From: Valence (valence10@hotmail.com)
Date: Thu Apr 03 2003 - 04:24:03 BST
Hey Erin,
VONNEGUT
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?".
RICK
This reminds of something that happened in NYC a few years back. One of the
museums (MOMA i think) held a contest to find the best 'unknown' painter in
NYC. They accepted hundreds of submissions and eventually chose a winner.
Each judge wrote intellectualistic critiques of the winner heaping great
praise on the artists bold use of color and willingness to defy convention.
The artist, it turned out, was a 1 year old infant whose mother the same
kind of crank that Bernie Vonnegut is. She put the baby in front of the
paint and the canvas and just let it make a mess.... and that was how the
best 'undiscovered' painting in NYC was created. Was it art? (Epilogue:
The extremely embarrassed judges declare to the newspapers that the baby is
surely a prodigy...ha ha).
VONNEGUT
> 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:...
RICK
He speaks the truth! Kurt was a graduate of my own alameda Cornell
University... his degree was in bio-chemistry.
VONNEGUT
Dear Brother: This is almost like telling you about the birds and the bees,"
> I began....
> 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."
RICK
Sounds like he talking about Romantic Quality as described in ZMM, no?
VONNEGUT
> "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.
RICK
The great part about this is that he says it's a social activity because you
don't have to explain your enjoyment intellectually. It's almost as if he's
speaking in MoQ terms. He does it again in two paragraphs when he says the
situation is 'social' rather than 'scientific'. How cool.
VONNEGUT
> "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."
RICK
Let's hope Bernie doesn't enter them in any contests at the MOMA! He may
wind up showing Kurt a thing or two.
VONNEGUT
> 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....
RICK
I thought about this one for a while and I think I agree with him. I
remember the first time I heard someone describe a musician I liked as a
"poser". They explained that a "poser" is one who pretends to be something
they are not for the sake of selling their art. Being labeled as such by
the fans is the kiss of death for an artist. One example of this is the
lead singer of an old 80's band called Quiet Riot (Kevin Somethingorother).
One of his roadies told revealed to a Rolling Stone reporter that the bottle
of Jack Daniels the singer toted around on stage was actually filled with
Ice-Tea. When the story hit Rolling Stone, the band was cast down as a
"poser" band and quickly disappeared from the scene. So why did anyone's
enjoyment of the band change because of this? They still played the same
songs and wore the same clothes. The only explanation is that the art was
meaningful to the fans because of who they thought was making it. Once they
realized that their 'bad boy' rocker was just putting them on for the sake
of the show, his art became a put on as well.
>VONNEGUT
> Pictures are famous for their humanness, and not for their pictureness."
RICK
Tell that to the best 1 year old artist in NYC though.
VONNEGUT
> 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."
RICK
Now it sounds like he talking about Classic Quality as described in ZMM, no?
Ultimately, it sounds to me like Kurt gets the difference between Romantic
and Classic quality and talks like he sees the difference between social and
intellectual patterns. I'm not sure if Pirsig and Vonnegut would really see
eye to eye, but I'd kill to be around when they talk it out.
VONNEGUT
> Good luck and love as always" I wrote. And signed my name.
take care
rick
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 : Thu Apr 03 2003 - 04:24:15 BST