Art Thread

1720. wabbit - March 1, 1998 - 3:51 PM PDT
In addition to enjoying a delightful lunch with fellow fragrants Labj and Tmachine, I managed to get to a couple retrospectives, both at MOMA. I will try to be brief.

The Fernand Léger (1881-1955) show is the first retrospective since 1955, and was long overdue, imo. Those familiar only with Léger's candy-striped cubist figure paintings and mechanistic imagery of the 1918 – mid-twenties period will be pleasantly surprised. The surviving early cubist works (Léger destroyed most of his pre-1908 work) show his early interest in autonomous color, subordinating line and form to color, moving through the cubist fusion of figure and ground. He served four years (sorry, Benfry, not one year) during the war, carrying canvasses with him and painting in the field, and his mechanistic imagery begins to appear during this period, leaving behind cubist abstraction and returning to the subject. The influence of Purism and cinema begins appearing in the early 1920's, leading to a proto-pop style in the thirties and his leaning away from urban and technological modernity. Some of the most interesting works are from the early 1940's; “Les Acrobates en gris” and “Les Plongeurs” show a direct connection to Brice Marden's work with their sinuous linearity, and others of the acrobat series reminded me very much of Chagall. MOMA is showing the short film “Ballet Méchanique” downstairs with Léger's books and prints. In many ways, the smaller graphic works are more powerful than the paintings, in their use of pure colors and forms, and do not miss Léger's graphite and pen and ink drawings. This is a great show, and though not as comprehensive as the Paris exhibit from which it was drawn, it is worth seeing.

1721. wabbit - March 1, 1998 - 3:53 PM PDT
The concurrent retrospective is that of Chuck Close. His billboard size portraits are so familiar that I expected to be more than a bit bored by this show and was pleasantly surprised to find that not the case. The first portraits are strictly photo-realistic black and white paintings, but Close moves away from the precision of these portraits and begin to use the underlying grid structure as an integral iconographic element. The individual squares become small, non-objective paintings in their own right, and eventually the grid goes from a horizontal/vertical placement to a diagonal one, with the portraits becoming more and more abstract. The pulp paintings are particularly interesting (but that may be me, since I make paper). It is worth a breeze through this one.

1722. RobertDente - March 1, 1998 - 5:28 PM PDT
wab- Thanks for the take! I taped the Chuck Close interview on Carlie Rose because I knew I'd miss it on Friday night. It was first rate and Close is very engaging and bright. (The other half of the show--Robert Rash&burg--el stinko!) The show is rebroadcast on the following Monday on most PBS stations around 1 pm.
BTW now that my linking option is mysteriously working again, I had a chance to view your link of Bonnard and Rothko. You couldn't have picked worse examples than those pieces of dogshit. *No wonder* you dislike their work.
What was your take on the Kiefer show? Did you have a butter knife fight with Labj over Bonnard at lunch? How was his tie?

1723. wabbit - March 1, 1998 - 5:46 PM PDT
Robert, I *never* said I dislike either Rothko or Bonnard, only that I prefer Vuillard. He's darker than Bonnard and you *know* how I am about darkness. . . ;)

I don't have television reception so have no way of seeing (or knowing about) the Close interview. He is a very nice man, very gracious and generous in person, and quite amusing.

No butter knife fight at lunch, and no bunny tie, but perhaps next time. I'm still digesting Kiefer. His palette has changed, though the theme is still in line with his previous work. He has included some small clay bones on two of the paintings and I'm not sure they work for me although I think I understand what he's getting at. They just seemed a bit sentimental, which surprised me. Having given it a couple days, the color shift is growing on me. Give me a few more days with this one.

Some other Friday, maybe?

1724. RobertDente - March 1, 1998 - 6:39 PM PDT
Sorry-- poor choice of words. Bonnard and Rothko *have* made turkeys though and I recognize that fact.
Yes indeed, some Friday especially with Spring coming!

1725. wabbit - March 1, 1998 - 6:53 PM PDT
Robert, smile! Don't look at Rothko now, he's too sad. I can't wait to see the work you'll do when your muse shows up. Spring would be great, but as I said, I'm in town every Friday. I'll buy the beer!

1726. tmachine - March 1, 1998 - 6:59 PM PDT
robertd: lab is quite a snappy dresser. it was a hermès tie, and it had cows on it.
just lurking...

1727. RobertDente - March 1, 1998 - 7:20 PM PDT
wab-What a shame--I had 5 small prints that I intended to show David Beitzel before I cancelled. I would have shown you them at lunch. BTW, did you get my 6am email *before* you left for the city or after you returned? If I had your phone# I would have called (I think), but it was early and I had to decide quickly--I felt bad...(but not nearly as bad if I had bagged Linda.) Were you all stuck wondering if I was going to show up? Wait--don't answer that--I don't want to know... (unless you knew that I wasn't coming)!

tm-Thanks for the poop! I have a hand painted tie from the 40's that has a bird in a cage looking at the same kind of bird outside who is free. It's green and white and completely tasteless! (Just so you know that I, unlike lab, have no class!)

1728. wabbit - March 1, 1998 - 7:35 PM PDT
Robert, I'll come up there sometime and spend a day printing. I need to make a trip up to your general area soon anyway, and could easily zip north to visit. It will be fun! I didn't get your e-mail, and I wasn't home Friday morning anyway (rarely am, these days) so calling wouldn't have helped. I'll e-mail you the phone #. Don't worry, you made the right choice and we figured it out, we'll let it slide. . .this time. (g)

1729. wabbit - March 2, 1998 - 11:08 AM PDT
Robert,

My e-mail is down again today. PEPE'S, eh? Ok, you're on. I'll let you know when I'll be up there, maybe a couple weeks from now. I know the British collection is closed for a while, luckily it isn't the purpose of the trek!

1730. RobertDente - March 2, 1998 - 2:34 PM PDT
Great! *My* treat! :-p

1731. senecio - March 3, 1998 - 2:54 PM PDT
Wabbit, I'm back from my outing and have really enjoyed your report on the NY visit. I'm not a great Leger fan, but retrospectively, after reading your comments, I wish I could have seen the Leger show when I was there.

Kurt, I would appreciate a reference to that book on the Rothko state you are reading. I had a pasing acquaintance with that issue through some article or another from the New Yorker (I believe) read long ago. Yet I am very interested in the behind-the-scenes of the art market and would like to order the book if available. BTW, I'm quite taken with your particular commitment to the artists you listed above. (for instance, I would never have put the words "immortal" and "Yves Klein" together). From that post and previous posts of yours in this and other threads I've come to the tentative conclusion that you must be the only person I've come across that takes in cold art with timeless warm emotions. This must be a generational question. Forgive me for asking, but are you as young as that?

1732. KurtMondaugen - March 3, 1998 - 3:12 PM PDT
senecio:

The book is called "The Legacy of Mark Rothko" by former Newsweek, Village Voice and Esquire reporter Lee Seldes. While those credentials may not be so impressive, she was the only journalist who covered the entire Rothko trial, and the book (so far) appears to be largely comprehensive and informative. It was first published in 1978 by Holt, Rinehart, and I'm reading the 1979 Penguin paperback edition (ISBN: 0 14 00.5205 4). As far as I know it's well o/p, but I suppose you should be able to find one if you looked hard enough. When I've finished reading it, I'll post more about it.

Thanks for the kind words regarding my particular tastes, and I'm glad I can contribute to the variety of perspective in this thread. I don't know if my age (27, since you asked) has anything to do with my affinity for Ab-Ex or Conceptual or most 20th C. movements in art or not (and I wouldn't go so far as to use the word 'cold' for much of what I've posted on, with a few exceptions, but that's another post), but its an interesting question you raise, nonetheless.

1733. wabbit - March 3, 1998 - 3:23 PM PDT
Senecio, welcome back! I was never a big Léger fan, but the show really blew me away. I have a whole new perspective on the man's art. Very impressive in the larger scheme. I'm planning to see the Delauney show this Friday. I'll loan you the catalogs if you want to see them. Careful about Moondoggie's taste in art, he and I share many warm feelings for that 'cold art'! (which reminds me, Kurt -- if you want any goodies from the apple, e-mail me!)

1734. KurtMondaugen - March 3, 1998 - 3:29 PM PDT
wabbit:

Will do, thanks. I'm always in need of goodies from other parts of the world (that's how I got that MOCA catalogue, among other things). Of course, paying for them is a different story, so, we'll see what I can come up with within reason.

1735. wabbit - March 3, 1998 - 3:35 PM PDT
Kurt, just let me know, the details can be resolved later, s'alright?

1736. KurtMondaugen - March 3, 1998 - 3:49 PM PDT
wabbit:

Acutally, come to think of it, we're storing up big bags of bartering nuts for our trip out that way later this year, so I might just hold off until then. If I think of any emergency item, though, I'll let you know. BTW, an interesting show happening at the respectable Henry right now in Seattle is the "Thinking Print" exhibit, featuring commercial art (magazine/book covers, billboards, matchbooks, milk cartons, etc) by a wide variety of folks from Lucien Freud to Anselm Kiefer to the lately ubiquitous Claes Oldenberg and about 104 other figures. And, perhaps a little more 'cold', Lauri Chambers show at Francine Seders is quite engaging (her stuff lies somewhere between minimalism and op). I understand you'll be out this way soon, so maybe you'll get to see either of these.

1737. wabbit - March 3, 1998 - 4:00 PM PDT
Moondoggie, sounds good. I saw "Thinking Print" when it was in NY, but wouldn't mind another go round in a different venue. I'll get the address for Lauri Chambers from you when I'm there, I'd like to see it (and anything else playing in town, and any recommendations for used bookstores, etc).

1738. KurtMondaugen - March 3, 1998 - 4:02 PM PDT
righto, should be fun.

1739. KurtMondaugen - March 3, 1998 - 4:20 PM PDT
oh, and senecio:

An afterthought....please don't forget that in 1962, Ben Vautier appropriated and 'signed' Yves Klein's death. Being as it is now a fixed work, the word 'immortal' just may be a bit more applicable than you might think.

