Subject: Re: Art Is Not Defined As A Business?

Date: 2 Aug 1997 17:32:45 GMT

From: dflync01@homer.louisville.edu (David F Lynch)

Organization: The One World One Truth Church

Newsgroups: alt.fan.karl-malden.nose, alt.slack, alt.fan.zoogz-rift, alt.butt.harp

Followup-To: alt.fan.karl-malden.nose, alt.slack, alt.fan.zoogz-rift, alt.butt.harp

References: 1, 2, 3, 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12

 

Sparky (sparky@psincorp.com) wrote:

:

: you were the idiot that taught that pitiful little Aesthetics course I

: took at UT, eh?

 

I do not know of the "aesthetics". I know that "UT" is a highly

important interjection.

 

: Tolstoy would, if he were still alive and actually

: read the .harp, be quite offended at your remarks. After War and

: Peace, he completely disowned the novel and all previous works of his

: as being made for the Kings and not for the people. He argued that

: something can be called art only if it makes an emotional connection

: with the participant. And, in music, the simplest of pieces can belay

: the most complex of emotions. Keiji Haino can say more with one

: tortured gurgle, and connect on so many different levels, but in your

: terms I couldn't call it art because he didn't take ten years to

: produce his new record. According to your definition then, Boston is,

: by rights, a True Artistic (tm) creation. Ouch...

 

One sees of the misunderstanding which one has made of the writing of

me. "Boston" is not of a quality recording making. Tolstoy neither.

I myself have many of the novels eaten and there is much of the emotion

in the gut, the standing of the hairs on back of the shapely legs. Same

often with the snorkblatt of a Zoogz Rift or the standing of a tree.

Tolstoy perhaps was too much a king to see the emotion of himself?

I do not then say that one is of the time and the money needing to a

goodness, a "emotion", make, but merely this: that it is better to

receive recompence for that which one wishes to do than not to.

I hope that this does not then cause the "ouch" in you.

 

: Art is seperated from commerce. It is, in itself, not dependant on

: commerce. Something does not need to be sold to be judged as *art*.

 

I agree with this in toto. Theoretically. One does not live in the

world of theory, the "ivory tower" of cliche and myth. In the world

of today, all things are dependent on commerce. This is not perhaps to

be desired, but it is a fact.

 

: If artists don't eat because they won't get a job that pays them

: enough to eat, tho, fuck 'em. Jesus, if I didn't have a job, I would

: starve too. I don't expect anyone but me to pay for my food. "when

 

Ah, the Amnerikan myth of the "rugged individualist". One stands alone

in a field of bravery. This does not happen. You work because you are

paid. For what do you become paid? Is it of a greater value than to

make an art? I say simply, if one is to be paid, if one must accept

this arbitration of value which is the capitalism, then one should take

care to be of a justness, for the dollar itself, it knows no justice.

 

: most artists die alone starving and broke..." How many dead artists

: do you know? And if they died because they starved to death, well

: good. Darwin would be proud. If the fuckers couldn't do shit but

: paint, bang on pots and pans, or write poetry, well maybe we're all a

: bit better off...Even Daniel Johnston works, for Cokie's sake. (That

: is, when they let him out of the crazy house long enough...)

 

How are we better off when we have a world of the professional football

players and the Captains of Industry who find ways to sell us things

that we do not wish to have and the pushers of paper than to have those

who merely give of the value? The art, it gives of the knowledge that

you wish to be swept under the rug. It makes good soup of the feelings.

It has what you would call "conscience". Is this why you wish it to

starve? Does discomfort irritate, or disturb you?

 

: Do you fail to see why or is it just that you aren't happy with that

: particular arrangement? Someone writing soon-to-be-forgotten

: commercial banalities get paid simply because they help move a

: product. And if this product is being produced by a company, then the

: people who work for said company have an interest in moving as many

: copies of this product as possible. And if this product is packaged

: in a flashy paperboard carton, then people like me, printers by trade,

: have an interest in seeing as many copies of that product move as

: possible. And if this product is sold at retail, than all the people

: who work at Wal-Mart have an interest in seeing as many copies of this

: product move as possible. So there we all stand, biting our

: collective nails, hoping this peon will be able to crank out some kick

: ass, soon-to-be-forgotten commerical banalities. And if they do their

: job correctly, then we all make money, breathe a sigh of relief,

: collect a paycheck, and fuck our wives. If they don't do their job

: correctly, then they are turned out into the street, the product is

: shelved, I don't sell any cartons, and we all drink heavily.

 

And you see this, "Sparky", you see this as a thing which is good?

You like the drinking heavy? You like the tireless devotion to the

product which is of no value? You like that all energies are given away

to the deification of the "Salad Shooter"? You like that when you are

given the money which is your recompence for your good and noble obedience

to the God of Plastic you are given freedom and utility go to about in

this world and choose freely among the very pieces of shit you are

enshrining at your place of work?

 

: Capitalism does not have its priorities juggled. You just don't like

: the way it works. Which is fine, I'm not here to debate the evilness

: of "the man", which is well documented at the .harp. But I have no

 

I do not debate whether the well-oiled machinery of capitalism achieves

its goal. By "priorities" I do not mean "expedient way to reach the goal".

By "priorities" I question the value of the goal in and of itself.

I am not a hater of capitalism. It is another tool. One can sell many

things, and those things can become good or bad. It is not inherent in

capitalism to not-care about that which one sells. I do not believe

this.

 

: real interest in whether or not some so-called artist sells a painting

: or a record. My favorite music is mostly improvisational anyway. My

: favorite *paintings* are childish sketches a friend made. I don't

: think the govt. has any business deciding what is and what isn't art.

: I would have no problem with the NEA if the grants they offered went

: solely to little theatre type organizations, or community arts

: programs, or the like. But when they become the arbiters of what is

: or isn't high art, I get nauseated.

 

The improvisation, do you not believe this requires a discipline?

So where you say you dislike the NEA, it is that it is an arbiter of

quality. Then you do not like its standards. Then should not the

standards instead of the means of support be changed? This is merely

the argument of a "Jesse Helms" which you are making.

 

: Fuck it. To wit, you suck.

 

Maybe my standards are of a difference of yours, but in the town where

I had grown up, "you suck" was not a wit!

--

Dave (Not David) Lynch/Eligible Mutant Bachelor Uebergeek at Large

SEE the FUTURE at http://www.prysm.net/~cuthulu/dave_lynch/new.htm

Brrr-woowoowooowooowoowoo-brrrRRRRRrrrrr (Galaxians 7/83)