I am genuinely anti. I have been termed the "most destructive"
anti-artist by many, including Willem de Ridder, the Hafler Trio. Jon
Wozencroft, The City Council of Reykjavik, Limoges Art Festival,
Genesis P-Orrige, etc. Just light a torch up their asses because they are
old farts who are tring to turn Dada into a nice smiling polite
profiteereing Jewish-Gotha Headless spae-queen of a spectrum which sucks
out the life and soul of its audience.
Spit.
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005, Cheryl McGrath wrote:
> Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 22:39:22 -0600
> From: Cheryl McGrath <csmcgrath@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Reply-To: open discussion <design-l.v2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "art, architecture,design and culture" <design-l.v2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [design] design-l.v2 abstract
>
> Good Museum paper, Lynlee.
> I'm glad you went to the Dallas Museum to see a large variety of art. Your
> reactions are interesting to read, you found a lot of interesting pieces in
> different areas of the museum and in different mediums, great!
> Your description of what could be controversial is good, yes, some of it may
> be disturbing to children.
> I'm puzzled by the statement you made that Buddhis sculpture is violent,
> could you give an example? (I posted that question on the discussion board,
> so if you'd like, you can answer it there). There are a lot of different
> religious artworks represented, yes......culture of the world.
> Your description of Robert Smithson's Tear is very good, and your reaction
> to it is very "deep."
> Excellent work, Lynlee! Your grade is 90 points.Cheryl McGrath
> Art Appreciation
> North Central Texas College
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Young" <jya@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <design-l.v2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2005 10:55 PM
> Subject: Re: [design] design-l.v2 abstract
>
>
> > Art is no longer anti-art for, yes, it has enveloped the anti.
> > Thus genuine anti is nearly impossible to find, and harder
> > to do.
> >
> > High art, that is, the excessively luxurious auction house
> > kind, the high-toned museum intensely-curated kind, the
> > haute culture kind, is never anti except as a subterfuge
> > to entice the anti-art culture into the big house.
> >
> > MoMA, recall, was once anti, and now you see its hulking
> > vulgarities arrayed along West 53rd and 54th Streets with
> > not a protest in sight nor allowed, though a film now and
> > then portrays the acceptable protests in acceptably
> > comfortable theaters with not a smidgen of discomfort
> > to body, mind or senses.
> >
> > Up in the galleries, at MoMA and as elsewhere imitated,
> > the art works are displayed as icons for obsequy of the
> > observers, with not a smidgen of chance of the observer
> > interacting with the holy reliquaries, guards and barriers
> > and sensors fiercely arrayed to enforce a respectful
> > back-off.
> >
> > All the anti-artists on display have been neutered by the
> > museum-grade rigor mortification. Sure, you imagine
> > what some of the more confrontational pieces must
> > have been like when they first breached institutional
> > crepuscularity, but now the actual and imaginary
> > cages into which they have been curatorially inserted
> > and ostentatiously insured against theft, vandalism
> > and devaluation, have rendered the once provocative
> > pieces as inoffensive, gilded kitsch.
> >
> > What this has to do with design-l is that there should
> > be no need to describe this tumult in hackneyed terms
> > of art, architecture, design and culture. That gilded
> > pretense should not be necessary. Instead, consider
> > describing what can be done to escape those ever
> > illusory, ever corrupting, comforts, and not least
> > the undermining falsity of well-mannered protest
> > and disagreement.
> >
> > Did not Howard demonstrate the crippling urge to quote
> > other people, very important people, in lieu of facing the
> > hardship of speaking for yourself, however haltingly
> > and crudely.
> >
> > The verities of art, architecture, design and culture
> > are their most harmful aspects.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > At 01:48 PM 3/29/2005 -0500, you wrote:
> >>John Young wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> It would be a "break-through," heh, to emblazen this list as anti-art,
> >>> -architecture, -design and -culture if no worse and more
> >>> offensive contrari-nomics can be anti-ed up.
> >>
> >>doesn't 'art' imply/include 'anti-art'?
> >>
> >>of the four words, the one i probably like least is 'culture' though
> >>it's not as forbidding as 'civilization'(and its derivatives: civil,
> >>civility, civilized).
> >>
> >>as i type, i'm listening to an analog 1957 tape of 'peter and the wolf'
> >>(prokofiev). now there's a piece of cultural art ...
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>the design-list, version 2.0, online since 1992...
> >>~ open discussion of art, architecture, design and culture ~
> >>http://mail.architexturez.net/mailman/listinfo/design-l.v2
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > the design-list, version 2.0, online since 1992...
> > ~ open discussion of art, architecture, design and culture ~
> > http://mail.architexturez.net/mailman/listinfo/design-l.v2
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> the design-list, version 2.0 ~ open discussion ~
> http://mail.architexturez.net/mailman/listinfo/design-l.v2
>
o
[ + ]
+ + +
| '|' |
_________________________________________
`, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42
anti-artist by many, including Willem de Ridder, the Hafler Trio. Jon
Wozencroft, The City Council of Reykjavik, Limoges Art Festival,
Genesis P-Orrige, etc. Just light a torch up their asses because they are
old farts who are tring to turn Dada into a nice smiling polite
profiteereing Jewish-Gotha Headless spae-queen of a spectrum which sucks
out the life and soul of its audience.
