THE PAVILION ANNEX

General discussions of interest to readers and fans of Harlan Ellison.

Moderator: Moderator

Tim Raven
Posts: 255
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2010 10:30 pm

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby Tim Raven » Wed Nov 14, 2012 1:03 am

I hope I've misunderstood the dialogue between Mark and Lori.

I worked for an opera company back when I was 16 - 17, and La Boheme was one of the productions. It made that callow youth weep.
Starving artists are to be disparaged? Laughed at? No.
It is a reality, I've known three exceptional artists - David Byrne, Talking Heads, Root Boy Slim and John Palumbo from Crack the Sky. David won, the other two lay in relative obscurity.

It is a noble thing to devote your entire life to art, no matter the outcome. Shame on you for flipping the bird to those individuals with such passion.

Please tell me that I've misunderstood your point.

Tim Raven

Mark Tiedemann
Posts: 2575
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 1:51 pm

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby Mark Tiedemann » Wed Nov 14, 2012 7:47 am

Tim,

Yes, I think you misunderstood my point, at least. No disparagement on my part toward the artist, only the conditions imposed by an indifferent context.

But: Lori asked about the quite separate matter of the Romanticization of the condition. There is nothing romantic about penury. Nothing noble about starving to death. No sense to rejecting even a part time job to sustain body and soul in the name of something that isn't feeding you. Most of the artists I've ever known did their art and held a job. Of those who lived near the poverty line, I saw no superiority in their art as opposed to those working a nine-to-five and doing their art when they could. The stresses, the strains, the unhealthiness of poverty do not improve the product.

She wondered when the advent of this romantic notion of the "starving artist" gained purchase in the imaginations of a public who still have no idea what it takes to "do art" began. It was a well-documented moment.

As in many things, the image is not consistent with the reality.

To be clear, though, at that time and in that place there was a movement of young people from well-off bourgeois families who embraced that image and thought it would be wonderful to live that borderline life. Some died, most quit. Eating proved something they could do better than the pathetic attempts at painting and poetry they thought would reach new heights simply because they'd moved into a freezing garret and ate moldy bread and drank bad wine. They were wannabes. They turned the scene into a joke.

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby FrankChurch » Wed Nov 14, 2012 1:54 pm

This goes back to the Camille Paglia critique that art snobs have hurt art appreciation. Common folk would love art more if they didn't think art was just for wine sniffling, black beret wearing poofs.

We also have the corporate gate keepers, who peddle lots of aural junk.

I may be politically on the left, but I find much modern art to be soul deadening junk.

User avatar
Lori Koonce
Posts: 3538
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2007 12:10 pm
Location: San Francisco California
Contact:

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby Lori Koonce » Wed Nov 14, 2012 2:13 pm

Tim

Mark said what I was feeling at the time better than I ever could.

So, let me just ask you this. We both know that Harlan himself worked his ass off at a bunch of menial jobs before he got writing to pay him a living wage. So, does that make his writing anything more than say a guy like George Orwell, who started out wealthy and had to go to London and Paris to experiences the poverty he wrote about in Down and Out in London and Paris?

In my opinion we demean both the art and the artist by dismissing those who haven't suffered the way we have come to expect the creative to.

_____________________________________________________________________________________


Frank

What you and Ms. Paglia seem to forget is that there are people who just wouldn't like art no matter how it's presented to them or who does the presenting. And IMO that's all right.

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby FrankChurch » Wed Nov 14, 2012 2:49 pm

Without art and culture people are dead inside. We should not want the common clay walking around, all looking like the same hummel, pawned off from a Wal-Mart type factory.

User avatar
Lori Koonce
Posts: 3538
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2007 12:10 pm
Location: San Francisco California
Contact:

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby Lori Koonce » Wed Nov 14, 2012 4:49 pm

That would depend on how you define art and culture.

I haven't got a problem with people who don't get what hangs in a musuem. It takes a mindset that some people just cannot muster.

Both Art and Culture are all around us, it just takes a special mindset to see that.

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby FrankChurch » Wed Nov 14, 2012 4:52 pm

Then why do you not see the artistry that is me?

:P

User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby FrankChurch » Wed Nov 14, 2012 4:58 pm

Tim Raven, you like opera you may like this Prince tune--his attempt at a kind of popoperaweirdness:

http://www.myspace.com/search/music?q=p ... 0solo&ac=t

User avatar
Lori Koonce
Posts: 3538
Joined: Sat Jun 23, 2007 12:10 pm
Location: San Francisco California
Contact:

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby Lori Koonce » Wed Nov 14, 2012 6:42 pm

FrankChurch wrote:Then why do you not see the artistry that is me?

:P


I don't have to LIKE all the art I see do I? :mrgreen:

User avatar
AndrewR
Posts: 269
Joined: Thu May 22, 2003 6:33 pm
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Contact:

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby AndrewR » Thu Nov 15, 2012 12:10 am

Frank,

This goes back to the Camille Paglia critique that art snobs have hurt art appreciation


Funny thing that, Susan Sontag made a similar observation years before Paglia, albeit in slightly different form:
"Interpretation is the revenge of the intellectual upon art."

I don't necessarily disagree with that assessment. I've found that the art world is overly pretentious and horribly full of itself. Too much "why" and "what" and far too little "is", if you catch my drift.

As an artist myself, I'm often confronted with the questions asking why I made "X" photograph or what "Y" photograph means. I personally think it's all hogwash. I captured "X" image because it looked right to me, the composition and framing just sort of happen automatically. Meaning may come later (or perhaps never). The insistence that art HAS to mean something is just so much bullshit.

Lori,

Good artists don't always suffer, though some do. Great art isn't necessarily measured by that particular yardstick.
Andrew Rogers

"Anything more than 500 yds from the car just isn't photogenic." - Brett Weston

Mark Tiedemann
Posts: 2575
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 1:51 pm

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby Mark Tiedemann » Thu Nov 15, 2012 9:36 am

All Art means something, just not always intentionally or as intended. But for it last more than a nanosecond, it has to be memorable, and for it to be memorable it has to speak to someone, and in that moment of communication, it means something.

Mark Tiedemann
Posts: 2575
Joined: Sat Jan 22, 2011 1:51 pm

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby Mark Tiedemann » Thu Nov 15, 2012 10:25 am


User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby FrankChurch » Thu Nov 15, 2012 12:37 pm


User avatar
FrankChurch
Posts: 16283
Joined: Wed May 28, 2003 2:19 pm

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby FrankChurch » Thu Nov 15, 2012 3:21 pm

FinderDougles, I didn't mean kill as in murder. I meant kill as in discredit, like a kill file for paperwork.

Oddly my nickname is bunkie.

User avatar
FinderDoug
Posts: 1530
Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: Houston, TX
Contact:

Re: THE PAVILION ANNEX

Postby FinderDoug » Thu Nov 15, 2012 4:16 pm

It's not my fault if you use metaphors unclearly and frequently misspeak, Frank. Ask Santa for a copy of Strunk and White.

And Wallace was pretty much the architect of his own demise; even without the party-switch that took him from the Republicans to the Democrats, he did himself no favors with his policies as Secretary of Agriculture, his open discord with with other members of Roosevelt's administration, and his relations with Nicholas Roerich (which his former party was salivating for a chance to use against him.) His political house was already a three-alarm blaze when the party swapped in Truman for him on the ticket in '44.


Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests