city pool. A lot of storm and bluster,
>signifying nothing. But of course, in the current discussion, this is part
>of the point.
>
>I think there's just a lot of bitterness….
>
>
>+ If the reader will keep me company I shall be glad.
>-> 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
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
Join the world's largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail.
http://www.hotmail.com
Then of course, some of us just want to be "mean" or like my mamma used to
say "you was juz born mean"
:)
–
Joseph Franklyn McElroy
Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist]
To resist another's point of view is to be inattentive.
e
—– Original Message —–
From: "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <[email protected]>
To: "Patrick Lichty" <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, September 16, 2002 10:55 AM
Subject: Re: RHIZOME_RAW: meanness
> On Mon, 16 Sep 2002, Patrick Lichty wrote:
>
> And that's really a bunch of nonsense, what you wrote.
> Including your re-peated 'hints' that people do what they do because
> they don't have enough grants / don't spend enough time 'making art'.
>
> Judgementalism en masse is not being inattentive, it's shooting
> your head off. Wasn't it Duchamp who said, the only thing that is not art
> is inattention (paraphrase because I don't have the quote here)?
> Not that Duchamp saying it makes its value, but the man was quite 'right'.
>
> `, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42
> I am not 'relative' to your point of view.
>
>
> + If the reader will keep me company I shall be glad.
> -> 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
On Mon, 16 Sep 2002, Matthew Bradwell wrote:
> To resist another's point of view is to be inattentive.
No, it isn't, dear. Learn the difference between
paying attention and swallowing schlock.