Freud, good lord, have his theories any credibility these days. hardly, but they still resonate, don't they...
Ballet IS dangerous especially if your partner doesn't catch you when you make a leap. Anorexia is about exclusive to ballet as bunions. On the french philosophers, i think i've made myself clear on that topic - bah and humbug. As for no one saying it has to be one thing or another, of course, we're all free-thinkers, but, when you say it is thus, the therefore is suggested if not implied. By stating 'modern' art has been made safe, by the ahhing middle-class you imply it needs to be re-dangerfied. in order to?... well that's a good question, why? Perverse is the over-turning or corruption of a standard or norm, perversion is the inverting of a thing, sometimes done in order to satisfy an opinion or theory, or even a belief. Of course when enough people agree on a thing it is no longer perverse it is simply - the right opinion - like Eve was ghey. ballet IS idealization, as are many forms of art...ballet is a traditional form of art, like icon painting, it has it's ballectic rigour, ballectic discipline and and ballectic form - position one, position two, etc. That it can be brutal is part of it's charm. other styles of dancing or art have other requirements harsher or softer. As for your pieces, uh were we talking about them...oh yeah. i think some of your work is purposely inaccesible, other work is accidently insular, some of it welcoming. some of it off putting. Overall/ I don't know it well enough to say, except, i've been reading it for about 5 or 7 years. hoi-poloi is not MY term, it is a perfectly acceptable term meaning those that don't get it. [] --- Alan Sondheim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Sun, 31 Jul 2005, [] wrote: > > > why does art always have to be dangerous? is the > world > > such a safe place that we need to turn to art for > > danger? > > > No one says it has to be one thing or another. > > It's not a question of danger. Ballet _is_ > dangerous; young girls are > encouraged to be anorectic, and people like Foofwa > have spoken out against > that. But the danger is hidden; ballet is > hypocritical to the extent it > points out a conceivably perfect human being with > 'acceptable' sexuality > that wouldn't be under any other circumstance. My > work pointed that out; > ballet itself, and Degas as far as I'm concerned, > buries it. > > > it seems a bit snobby to me to re-define a piece > of > > art in terms that would exclude the hoi-poloi, to > > re-sanctify it in order to exclude. as if only the > few > > can see it for what it truly is - sexual and > > dangerous, while we poor fools we can only ah and > bah > > and etc. and why is the sexual considered > dangerous? > > my goodness, don't you watch MTV? But perhaps you > > don't mean sexual, perhaps you mean perverse. > > > No one is excluding anything. You're assuming the > so-called hoi-polloi > (your word not mine) wouldn't understand my pieces? > > Why is the sexual considered dangerous? Good grief. > Look at Roheim, > Foucault, Freud, the reaction to Freud, the > legislation in this lovely > country of ours. And no, I didn't mean perverse. I'm > not sure I could even > define perverse. > > > - Alan, not sure who your reply was addressed to > (particularly the last > section, which I think was to Talan?) - > ____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
