Yes. Well, if you decide it's worthwhile, let me know. In my experience i've found that the more i oppose a thing, the more i have to think about it and the more i think about it the more broad-minded i become about it.
anyway, this day is almost over and i can't expect such gifts to continue. hoity-poloi-t-toitily, [] --- Alan Sondheim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I'm not sure whether to keep replying, we're at an > impasse. > > > On Sun, 31 Jul 2005, [] wrote: > > > Ballet IS dangerous especially if your partner > doesn't > > catch you when you make a leap. > > > > Anorexia is about exclusive to ballet as bunions. > > > That's irrelevant. There are ballet teachers who > encourage anorexia > deliberately. > > > On the french philosophers, i think i've made > myself > > clear on that topic - bah and humbug. > > Then there's very little to discuss. > > > > 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? > > > No, I'm saying obviously something was lost; that > should be evident. If X > has an attribute y at time t1, then at time t2 > there's no y, something is > gone, no matter what else. > > > > 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. > > Well, I don't want to argue definitions here of > course. > > > > 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. > > > Well, you find it charming. I know someone who was > made ill by a teacher > deliberately asking her to continue to lose weight. > And this isn't an only > case. I don't find it charming at all, and the > brutality, against a ten- > year-old? Charming? > > > 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. > > > Well, it's not purposely inaccessible; that's a bit > ad hominem and not > right. Of course some is insular, some welcoming, > etc. > > > hoi-poloi is not MY term, it is a perfectly > acceptable > > term meaning those that don't get it. > > It has a lot more connotations than that. > > - Alan > > > > > [] > > > > > > --- 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 > > > > ( URLs/DVDs/CDroms/books/etc. see > http://www.asondheim.org/advert.txt - > revised 7/05 ) > ____________________________________________________ Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