1740. senecio - March 3, 1998 - 6:24 PM PDT
Nice point, Kurt.

Thanks for the info on Rothko too.

BTW, I would not apply the term "cold" to Abstract Expresionism (with exceptions) nor to much of the previous 20 Century art. And certainly it's not a dismissive term for me. (Klee in his Diaries - entry num. 1008 - writes "Do I radiate warmth? coolness? there is no talk of such thing when you have got beyond white heat"). But again, in my experience (and unlike you) people who talk appreciatively about the artists you care for (some of them I find great, but my idea of hell is a place decorated by Nicki de Saint Phalle!) are engaged with them in a...,well.., cold way.

And, oh, last time I was 27, was 27 years ago.

1741. wabbit - March 3, 1998 - 6:34 PM PDT
Ah, Senecio, we will have to discuss this coldness you perceive on your next visit. My idea of hell would be decorated by Koons, though I suspect a conversation with him might be entertaining (for me, anyway ;)). My Abstract Expressionist guru is usually in London in the summer, but if he's in town, perhaps we can arrange a chat.

Kurt, how I wish I had made that body print on paper. . .hahahaha!

1742. KurtMondaugen - March 3, 1998 - 10:27 PM PDT
senecio:

"my idea of hell is a place decorated by Nicki de Saint Phalle!"

Well, more like my idea of a bad motel, but I agree with your general sentiment...many of her 'tir' paintings are rather, well, unpleasant (an ironic exception being the piece Ed Keinholz 'shot' for her in LA). But my sympathies and interest with her work, much like my inexplicable fondness for certain Rauschenbergs, lies within the *process*, rather than the finished piece itself (this has been a repeated argument between pseudE and myself from the very inception of this thread, and I find it rather amusing and timely that this particular MOCA show is taking place, as a result). She went from her first assemblages, such as "Portrait of My Lover", a figure's head pierced by darts, straight to her shot paintings, which she felt could sublimate her innate violence and aggressions: "I shot because it made me feel good. I shot because I was fascinated watching it bleed and die. I shot for that moment of magic. The painting is dead. I have killed the painting". Granted, not the most articulate or complex mission statement, but in context with her own work, and as a precedent for the (yes, wonderful) Yayoi Kusama, for example, and for the recent (somewhat media fabricated...another St Phalle accomplishment) DIY-zine/rock "Grrrrl" movement, as well as several other examples (from the rather bad Judy Chicago to the less than bad Gina Pane), she set an undeniable precedent. Anyway, I feel a lecture coming on, so I'll leave it at that.

wabbit:

Dinner with Koons would probably be fantastic, but only on the condition that he foot the bill.

1743. Philistine - March 5, 1998 - 11:29 PM PDT
Okay, Mr. Norwood, as promised, I'm going to try and address some of the points regarding comic books vs. comic strips that you brought up in the Corner yesterday.

It is absolutely true that comic books are not a mass medium in the sense that comic strips are, which means that for the most part there is not going to be as much experimentation and non-linearity in the funny pages as there is going to be in a dusty, nasty, nerd-infested comics store (a few of the strips that are syndicated in weekly papers defy this generalization, of course.) Just the same, I think that not even the most avant-gardish of underground comics (including stuff by Jim Woodring, Chris Ware, Chester Brown, and Dave Sim) requires "Understanding Comics" as a prerequisite for comprehension. All that is really required is a willingness to put a little bit of effort into the reading, rather than just assuming that nothing is in there beyond what is on the surface.

1744. Philistine - March 5, 1998 - 11:30 PM PDT
In the case of Dave Sim's Cerebus, which you singled out particularly, the last couple of years has been the most 'advanced' in terms of technique, independence of text and art, blurring of the lines between text and art, non-linear storytelling and so on. I am thinking in particular of issues in "Guys" where the art and dialogue became so connected that they were basically undifferentiated - the lettering of the dialogue was the only art on the page, and served as not only the speech of the characters but also the characters themselves (a few characters have not been seen before or since, including some caricatures!) Also, recent issues of "Rick's Story" have included expressionistic 'split-screen' panels where Cerebus' mental state is reflected by the churchy/hellish art, and the actual physical appearance of the scenes and characters is shown in the 'naturalistic' (although still pretty cartoony) art. Despite all this, the main obstacle to just jumping into the latest issue of Cerebus is the 200+ issues of backstory to comprehend.

Ahem, back to strips vs. books.

The most crucial difference is obviously length - a 22 page comic has an easier job of communicating intricate stories and complex ideas than a one-inch by four-inch strip. But it is easier to be funnier for the entire duration of the strip! That is my best guess for why humor has traditionally (again, I'm generalizing) the strength of strips, while action/drama has been more emphasized in books.

By the way, I liked your site (especially the Krazy Kat page), and noticed that your host server is a local company here in Austin TX, one that I used to work for actually. May I ask where you at?

