Boris Malraux certainly doesn't muck around with silly ideas like standards.
DA ----- Original Message ----- From: "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: [email protected] Subject: Re: Junking the Louvre? Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 17:33:23 GMT > I think it did not go through first time. > > > Derek, I had an impression that you know those 'standards' > , but it'll take to much time and space to give them to > us. Now I feel you can't formulate them and dieing for > someone to give it to you. I am not yet giving away those > that for now satisfy me. At least for once try to get some > yourself. > BTW.I thought Malraux gave you all the answers. > Boris Shoshensky > > -- "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: But it's not just me > being 'black and white' is it? The Louvre apparently > thinks they are all art (otherwise why would it admit > them?) and the good prof thinks they are all junk. > > Anyway what's the difference? I'm happy if someone can > give me the much vaunted 'standards' that would decide the > fate of just a few of them. We might be able to get the > Louvre and the prof to agree on that basis. But we need > those standards (you know, the ones I am always being told > I should have ready at hand...) > > Any takers? > > DA > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: William Conger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: Junking the Louvre? > Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2008 06:10:50 -0700 (PDT) > > > What's there to say? This "either all black or white" > > argument is always pointless. Any sleepy > > undergraduate could figure out that the (good?) > > professor may be right with respect to some items and > > the Louvre curators may be right with respect to some > > items. Why does Derek bring up red herrings as if > > they were worthy issues while all the time he remains > > vague or suddenly absent when pressed to think beyond > > the superficial? > > > > WC > > > > > > --- "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > Completely new subject. (I feel I have said my > > > piece on > > > jazz...) > > > > > > In todays 'Le Figaro' there is piece by a certain > > > Jean-Louis Harouel who apparently wrote a book > > > called > > > 'Culture et Contre-Cultures' and who teaches at > > > Paris II. > > > Prof Harouel rails against the contemporary art > > > which has > > > recently been installed in various galleries in the > > > Louvre > > > to 'dialogue' (thats the Louvres official term) > > > with > > > the existing art. E.g. in the Rubens Henri IV room > > > there is > > > what Harouel describes as 'a chaotic heap of rocks > > > looking > > > like the backyard of some untidy tombstone maker.' > > > (I have > > > seen photos; it does look a bit like that). > > > > > > The good professor takes the opportunity to have a > > > large > > > side swipe at contemporary art in general, which he > > > describes as imposture and farce propped up by > > > 'sociological, philosophical or spiritual > > > propositions > > > which, assuming one can work them out, are generally > > > rubbish'. Only people who know nothing about art, > > > Prof > > > Harouel says, will be fooled by this stuff. And so > > > on. > > > > > > It struck me that this situation might pose an > > > interesting > > > dilemma for some on our list. On the one hand we > > > have the > > > Louvre the very prestigious Louvre - saying > > > (presumably): this stuff is art and it deserves to > > > be in our > > > galleries alongside Rubens, Rembrandt etc. On the > > > other > > > hand, we have a distinguished professor at one of > > > Frances > > > prestigious universities saying in no uncertain > > > terms that > > > it is junk. > > > > > > What do we do? Could Frances's 'learned experts' be > > > called > > > in to help perhaps? And what about those on the > > > list who > > > upbraid me from time to time for not being able to > > > produce > > > explicit standards to judge art by, and not being > > > able to > > > give chapter and verse on why I say something is or > > > is not > > > art? How might they proceed in this case? Do they > > > have > > > their standards ready at hand now to roll out and > > > give to > > > the Louvre and to the good professor to settle the > > > argument? > > > Now would be an ideal moment... > > > > > > DA > > __________________________________________________________ > ___ Don't stay in a roach motel. Click here to find great > deals on hotels. > http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2221/fc/Ioyw6i4uHAe3ffyfBQpUulR4MuQnQd > yW3hQvMzZncPC4Zl6Y0YwLTe/ > __________________________________________________________ > ___ Click to make millions by owning your own franchise. > http://thirdpartyoffers.netzero.net/TGL2221/fc/Ioyw6i4t16lvIY4sLTM5V7y8mqKU9w > xmLy9FrPHicYWuAm3kRbMhVa/