Spit.
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005, Cheryl McGrath wrote:
> Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2005 22:39:22 -0600
> From: Cheryl McGrath <csmcgrath@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Reply-To: open discussion <design-l.v2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: "art, architecture,design and culture" <design-l.v2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Subject: Re: [design] design-l.v2 abstract
>
> Good Museum paper, Lynlee.
> I'm glad you went to the Dallas Museum to see a large variety of art. Your
> reactions are interesting to read, you found a lot of interesting pieces in
> different areas of the museum and in different mediums, great!
> Your description of what could be controversial is good, yes, some of it may
> be disturbing to children.
> I'm puzzled by the statement you made that Buddhis sculpture is violent,
> could you give an example? (I posted that question on the discussion board,
> so if you'd like, you can answer it there). There are a lot of different
> religious artworks represented, yes......culture of the world.
> Your description of Robert Smithson's Tear is very good, and your reaction
> to it is very "deep."
> Excellent work, Lynlee! Your grade is 90 points.Cheryl McGrath
> Art Appreciation
> North Central Texas College
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "John Young" <jya@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <design-l.v2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2005 10:55 PM
> Subject: Re: [design] design-l.v2 abstract
>
>
> > Art is no longer anti-art for, yes, it has enveloped the anti.
> > Thus genuine anti is nearly impossible to find, and harder
> > to do.
> >
> > High art, that is, the excessively luxurious auction house
> > kind, the high-toned museum intensely-curated kind, the
> > haute culture kind, is never anti except as a subterfuge
> > to entice the anti-art culture into the big house.
> >
> > MoMA, recall, was once anti, and now you see its hulking
> > vulgarities arrayed along West 53rd and 54th Streets with
> > not a protest in sight nor allowed, though a film now and
> > then portrays the acceptable protests in acceptably
> > comfortable theaters with not a smidgen of discomfort
> > to body, mind or senses.
> >
> > Up in the galleries, at MoMA and as elsewhere imitated,
> > the art works are displayed as icons for obsequy of the
> > observers, with not a smidgen of chance of the observer
> > interacting with the holy reliquaries, guards and barriers
> > and sensors fiercely arrayed to enforce a respectful
> > back-off.
> >
> > All the anti-artists on display have been neutered by the
> > museum-grade rigor mortification. Sure, you imagine
> > what some of the more confrontational pieces must
> > have been like when they first breached institutional
> > crepuscularity, but now the actual and imaginary
> > cages into which they have been curatorially inserted
> > and ostentatiously insured against theft, vandalism
> > and devaluation, have rendered the once provocative
> > pieces as inoffensive, gilded kitsch.
> >
> > What this has to do with design-l is that there should
> > be no need to describe this tumult in hackneyed terms
> > of art, architecture, design and culture. That gilded
> > pretense should not be necessary. Instead, consider
> > describing what can be done to escape those ever
> > illusory, ever corrupting, comforts, and not least
> > the undermining falsity of well-mannered protest
> > and disagreement.
> >
> > Did not Howard demonstrate the crippling urge to quote
> > other people, very important people, in lieu of facing the
> > hardship of speaking for yourself, however haltingly
> > and crudely.
> >
> > The verities of art, architecture, design and culture
> > are their most harmful aspects.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > At 01:48 PM 3/29/2005 -0500, you wrote:
> >>John Young wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> It would be a "break-through," heh, to emblazen this list as anti-art,
> >>> -architecture, -design and -culture if no worse and more
> >>> offensive contrari-nomics can be anti-ed up.
> >>
> >>doesn't 'art' imply/include 'anti-art'?
> >>
> >>of the four words, the one i probably like least is 'culture' though
> >>it's not as forbidding as 'civilization'(and its derivatives: civil,
> >>civility, civilized).
> >>
> >>as i type, i'm listening to an analog 1957 tape of 'peter and the wolf'
> >>(prokofiev). now there's a piece of cultural art ...
> >>
> >>_______________________________________________
> >>the design-list, version 2.0, online since 1992...
> >>~ open discussion of art, architecture, design and culture ~
> >>http://mail.architexturez.net/mailman/listinfo/design-l.v2
> >>
> > _______________________________________________
> > the design-list, version 2.0, online since 1992...
> > ~ open discussion of art, architecture, design and culture ~
> > http://mail.architexturez.net/mailman/listinfo/design-l.v2
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> the design-list, version 2.0 ~ open discussion ~
> http://mail.architexturez.net/mailman/listinfo/design-l.v2
>
o
[ + ]
+ + +
| '|' |
_________________________________________
`, . ` `k a r e i' ? ' D42