1745. norwoodr - March 6, 1998 - 10:02 AM PDT
I teach math at East Tennessee State University and publish Comics Revue and my Prince Valiant books on weekends. I appreciate your comments on Cerebus and agree. I like Cerebus when it is philosophical but I like it even better when it is falling down funny. I skip the long blocks of prose that Sim has been tossing in from time to time. Prose is not his medium. And I sometimes think his opinions on women are bad for me, coinciding too much with prejedices I am trying to overcome.

Since you mention my web page, let me plug it again for people on this thread who have an interest in classic comic strips:

www.io.com/~norwoodr

You mention that you got a big Little Orphan Annie book. If it is the one I'm thinking off, it will lead you up to a major climax and then skip six months leaving out the payoff. The person who edited it evidently didn't bother to read what he was including, but just photographed strips from bound volumes of the Chicago Daily News until he got tired, then quit for the day and picked up six months later the next day.

For a much better Little Orphan Annie read, buy the first of the reprints from Fantagraphics, then pace yourself. Harold Grey reads much better if you read a week of strips each day than if you read more than that at one sitting.

Different strips are best read in different ways. With Prince Valiant, I find three pages at a time about right. With Buz Sawyer, I have trouble putting the book down after reading a couple of months of strips. And I can read a year of Peanuts without stopping. Krazy Kat, on the other hand, one or two Sundays savored is plenty.

Best,
Rick

1746. RobertDente - March 9, 1998 - 12:55 PM PDT
Uh oh!

1747. wabbit - March 10, 1998 - 9:18 PM PDT
Kurt, yesyesyesyes!!!! Tie that thing up til I get there next week if it's local, or send info. I'm definitely interested! Thank you!!

1748. KurtMondaugen - March 10, 1998 - 9:40 PM PDT
info sent, wabbit. No prob.

1749. wabbit - March 11, 1998 - 11:18 AM PDT
I thought we could move the Gary Panter discussion over here and see if it develops into anything. Hey, Phil, what is in the water in Texas? I know at least four guys from your state with artistic styles similar to Panter.

Kurt, it's on its way even as we speak!! Yippee!!!

1750. wabbit - March 13, 1998 - 8:55 AM PDT
DocBrown,

On the chance that you are not allergic to this thread, I will post this link for you.

1751. Seguine - March 14, 1998 - 7:50 AM PDT
"I know at least four guys from your state with artistic styles similar to Panter."

Do they hail from around Austin and Dallas? (Just a thought.)

1752. wabbit - March 14, 1998 - 3:06 PM PDT
Seguine,

Yep. Contagious style, eh?

1753. coralreef - March 14, 1998 - 3:15 PM PDT
Message #1749 It's not advisable to drink the water in Texas. . .

1754. Philistine - March 15, 1998 - 9:05 AM PDT
Wabbit at al. -
What Gary Panter discussion? Who are the folks whose style you think is similar? I don't know what is in the water down here, myself, on account of I never actually drink it, but there is a general trend towards grotesqueries not just in Texas (Roy Tompkins' Trailer Trash, Tom King's Digger Jones - Boy Mortician, Walt Holcolme's Poot!, etc) but in cartoons/comics in general. This isn't really anything new, however. Ugliness and taboo-tickling are traditional values in comics that dates back to at least the EC/Mad Magazine era, and has stayed strong throughout the Underground Comics of the 60's (R. Crumb anyone?) the punk 'zine scene of the 80's and 90's, and continues to be the style of choice for bitter nihilists with inky fingers.

Actually I find the Hentai manga style of Japanese comics to be every bit as hideous.

1755. KurtMondaugen - March 16, 1998 - 1:27 PM PDT
brief note:

If any of this thread's NY faction had a chance to see the just-ended Donald Judd show at Pace Wildenstein, or is planning on taking in the Vito Acconci show at Gladstone, I'd very much appreciate comment. Thanks in advance.

1756. RobertDente - March 17, 1998 - 8:10 AM PDT

Wabbit-
1. Could you recommend a comprehensive book on viscosity printing?
2. Why are different hardness rollers used?
3. New Haven?

1757. Seguine - March 17, 1998 - 8:24 AM PDT
Different hardness rollers are used to distribute ink of varying viscosities on different levels of an etched plate. If I recall correctly, loose ink is used with hard rollers, stiffer ink with softer rollers, and the looser inks are applied first. (Wabbit, corrections?)

1758. RobertDente - March 17, 1998 - 10:10 AM PDT
Seguine- thanks...how do you come by such knowledege? Are/were you an artist/printmaker?

1759. RobertDente - March 17, 1998 - 10:10 AM PDT
knowledge!!!

1760. wabbit - March 17, 1998 - 1:05 PM PDT
Robert,

Seguine has it exactly right -- the hardest brayer for the lowest viscosity ink, applied first, then medium viscosity with a medium hard brayer, then the stiffest ink with the softest brayer. Be sure you have a good etch with distinct layers. The hardness has to do with where in the plate the ink will be deposited, and the viscosities obviously repell each other. I don't know of any books specifically about viscosity printing, but most of the comprehensive books have a page or two detailing the procedure.

Right now it looks like I may be in New Haven twice next week, Friday for sure, for a lecture at 5pm by Yve-Alain Bois. Wanna go?

1761. RobertDente - March 17, 1998 - 1:39 PM PDT
Wab-

Sure- What's the topic? If you're taking a train, I can meet you at the station .

If I'm doing monotypes then, can I forgo the need for variously dense rollers because there is no intaglio involved? And what density (on the durometer) would you recommend for monotype work. I want to expand my roller collection and do more experiments with viscosity. Any suggestions wrt types and purchasing? And btw, what's your shoe size?

1762. Seguine - March 17, 1998 - 2:06 PM PDT
Message #1758

I'm sorry, but that information is a matter of national security. You must understand that, were I to answer your question truthfully, the universe as we know it would abruptly cease to exist.

1763. wabbit - March 17, 1998 - 2:22 PM PDT
Robert,

Mondrian and Reinhardt.

For monotypes, I generally use large rubber rollers (24-30"width x 8-10"dia) for bases and glazes, and various rubber brayers for intermediate color work, along with brushes, rags, Q-tips, stencils, papers, my hands, etc. I think I usually work with larger plates than you; the monoprints I've been doing the past four days use 22x28" plates, and most of my own work is larger than that, so I need big rollers. The large roller I'm using the most right now is a 30 durometer, very nice for glazes, but I prefer something a bit softer for bases. My brayers range from 15-50 durometer. I usually stick with rubber, though there are some nice, *very* hard plastic brayers for not very much money. I hope you have saved big money for rollers; the large roller I use would cost about $550 new. I also have a small 50d brayer that I use for applying ball ground. I'll check around next week and see what kind of prices I can find for brayers and rollers for you. The small ones aren't a problem, but the bigs ones -- yikes!

My shoe size? Geez, can't we keep this stuff confined to e-mail??

1764. RobertDente - March 17, 1998 - 2:49 PM PDT
You betcha! Thanks.

Should I just show up at Yale before 5? Is this at the museum or at the art & architecture school?

1765. wabbit - March 17, 1998 - 2:56 PM PDT
I'll e-mail you with details re: the 27th. I haven't decided on the train/car issue yet, so I'll have to let you know. The lecture is at the University Art Gallery.

Kurt,
I missed Judd, but if I catch Acconci I'll let you know.

1766. RobertDente - March 17, 1998 - 3:01 PM PDT
Oh? The 27th! I thought it was *this* Friday. I'm glad you were specific. (The shoe size was a joke, btw.)

1767. wabbit - March 17, 1998 - 3:04 PM PDT
A joke, eh? I thought that was a question I should ask you -- or is it hand size??

oops, wrong thread!

1768. RobertDente - March 17, 1998 - 3:11 PM PDT
!!!!!

1769. Seguine - March 17, 1998 - 4:36 PM PDT
Wabbit, re Message #1752,

The style is a derivative of something I used to call "art dog". Very pervasive. Designed to signal rebelliousness; Texas being a pretty uptight place.

1770. wabbit - March 18, 1998 - 5:30 AM PDT
Seguine,

I can't comment on Texas, as I am afraid to set foot in the state. I'm very bored with "designed rebelliousness" and shock art; the Chapman brothers show at Gagosian last fall was largely a snooze for me, they had nothing new to say and the impact of the presentation suffered accordingly. I hear comments all the time about what a great era this is for artists, since anything goes, but to my mind most young artists have no idea what to do or where to go, so they fall into the trap of imitating/appropriating someone else's work. I'm greatly disappointed in most of what I've seen lately. LabJ and I stopped at the Drawing Center last month and saw some very mediocre work, some of which I would have been embarassed to put up for a class critique, nevermind hang in a gallery.

I saw your comments about Schnabel the plate smasher -- LOL -- have you seen his latest paintings?

1771. RobertDente - March 18, 1998 - 6:18 AM PDT
Wabbit- Thanks again for the help. I've been scouring my library for more info on viscosity printing and have come up with nothing. I thought that the Donald Saff/Deli Sacilotto book "History and Process" would have something, but nothing in the index, nor in any other books I've looked at. If you ever come across even a brief explanation I'd appreciate a copy or the book's title. Mazur showed me a lot about it and various ways to play with it, but he never really defined what is physically happening in the process. Consequently, I'm kind of a Sorcerer's Apprentice who is at the mercy of happenstance--which is okay, but I'd like to understand what happens, and why, a little better.

As far as larger work goes, I make monotypes that go as large as 28" x 44." The work in the last exhibition was smaller because of the narrowness of the new gallery. Which means, I guess, I probably will have to shell out some big dough! Are there places for buying *used* rubber rollers and equipment?

BTW, in the above post I asked: "If I'm doing monotypes, can I forgo the need for variously dense rollers because there is no intaglio involved?" And from your answer, I assume that I'll need two rather than three--a harder one for glazes and a softer one for base coats?

I liked what you said in your recent post to Seguine. Is he/she an artist?

What's your hat size?

1772. wabbit - March 18, 1998 - 6:31 AM PDT
Robert,

I'll make some photocopies about viscosity printing for you and bring them on the 27th. A 30 durometer roller is perfectly fine for both bases and glazes, my preference for softer rollers is merely that -- it's a touch thing for me.

I don't believe Seguine is an artist. I am loathe to hazard a public guess regarding anyone's profession or any other info they may not care to have made public.

7-3/4.

1773. wabbit - March 18, 1998 - 6:43 AM PDT
btw, you *can* do viscosity rolls for monotypes, they are just a bit trickier on plexiglass than on an etched plate.

1774. RobertDente - March 18, 1998 - 9:00 AM PDT
Wabbit- Thanks again. I only asked because Sequine didn't respond when I asked him/her directly in 1758. (I was chumming around with Ben Franklin at the time!) It's not important.

Wow, 7-3/4--I'm impressed!

1775. Seguine - March 18, 1998 - 9:01 AM PDT
Wabbit,

Re my profession, I *think* I've managed to fail to have one, but it's hard to say.

In exchange for your rather admirable reticence around personal info, I'll tell this much: I have worked as a mud wrestler.

It was a short career.

BTW, I share your assessment of the worth of wholesale imitation and appropriation.

1776. RobertDente - March 18, 1998 - 9:18 AM PDT
Seguine- I'm kind of curious now. Are you not responding to *me* intentionally?

1777. RobertDente - March 18, 1998 - 10:16 AM PDT
Wabbit- If you've not seen the Yale Art Museum, it's worth going early for.

I was able to locate a snippet of info about viscosity in the Saff book under intaglio, BTW.

1778. Seguine - March 18, 1998 - 11:52 AM PDT
RDente,

Um, I responded to you in Message #1757 (where I butted in on your conversation w/Wabbit) and Message #1762. Your second inquiry about me was addressed to Wabbit, so I didn't answer it. (Not wanting to be too big a buttinski. And figuring you might be asking for a third party opinion anyway.) But then Wabbit's response was just right, so I responded to it.

Then I went away and ate lunch.

1779. RobertDente - March 18, 1998 - 1:13 PM PDT
Thanks Seguine! I'm sooo grateful for the response. I thought I was repulsive to yet another Fraygrant. This means a lot to me!!!


So how was lunch?

1780. CoralReef - March 18, 1998 - 4:30 PM PDT
Hey guys,

If you ever want hair dye ideas. . .

1781. wabbit - March 18, 1998 - 5:04 PM PDT
Hey Reefer!

Hmmm, that emerald green *does* look familiar. Violet, too. Really, I think the kid should just make a commitment to his hair and go with it.

1782. CoralReef - March 18, 1998 - 5:38 PM PDT
Wabbit: you don't think he's committed to his hair enough already??

1783. wabbit - March 18, 1998 - 5:44 PM PDT
Hell, no. He changes with the weather. Decide on your color(s) and go with it for a while, I say. And a good pair of clippers could do wonders.

1784. CoralReef - March 18, 1998 - 6:05 PM PDT
Ok, pick two.

1785. wabbit - March 18, 1998 - 6:16 PM PDT
Oh, Reefer, you are a brave man. Pooh and Mr. Bean, thank you. Any man who would willingly subject himself to the nickname "Tiny" has more problems than I am willing to deal with. Besides, Mr. Bean could use the kid's hair color advice. But honestly? I'll take Sir Charles over both of them. *There* is a man committed to his head.


oops, wrong thread again.

1786. thomasd - March 18, 1998 - 6:22 PM PDT
Re. 1686 -

Robert Dente -

I see that you are discussing the artist Bonnard in this post. Do you know, by any chance, if he had any near relations who were engravers for French periodicals in the late nineteenth century?

1787. wabbit - March 18, 1998 - 6:58 PM PDT
ThomasD and Robert, my turn to be a buttinski -- I'm away for a few days, but if you don't turn anything up on the Bonnard relations, I'll check it out next week.

1788. RobertDente - March 19, 1998 - 8:32 AM PDT
thomasd-
I don't know of any relations of Bonnard doing engravings at that time, but Bonnard did do commercial lithographs as well as other types of graphic work, like drypoint and ethching. That's Wabbit's bailiwick anyway and to which, I glady defer.

1789. RobertDente - March 19, 1998 - 6:11 PM PDT

"ethching"...? You know! When you throw three Chinese coins on to a copper plate and then take acid to see what happens....

1790. RobertDente - March 20, 1998 - 11:01 PM PDT

Philistine-This link's for you!

1791. Philistine - March 23, 1998 - 5:20 PM PDT
Thanks for the link, RD (sounds kinda like "Arty" doesn't it?)

For the moment however, I have some more serious questions for you - you see, I finally went and got me a scanner last week, and on Sunday morning, I finally fot it to work - a little! I still cannot open my scanned files with any program besides MSPaint, not even the Adobe PhotoDeluxe (yech! I want Photoshop!) that came with the silly thing.

