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
