David Crosby, a necessary evil

On Tuesday, November 19, 2002, at 07:51 PM, Curt Cloninger wrote:

> Actually, I'm not sure if art and philosopy are that akin. So for t.
> to say, "why can't art be boring and tough to crack? philosopy is
> boring and tough to crack, yet people wade through it," I already have
> a problem with that analogy.

hey now, don't be putting yer words in my mouth (with quotes no less).
i never typed that or said that. my point was that sometimes it's hard
to crack a work because what's being expressed needs to be said in a
way that maybe isn't easy for everyone; or expresses new ideas that are
hard to articulate without new definitions. (note: i'm not talking
about MTAA's work which is very simple to understand and doesn't need
new definitions for anything and which many times relies on
entertainment and silliness to actually poke holes in what (when i talk
to curt) i wind up defending ie conceptual art is my dog and i'll kick
it around if i want; you keep your hands to yourself)

my problem with curt's crit of art is simple. it's based only on his
personal taste. 'is it good'… compared to what? David (the
neo-classical painter)?, David (the florentine statue)? David Crosby?
Davey and Goliath (the cheesy 70s religious 3d animated TV show)? David
Bowie? David Letterman? David Lynch? Davie Jones?

oh wait–we just KNOW when it's GOOD. it will 'speak' to us. our
environment and culture will have nothing to do with how we react to
cultural object 'n' which we find before us. is that it? i know you
know it doesn't work that way.

> Because a philosophical essay is an attempted mind transfer. But if
> that's all art is, then I think the art is already failing.
>
> As far as all the "dumbed down" accusations, Michelangelo's David is
> pretty popular and has been for a while, but I don't think you can
> accurately call it dumbed down. Accessible and dumb aren't
> necessarily the same, any more than inaccessable and smart are the
> same.

++
there is no accounting for the classics. and i wouldn't argue that
accessible and dumb are equivalent. beauty isn't the only goal of the
contemporary artist.
++

>> On Tue, 19 Nov 2002, Michael Szpakowski wrote:
>>
>> > <… should make their texts as easy to read as
>> > possible without sacrificing the meaning they are
>> > trying to convey…>
>> > excellent! -it should be a kind of hippocratic oath
>> > for artists , philosophers and politicians.
>> > ..and how easy to encapsulate thusly and how difficult
>> > to do!
>> > Michael