"narvis & ...pez" wrote:
> ps 2: sorry, duchamp again but i wonder if the first
> piece-piss-art in
> history is his "fountain" (new york, 1917)
Rembrandt did some charming tiny drawings of pissing women--just because
they're depictions shouldn't obviate their subversiveness.
Thinking of this, as a conceptual sculptor who'se recently been doing lots
of representational stuff, albeit in odd media like plywood and tar, I'm
reminded of my kid-insight (ie what I thought when I was a kid leaving off
the max weber all I knew then was that people seemed to have amputated
their senses) that the most radical art was the most sensual art, esp. in
Max Weber's Amerika. And so Cranach is as radical as Damien Hirst, maybe
moreso, Rembrandt far more radical than any Word Art, which remains safely
unrevolutionary as it can't affect any more than, say, 6 gluttons for
punishment who don't mind severe boredom.
I'm just reminded that there seemed to be people on the list who
regarded representational modes of artmaking as necessarily conservative,
in some exchanges a while back--while I've been toying with becoming some
kinda northwoods Canova, ya know, no marble, cruder, but indulgent, freely
bestowing . . . .
That seems highly radical now, nonironic nonpunishing sensuality . . .
AK