If you have any advice you'd be willing to share, either here or via e-mail, please, let me know!


Now, to check out that link of your'n.

1792. RobertDente - March 23, 1998 - 9:49 PM PDT
Phil- I need some more information. Did you allocate enough memory to the PhotoDeluxe application? It may not have enough memory or you may need to assign your scanner driver or plugin module before it will recognize the scanned image. I'm a MAC guy, btw. If you are running an IBM platform, wabbit may be more helpful.

1793. phillipdavid - March 24, 1998 - 10:39 AM PDT
Philistine,

I don't understand your problem. When I scan a picture, it is right there for me to see in the interface program window (which for my scanner is called PrestoPageManager). This is the window where I tell the scanner if my document is a color photo, a black and white document, what resolution to scan at, contast, light and darkness, etc. Once scanning is complete, I can see the picture and choose to drag it into Adobe PhotoDeluxe, my word processer, fax, email, file, whatever. The one problem I had was putting the right file extension abbreviation onto the end of the name of the picture after I scanned it. Adobe and my scanner software (PrestoPageManager) both like to put their own file extensions on the names, so you may just have to designate it as a .jpeg, .Gif, .Tiff or something else.

1794. RobertDente - March 24, 1998 - 5:39 PM PDT
PD-Terrific insights into the frayjourney-many thanks for sharing.

1795. phillipdavid - March 24, 1998 - 6:28 PM PDT
Thank you Robert.

1796. labarjare - March 25, 1998 - 3:21 PM PDT
Went with one of my sons to see the Bill Viola show at the Whitney today. Many of the works are the same as were installed at the L.A.County Museum show last fall, but there are some new ones. And, a number of videos shown on a large screen as well.

This show closes in mid-May. Go - if at all possible.

1797. Philistine - March 25, 1998 - 4:14 PM PDT
RD -

Yes, I am running a windows based machine, but thanks for your response. You too, PD. The problem that I seem to be having is I don't know what to do to change the format of the graphics files. I am using the same software as you, TheOtherPhil, so perhaps you can hold my hand as I try this? Wabbit, you are also included in this invitation to help me find a clue. Heck, so is anyone reading this.
Ah kin hardly wait to start up page full of my amatuerish scribbles and post links to it all over the place!*


*NOT a dig at Bob the Tooth's great and hysterical linking.

1798. Philistine - March 25, 1998 - 10:04 PM PDT
I got panned!

1799. phillipdavid - March 27, 1998 - 8:56 AM PDT
Philistine,

If you are using the same scanner and software as me, I can explain how to change the format of the graphics files.

After you scan your picture in the PageMaker window, you can then drag it into the Adobe PhotoDelux icon at the bottom of the screen (the row of icons at the bottom that includes email, fax, print, notepad), and PhotoDelux will open up. Click on the advanced button and you will get a whole bunch of menu choices at the top of the window. You get Edit, Tools, Quality, Effects, and some others. I go through these one at a time to sharpen up the picture, remove dust, do an "instant fix", change the size of the picture, do any editing I want to, and in one of those menues you can choose to "Save" or "Export". If you choose Export, you will get a menu at trhe far right that allows you to save it in a different format -- a new window opens up where you designate where you want to export the picture (I maintain a file on my desktop for my pics) and at the bottom of that window you can pull down the bar and get about 6-7 different file formats. This is where I tell it to save it as a JPEG file (as opposed to the PhotDeluxe file name ".PDD") and give my picture a name.

Hope this helps.

1800. RobertDente - March 27, 1998 - 9:06 AM PDT
Austin- Jujitsu the criticism into stronger expressions and always please yourself first. It's often the legless critic who teaches running!

1801. wabbit - March 27, 1998 - 12:44 PM PDT
Robert, have you left yet??

1802. AzureNW - March 27, 1998 - 1:41 PM PDT
Philistine -

7563 Lake City Way NE is a drive-in Chinese restaurant, I think. I wouldn't worry too much about their critique of your work.

1803. Philistine - March 27, 1998 - 3:37 PM PDT
Thanks for the support, R and Azure! As those of you who know me and my work are aware, many of the criticisms were actually pretty accurate, if somewhat beside the point (SR was more or less a "speed-creativity" exercise, after all, and a journeyman {at best} effort at that.)

My main complaint is actually that they spelled my name wrong. But they got the address right, just in case someone wants it despite the review.

And PD - thanks for the tips, no time to act on them this minute, but I'll let you know how it goes.

1804. RobertDente - March 29, 1998 - 8:47 AM PDT

Here is a provocative self-appraisal by Marcia Tucker and the role of contemporary art museums. (Incidentally, she is referred to as "Marcia Fucker" by some players in the NYC art scene.)

