Dear Kandinskij (You said it was not a pseudo, didn't You? Is it your last name? Great name anyway), In case You were not talking to me, I would like to say that I'm talking to You. The more I read You, the more I love it. You're so clever and brilliant, at least there's someone, or something, my english is not good enough to have allowed me to distinguish exactely what kind of entity recovers the "we" You are using, to tear off the blindfold that covered my mind. Please go on, I mean it, but could you be just a bit more pedagogical at least for me (I can't speak for the others, as far as I understood what you wrote/said), so that I can follow the whole debate, which impassionate me (I mean that I'm passionnately following it since the begining, but I m not sure that this term exists in English, or exactely means what I meant). It reminds me the debates that the Futurists used to have with their audience (and I think this example is more relevant than the usual Dada recallings) back in 1910's, just as cruel and fast as they were at that time, having the same kind of use of the insult (which was used also by the Situationnistes, and before by the Lettristes) as You do. It's really refreshing and much unusual in this time of conviviality and "speakingly" correct habits. However, these great ancestors, used to have these strong debates in front of the object of their diatribes (Is this word used in English?), and that, if You allow me to say/write it, makes all the difference: it's much more challenging to pratice this kind of exchange when you have the actual person in front you, because then arise the possibility that this person, renouncing to the classical ways of the debate, chose to come back to the most antic ways to solve such situations by knocking your face. You should try once, because it's really intellectually exciting: anyway you can't loose: if you're beatten, history will remind that your arguments were so strong that your opponent had to kick you to admitt his weakness, and if you're not, that means that your mind was quick and clever enough to play with this risk untill the other one had to leave. Last, if you accept to fight, then history will remind that you were probably right, considering that You wouldn't have physically fought if You were not animated by this conviction. Otherwise, do You know what is the problem with this debate (for me, I can't say for the other fluxlisters)? It is that I don't know the work of Joseph Yves, or Franklin or anywhat his name is, so I have to believe You without being able to know if it's true or not, the problem is not what You say about the aims of art and about the existence of crooks and pseudo-gurus in art (and particularly in performative art), the problem is that I have no way to know if what you say can be said of Joseph Yves or not. And being unable to know that, means that I have to believe in You as I would believe in god (if I was), without questionning what You say/write, which means that I should have the Faith, and this Faith should be strong enough to overwhelm my reason, and bring me to hate, or reject, someone for some reasons I cannot relate to experience. And this, I'm sorry, but really I can't: Morevover, this blind faith would mean that You're controlling my mind, which is in contradiction with your very aims: denouncing the art manipulators -and I woul add that the most terrible thing in these manipulators, is that they're often teaching art, at least in France. My warmest wishes in Your fight for Your noble cause French students used to say in 1968 "Death to the Dummies" (Mort aux Cons), which De Gaulle is said to have answered "Huge mission" (Vaste programme).
Bertrand. ----- Original Message ----- From: "-IID42 Kandinskij @27+" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, December 27, 2002 10:04 PM Subject: Re: FLUXLIST: Is There A Moderator In The House? > On Wed, 25 Dec 2002, sean henry wrote: > > > >From: ben bracken > > >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > >Subject: FLUXLIST: Is There A Moderator In The House? > > >Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2002 10:39:50 -0500 > > > > > >Dear Moderators, > > >Can you please do your job and moderate? There are some people on > > >this list that are flooding our screens with meaningless and > > >spiteful drivel. > > > Too bad there hasn't been any "meaningless and spiteful" drivel > besides in your own wishful misinterpretations of what is going on, > mostly because you are pissy. > > Then again, perhaps we should forward to the moderators your private > mails in which you attempted to POSE as a moderator, with content > pseudo-official sounding and stating "please stop posting > to FLUXLIST, that's not what I subscribed to receive?" > Signed and titled, 'Moderator'? > > Not only that but you did an incredibly stupid job at it too? > And now that it doesn't work, you're going to try "public > complaints"? > > Do avoid projecting your own meaninglessness and spitefulness > on what we do. > > > > > This is ridiculous and has nothing to do with the > > >mission of the list. > > > Actually it is not_ ridiculous. And it does not matter how many > labels you wish to slap. As for the "mission of the list" > it's what you want to see in your mailbox. > > We suppose that the entire universe revolves around what "you want" > in your world, however that is not so. > > Passive-aggressive dictatorial behavior is definitely not lovely. > > > > Perhaps interested parties should get together > > >and make a new list where we don't have to deal with name calling > > >and off topic crap. > > Too bad there hasn't been any name calling or off topic "crap" > besides yours. Maybe you should try to sort out the very simple > understanding that things are not what your wishful projectionist > label slapping meaningless and spiteful idiocy "claims" that it is. > >
