ok, and i never said you said they were, nor set, as case may be, merely addressing you directly, [for which, excuse me] but referencing in general direction. however, the word phalloid, even strictly regarding form, suggests phalloexcentricity. the common term - hypo-laravaloid - is more than sufficiently descriptive and dare i say it, not to mention suitably genderless.
ah, just kidding around. all in the eye of the beholder, eh? [] --- Talan Memmott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I never actually set they were phallic, man... one, > just reiterating > previous critiques... two, working with the idea... > What I wrote below > is NOT phallocentric, though Degas' *private* use of > the wax figures, > before being cast, may have been... > > > > On Sun, 31 Jul 2005 07:28:45 -0700 > "[]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >oh yes, and the semenal rain fell from the > testicular > >clouds like a zillion little circumstantiated > >fallacies extending and retracting brief, but > potently > >climactic little globular hardons > > > >Talan, it's phallo-centric. and more a > hollus-bollus > >re-construction than a deconstruction. Naturally > it's > >valid, but so is my theory that Eve, of the garden > of > >Eden, was a gay person. Sometimes a cigar IS a > cigar, > >not a pipe. > > > >[] > > > >--- Talan Memmott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> howz 'bout 'phalloid'... they are upright, stiff, > >> reaching, rutty, > >> hairy, 'waxy', and made for, as I suggested, and > >> (methinks) Alan's > >> treatments of the images suggest purposes outside > of > >> standing there in > >> the museum... they may be phalloidal in that they > >> may not be a plaster > >> cast of the member, but a bronze cast of the > fetish. > >> solid shadows. > >> > >> > >> On Fri, 29 Jul 2005 22:11:49 -0700 > >> "[]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> >That little back stage bronzed and tutu'd rat > >> phallic? > >> >Jeez, where's a cigar when you need it? > >> > > >> >[] > >> > > >> >--- Talan Memmott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > > >> >> Funny how your critique of the Degas dancer > >> >> sculptures is similar what > >> >> they were panned for originally -- as being > ugly, > >> >> and their content > >> >> mundane. Plus, phallic... That is not to say > you > >> are > >> >> being > >> >> conservative in your critique since they are > so > >> >> entrenched in > >> >> mass-aesthetics, as you say safe icons... > >> >> > >> >> I've always seen these as perverse mannequins > -- > >> to > >> >> be dressed and > >> >> undressed. And, considering that only one was > >> cast > >> >> in bronze during > >> >> Degas' lifetime, this seems to play as > true.... a > >> >> bunch of wax > >> >> fetishes filling degas studio.... > >> >> > >> >> maybe they are safe, because the backstory is > >> >> missing... I remember > >> >> seeing people greeting one of these sculptures > at > >> >> SFMOMA with a "ain't > >> >> that cute" sort of "ahhhhhhh." which always > >> kinda > >> >> made me laugh.... > >> >> > >> >> As to macro photos of art in museums... got > >> kicked > >> >> out of the National > >> >> Gallery in London for doing this.... of > course, > >> they > >> >> didn't tell me > >> >> 'never come back' so I did... in like 10 > minutes. > >> Of > >> >> course, zero > >> >> photography is allowed there. > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >believe it or not, this is exactly what I was > >> >> thinking when I was > >> >> >working > >> >> >on the series. The Degas dancers are bronze, > >> >> sometimes with wire > >> >> >netting > >> >> >for the tutu, but always phallic, as if the > legs > >> >> were falling apart, > >> >> >tumored. I have no idea why they're as > popular > >> as > >> >> they are, but then > >> >> >Degas > >> >> >leaves me cold personally. In any case, they > >> seem > >> >> 'safe' icons in an > >> >> >odd > >> >> >way, and I wanted to present otherwise. It > was > >> >> difficult shooting at > >> >> >the > >> >> >Norton Simon - you're allowed to without > flash, > >> but > >> >> not exactly that > >> >> >close. -- Alan > >> >> > > >> >> > > >> >> >On Fri, 29 Jul 2005, Lanny Quarles wrote: > >> >> > > >> >> >> this is interesting alan. my sense is that > the > >> >> rough frayed > >> >> >>topology, and > >> >> >> really its gridding, > >> >> >> of the head covering is a kind of analogy > for > >> >> mappings; libidinal, > >> >> >>aesthetic, > >> >> >> sensory, personal, linguistic, etc. > >> >> >> also in the sense of a weaving, mappings as > >> >> weavings or vast > >> >> >>constructionist > >> >> >> integrals in a calculus > >> >> >> of embodiment, and the sense that the rough > >> >> edges, the "severed' or > >> >> >> 'cross-sectional' (sampled?) topology, > >> >> >> as it were, is a reflection of coding > >> practices, > >> >> or the praxis of > >> >> >> instantiation by/within the individual > agent, > >> >> >> an imperfect "imaging" of larger vectors, > >> dogmas, > >> >> genetics, beliefs, > >> >> >>etc. am > >> >> >> I even close? > >> >> >> And even the idea of the physicality of > >> topology > >> >> as a kind of > >> >> >>'filter' > >> >> >> (re:perception) is reflected > >> >> >> in the synthetic pixel filtering beneathe > the > >> >> shroud-topology. as if > >> >> >>the > >> >> >> coding of the filter produces > >> >> >> not only inner instantiations but external > >> ones > >> >> as well, which of > >> >> >>course is > >> >> >> the abolition of the > >> >> >> subject/object dichotomy in any > deconstruction > >> >> which in this case > >> >> >>seems to > >> >> >> point to "constructionism" > >> >> >> as it universal agent.. perhaps the frayed > >> edges > >> >> define the > >> >> >>deconstructive > >> >> >> agency, as if this particular > >> >> >> individual or object has been wrenched from > >> the > >> >> grid, and these > >> >> >>loose fibers > >> >> >> represent a kind of > >> >> >> annoyance to the smoothness of the artifice > of > === message truncated === ____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
