From: Valence (valence10@hotmail.com)
Date: Sat Mar 29 2003 - 18:10:38 GMT
Hey Erin,
Thanks for the great quote. I read Timequake when it came out and (contrary
to the critics) I thought it was great. I'm going to spend the rest of the
weekend thinking about Kurt's social theory of art and making up my mind as
to I think whether the MoQ agrees or not.
take care
rick
----- Original Message -----
From: "Erin N." <enoonan@kent.edu>
To: <moq_discuss@moq.org>
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2003 3:16 PM
Subject: MD Intellectual Art (Ayn Rand)
> Here is a chapter from
> Kurt Vonnegut "Timequake"
>
>
> Question: What is the white stuff in bird poop?
> Answer: That is bird poop, too.
>
> (black and white blobblish picture with question art or not?)
>
> My big brother Bernie, who can't draw for sour apples, and who athis most
> objectionable used to say he didn't like paintings because they didn't do
> anything, just hung there year after year, has this summer become an
artist!
> I shit you not! This PhD physica
> Chemist from MIT is now the poor man's Jackson Pollock! He sqoozles glurp
of
> various colors and consistencies between two flat sheets of impermeable
> materials, such as windowpanes or bathroom tiles. He pulls them apart, et
> voila! (snip) .... The message he sent me along with the Xeroxes though
wasn't
> about unexpected happiness. It was an unreconstructed technocrat's
challenge
> to the artsy-fartsy of which I was a prime exemplar "is this art or not?"
he
> asked. (snip)... He would not sign his pictures, he said or admit
publicly
> that he made them, or describe how they were made. He plainly expected up
> critics to sweat bullets and excrete sizable chunks of masonry when
trying to
> answer his cunningly innocent question "Art or not?".
> I was pleased to reply with an epistle which was frankly vengeful since
> He and father had screwed me out of a liberal arts college education:
> "Dear Brother: This is almost like telling you about the birds and the
bees,"
> I began. "There are many good people who are beneficially stimulated by
some
> but on
> All manmade arrangements of colors and shapes on flat surfaces,
essentially
> nonsense.
> "You yourself are gratified by some music, arrangements of noises, and
again
> essentially nonsense. If I were to kick a bucket down the cellar stairs,
and
> then say to you that the racket I had made was philosophically on a par
with
> The Magic Flute, this would
> be not be the beginning of a long and upsetting debate. An utterly
satifactory
> and complete response on your part would be, "I like what Mozart did, and
I
> hate what the bucket did."
> "Contemplating a purported work of art is a social activity. Either you
have
> a rewarding time, or you don't. You don't have to say why afterward. You
> don't have to say anything.
> "You are a justly revered experimetnalist, dear Brother. If you
> really want to know whether your pictures are, as you say, 'art or not'
you
> must display them in a public place somewhere, and see if strangers like
to
> look at them.
> That is the way the game is played. Let me know what happens."
>
> I went on: "People capable of liking some paintings or prints or whatever
can
> rearely do so without knowing something about the artist. Again, the
> situation is social rather than scientific. Any work of art is half of a
> conversation between two human beings, and it helps a lot to know who is
> talking at you. Does he or she have a repuation for seriousness for
> religiosity, for suffering for concupiscence, for rebellion, for sincerity
for
> jokes?
> "There are virtually no respected painting made by persons about whom we
know
> zilch. We can even surmise quite a bit about the lives of whoever did the
> paintings in the caverns underneath Lascaux, France. "
>
> I dare you to suggest that no picture can attract serious without a
particular
> sort of human being attached to it in the viewer's mind. If you are
unwilling
> to claim credit for your pictures, and to say why you hoped others might
find
> them worth examining, there goies the ball game.
>
> Pictures are famous for their humanness, and not for their pictureness."
>
> I went on: "There is also the matter of craftsmanship. Real picture lovers
> like to play along, so to speak, to look closely at the surfaces to see
how
> the illusion was created.
> If you are unwilling to say how you made your pictures, there goes the
ball
> game a second time."
>
> Good luck and love as always" I wrote. And signed my name.
>
>
>
>
> MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
> Mail Archives:
> Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
> Nov '02 Onward -
http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
> MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
>
> To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
> http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
>
>
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Mar 29 2003 - 18:11:24 GMT