Quoting Micheal Ellis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > now you are psychologizing me.....you have no idea how "enthused by the > new" i am.
No - just getting you riled up - "ad hominem" argumentative practice I believe they call it. > look i've done the painting thing...i majored in painting at school. i > did > the gallery thing once...painting in the traditional sense has lost it's > impact in > regards to meaning, etc. it's not taken seriously (or too seriously, which > is the same thing) Well, I don't seen anything really being taken seriously. Most people clutch to some little corner and proclaims it the one to which to pay attention. Essentially, the medium doesn't matter any more - this can be a disaster - or this can be seen as a freedom to go beyound the concerns of what medium is the best art - instead, just pick the medium of opportunity to express the desired thought/emotion/concept/meta abstract of choice. This means that artists without the financial means or access to sophisicated equipment can still be "allowed" to make serious investigations. Saying that traditional media is incapable of serious inquiry is essentially elitist because it turns off the major avenues of expression available to a great deal of the worlds population. > ....except by people that want to pretend they are cultured or "into art" or > whatever > as if it were some kind of elitist thing (and that by nature isn't > serious)...that > is my personal experience. the commodification aspect to me is corrupt...it > is > nearly impossible to paint without it becomeing this ridiculous market > thing.... Well market forces are tough to counter act, and many people become victims of brand slavery. However, marketing forces can also be modified, if you educate yourself on the sophisticated processes. The way I see it, the gallary scene is not a huge engulfing public, but a limited audience controlled and influenced by marketing agents. These marketing agents then inform the producers (artists) of the contrived demand (created by marketing agents) and insist upon products to meet this artificial demand. The producers are then forced to corrupt their creative practices (accept loss of freedom) to gain finanical success and stability. The only way an artist feels good about it is because they usually created the first product from a point of freedom, thus satisfying their ego. However, all subsequent products in this marketing machine must march to the beat of the marketing agents. An artist, to modify this beat, needs to take control of the marketing process, to lead market demand to accept more products created from a point of freedom. This might be difficult for a single artist, but a group of artists could succeed. > it's a corrupting influence as is much of the art "industry". as a medium it > is > problematic largely in the way it is presented and evaluated. very few > painters > i've seen have pulled it off and made it work as a medium. why go to a > gallery > when you can go see a film, listen to music or read a comic book? that is the > way i > see it you of course may not see it that way...or the problems of the > medium > may not be prolems to you...whatever i don't see any point in argueing about > it. > i never claimed to be the "authority" on the painting medium like you alleged > before. Just because you haven't solved the problem, nor I... does not mean we should dismiss painting out of hand - it just means that the opportunity did not present itself where we would recognize a valid expression of serious endeavor in paint. Perhaps someone else will. I am always willing to give someone the chance to do so. -- Joseph Franklyn McElroy Cor[porat]e [Per]form[ance] Art[ist]� Take the Survey everyone is talking about... http://www.electrichands.com/genius2000 Electric Hands, Inc www.electrichands.com 212-255-4527 > > look i've done the painting thing...i majored in painting at school. i > did > the gallery thing once...painting in the traditional sense has lost it's > impact in > regards to meaning, etc. it's not taken seriously (or too seriously, which > is the same thing) > ....except by people that want to pretend they are cultured or "into art" or > whatever > as if it were some kind of elitist thing (and that by nature isn't > serious)...that > is my personal experience. the commodification aspect to me is corrupt...it > is > nearly impossible to paint without it becomeing this ridiculous market > thing.... > it's a corrupting influence as is much of the art "industry". as a medium it > is > problematic largely in the way it is presented and evaluated. very few > painters > i've seen have pulled it off and made it work as a medium. why go to a > gallery > when you can go see a film, listen to music or read a comic book? that is the > way i > see it you of course may not see it that way...or the problems of the > medium > may not be prolems to you...whatever i don't see any point in argueing about > it. > i never claimed to be the "authority" on the painting medium like you alleged > before. > > and no i don't think this was a serious discussion..... > > ~M.E. > > ------------------------------------------------- This mail sent through IMP: http://horde.org/imp/
