Dear Bertrand,
I suuport you a 100 per cent on that one! Why not organise a duel with Kandinskij or whoever is hiding behind the Kandinskij/Death Guy umbrella? That'd sure be more fun than reading it everyday and could settle matters once and for all(?). Maybe we could chose a champion, or as many as we need, according to the amount of people who use the Kandiskij address to represent the art manipulators and let them insult each other to death-since they'll be using insults rather than weapons or their bare fists, I want no first blood crap. How many times can one use the word "babycheek" or talk about projected violence before boring somebody to death? That'd be a good opportunity to find out... Of course, the public'd better wear ear-muffs as a protection.
f.
>From: "Bertrand Clavez" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Subject: Re: FLUXLIST: Is There A Moderator In The House?
>Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2002 01:22:54 +0100
>
>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.
> >
> >
