Tim Rhodes wrote:
>
>
> >Am I allowed to ask about your art?
>
> It has covered several fields including sculpture, painting, and
> illustration. I'm currently doing pro-bono graphic arts work for a local
> culture jamming organization. I was going to point you to a couple of my
> descriptions my work in the archives, but the link to the archive search
> engine at the CoV isn't working. David?!?
Well, keep me posted.
>
> >I don't know if these two are synonymous. I think a person
> >with good instincts can perceive, but a genius can translate/create.
> >Your thoughts?
>
> Mastery of the craft of expression is essential. But I venture that anyone
> of such a renown that might warrant our discussion has already proved their
> craft on some level.
Well, Marilyn Manson has "warranted" disscussion here. Are you saying he
has proved his craft? Then we could say that Ted Bundy or Jeffrey Dahmer
proved their craft. Maybe Manson himself poses the question: When did
fame become an art? So the serial killers and sex kittens which make
Manson's identity didn't claim their lives were "all theater," or point
to these obvious dichotomies, etc... But his "art" does not involve this
inspiration/creation process. It is a demonstration of how to attain
fame in America (by simulating rock stardom). I don't even know that it
is art at all. That remains in question (for me).
>
> >> Scientists may have ethical questions about experimenting (memeticly) on
> >> human subjects, but for an artist it's part of the job description!
> >
> >I agree all the way up to job description. I think some art can be
> >powerful without this controversial aspect.
>
> And I would answer that this art's very power is a testament, overt or
> otherwise, to its ablity to actively mold the viewers thinking and emotion.
See above. There are other ways to "actively mold viewers," and many of
them do not involve art.
>
> >And for all the "strides"
> >music might have made in this interaction triangle thing, don't you have
> >a problem at all with the commercial jingle machine that is the record
> >industry? God, I feel like Linus...
>
> Of course. I also bemoan the fact that rock has become, as jazz had
> previously, a form so formalized, delineated, and enamored with its own
> heritage that variations on previously described themes are the only
> innovations now seen as possible.
>
> But then, having shed a tear, I move on to the newer, still innovative forms
> of music all around these days.
Care to cite any?
>
> >Also, nobody commented on Schumacher. Would you, could you, in the rain?
> >On a train, in a tree...?
>
> I intend to and have yet to delete your original message. I often feel that
> when I am active on this list I may be stepping in before another has a
> chance to make a useful comment. And so at times I hold off on addressing
> the meaty issues right away in order to give others a whack at the ball.
> Unfortunately, this can often backfire when no one else jumps in to make
> what seems to me like an obvious comment.
Well, it isn't obvious to me. So maybe you can stop holding back. And why should you bestow this social grace? Are you special or just especially nice? I appreciate your intelligence. That's the only thing that is obvious to me.
NC
-- "It may, afterall, be the bad habit of creative talents to invest themselves in pathological extremes that yield remarkable insights but no durable way of life for those who cannot translate their psychic wounds into significant art or thought." Theodore Roszak