RoR: Forum

lol!

I was so confused. Then I got to the end of your description. Beautiful.

Sarah

Post 1

Monday, June 20, 2005 - 9:58pm

pssssssssssssssssssssssst jeremie,

Pascal says that I may come out of my room. Can we talk?

Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhharon

Post 2

Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 12:02am

Don't forget about Ruby!

Post 3

Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 6:52am

Hello Jeff,

You have just put the meaning of life and everything else, into a grain of sand; the complete distillation of everything you know and understand. I'm awestruck! That "little" presentation that little "gift" you tossed out so nonchalantly has a lifetime of study in it. Thank you for it. I enjoyed the experience.

I

Back to Ruby and Congo. Are you speaking cruelly of them? They are not the artists; they are like the vulgar rich kid's version of SPIROGRAPH. The human value in their "work" has been relegated to the triumvirate of School cafeteria worker dolloping out the paint, Janitor cleaning up afterward, and the most significant agent of this April fools joke, THE ART DEALER.

ART is about humanity, about intent, about emotion, about skill. Ruby's friend, Jackson is a human; and therefore his work IS ART. The real question is: what is it's value? How does one determine the value of the work of a particular human's mind? How does one determine the value of "any" human's work? At the moment; it seems to be based on the resume. So, before we scorn Jackson; let's drag his resume out into the light if reason; and see if he's got anything  in the space between his ears. Does he have anything worth listening to?

I think he does; his resume proves it. But, perhaps he's a has-been, and now he has nothing to say. Well, that for me is the authentic question? Maybe he has Altzheimer's syndrome OR maybe he knows something so sublime and perfect and there are no words for it. I don't have an answer; but others have had plenty to say about it.

The beholder is a significant factor in the equation. We don't let babies make decisions at the NYSE; but the artistically ignorant, running off at the mouth, think they should have just as valid a claim on the value of Pollock and his colleagues. Whether someone likes a piece of art, is quite insignificant. Whether someone can appreciate the work, seriously and thoughtfully is the issue. Some people are not ashamed of their pompous ignorance; they wear it like a badge of honour.

The error is in the improper use of good and bad. The work cannot hold those attributes. The artist's intent and subsequent act only, can hold those morals. All art "speaks" to me; but I don't understand every aesthetic language; and often the message isn't worth the value of my effort to understand. That's when I keep my mouth shut.

When art speaks to me with a compelling voice, and my bank manager agrees; I get out my cheque book. As for my own work? Well, one day when I'm feeling gutsy I'll rent a virtual gallery and invite you in to the other recesses of my mind.              Blessed are the cracked; for they shall let in the light.

The purpose of art is to comfort the afflicted, and to afflict the comfortable.         Can a single piece do both?

Thanks Jeff, I feel much better now. I wonder where Nathan's fish bowl is?        sssssssssighhhhhhhhhhhh
Sharon

If my former unedited version unintentionally evoked some malcontent. I regret that. I hope I have made amends.
    Robert Band......... I heard you, in another post.                     Thanks    Sh.
(Edited by Sharon Romagnoli Macdonald on 6/21, 10:35am)

Post 4

Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 10:51am

Hey Jeff--

Is that a minipin you're holding in your photo?

Once in a great while I've seen a splooshy abstract that I thought would fill up a wall nicely. But usually, all it looks like to me is that someone acked up a bunch of jelly beans. Pollock gets a few extra points for supersizing, and pure thickness.

Post 5

Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 11:26am

Minipin? It is Liberty Dog, the greatest puppy on Earth, performer many amazing feats, eater of many mundane things. She is half Lab and half Border Collie.

The purpose of art is to comfort the afflicted, and to afflict the comfortable.

I think that that statement, while witty, is a little silly. It's one thing to say that art should speak to you, but I think that's a little incomplete. To say that art should speak to a person by contretizing an abstract, would make a lot more sense, because merely speaking is too general. If you want something to speak to you, get a tape player and a book on tape. I wonder if they sell "The Romantic Manifesto" on tape? =)

Post 6

Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 12:41pm

Jeff,

The purpose of art is to be a      "Concretizing an abstract"

.        I agree; but isn't the use of difficult language one of the barriers to communication? "If it's worths doing it's worth doing poorly." If people wait to do a thing until they are convinced that its execution will be perfect and beyond criticism, a lot of joy in the process is taken away by one's internal critic. In some, that critic is so great; they wouldn't even try to make their own kite for fear it wouldn't fly. That quote above is from Bill Purkey who becries the lack of amateur music; because people think that they can carry a tune only in wheelbarrow. Singing around the piano is almost a thing of the past.

If Horowitz hadn't made all those squeaky sounds for his first violin teacher, I wouldn't be able to soar with the "vocalise".

I am guilty of being trite and simple-minded. I've spent my whole adult life interpreting the world; so that four-year-olds could begin to understand something of life's mysteries. Life by the yard is very hard                                               But still, I am able to enjoy some small joy.
                                        But life by the inch......... is......easy.

Concretizing Abstract   is something that I'll try on for size. Thanks for the reading/listening guide. I can listen while I'm cooking some potatoes.

Thank you also for letting me have this chance to impose my thoughts on others. We all have needs.

sharon

Post 7

Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 1:21pm

Just a note to say I haven't missed the irony of a chimp being posted alongside Bouguereau as exemplars of art... accidental or not.

Semantic chiaroscuro? LOL!

Post 8

Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 1:31pm

We have a good and a bad, now all we need is an ugly.

Post 9

Tuesday, June 21, 2005 - 4:52pm

The worst part is I think this actually far better than a lot of human abstract work.

You'd think something like this would be more damaging to the movement as a whole.

---Landon

Post 10

Thursday, June 23, 2005 - 8:25pm