1805. verdeazul - March 29, 1998 - 3:55 PM PDT
I haven't been in the Fray very much for the past several months so am not sure if this link has been posted here before now:

FAMILIAR Internet

It will take you to one of the mirror sites of a truly extraordinary virtual gallery which contains beautifully executed scans of works from many of the world's finest painters. I have seen nothing on the Web that comes near to the scope and to the quality of the collection gathered here. Most of what you see is the result of one woman's vision and her capacity for sheer work (she has made all of the scans herself, for example).
Her taste is quite catholic. Works by great artists from many periods and many styles are found here and more are being added as the new scans are completed. Amazing.

1806. verdeazul - March 29, 1998 - 4:19 PM PDT

Hmmmm...try this:

FAMILIAR>SPH.UMICH.EDUInternet

(Sorry about the first link. It takes you to one of the gallery's sponsors, a place where you can buy posters of some of the works. This link looks good for the gallery proper).

1807. senecio - March 30, 1998 - 1:18 PM PDT
Great site, verdeazul, thanks. By the way, the site opens with your own name colours, green and blue hues.

1808. KurtMondaugen - March 30, 1998 - 5:22 PM PDT
Here is an additional, more contemporary and slightly more 'odd' virtual gallery for your enjoyment. Enjoy.

1809. RobertDente - April 1, 1998 - 7:32 AM PDT

Here is the latest crop of Oliveira monotypes
(...that would make Rembrandt proud!)

1810. CoralReef - April 2, 1998 - 8:28 PM PDT
There was an interesting article on Chuck Close in the New Yorker a week or two ago. There's an exhibition of his work now in New York, and anyone checking it out might want to see the article, which seemed pretty balanced and objective.

1811. RobertDente - April 2, 1998 - 8:32 PM PDT
CR- Thanks for the info, Reef. Was it a profile in the New Yorker or a short piece on his exhibition?

1812. CoralReef - April 2, 1998 - 8:39 PM PDT
More of a profile, though they mentioned the show, and you're welcome. The author mentioned his penchant for using his friends in his paintings which he thought detracted somewhat.

1813. RobertDente - April 2, 1998 - 9:00 PM PDT
I saw him interviewed on Charlie Rose and evidentally he choice of friends allows him to do what he wants rather than a paying customer who might dictate a certain look. Close is a driven, intense artist and quite intelligent and witty, I thought.

1814. wabbit - April 2, 1998 - 9:14 PM PDT
Reefer,

I'd love to know who wrote that article, if you still have it. If not, I'll find it at the local library. It sounds like the author doesn't understand either what Close's purpose was in painting huge portraits or why he ultimately chose to paint people he knew well.

1815. CoralReef - April 2, 1998 - 9:26 PM PDT
The article was mainly positive and very indulgent of Close, though I don't know what his being witty or charming has to do with anything since most great artists in the past seem to have been drunks and such.

1816. wabbit - April 2, 1998 - 9:44 PM PDT
hahahaha, Reefer, well, I'm sure Robert will agree with me here -- all artists are drunks, drug addicts or slaves to sex. In school, we aren't required to take any phys ed classes because we obviously don't respect our bodies, which we are known to fill with any number of toxic substances, we rarely wear clothes and we are known to copulate with anything that has a pulse. Wit and charm are for the press, we are, by nature, selfish and obnoxious people.

1817. RobertDente - April 2, 1998 - 9:47 PM PDT
(burp!) Here! Here!!!

1818. CoralReef - April 2, 1998 - 10:30 PM PDT
Well, then I'd say Charlie was lucky to have gotten out of that interview in one piece! OTOH some people think he doesn't have a pulse.

1819. KurtMondaugen - April 3, 1998 - 12:01 PM PDT
wabbit

The Close article was written by Simon Schama, a New Yorker art critic for the past three years, and the author of the book "Landscape and Memory". It's not the most interesting article (but, then, I'm not really a fan of Close's work), but servicable. I took his passage on Close's utilization of friends as subjects to describe the writer's impression of the power of Close's detatchment from the subjects themselves as an asset, rather than a detraction, but then again, I didn't read it too terribly closely.

1820. wabbit - April 3, 1998 - 12:11 PM PDT
Thanks, Kurt, I'll locate the article at school and read it. btw, I'll have that book for you on Monday and will send it asap. Also, the fluxus gallery has been moved out of the livingroom that I described to you earlier. It now looks more like a standard gallery space, unfortunately; I have the owner's phone number so when you are in town, if it isn't open, we have another route to get in.

1821. KurtMondaugen - April 3, 1998 - 12:42 PM PDT
rah rah, wabbit. By the way, since you brought up Gary Panter here a little while back, I should mention that a Panter show is opening tonight at the After Hours Gallery (open 1-4:30 pm, go figure) down in Belltown. I will check it out for sure and will probably have glowing words to post sometime soon.

1822. CoralReef - April 3, 1998 - 1:37 PM PDT
Wabbit: like mon says, it was written by the always-interesting Simon Schama, and it wasn't long, just a little piece and perhaps I misread it. 2-3 pages or so.

Anyway, here's a link to the table of contents of that issue if it'll help you find it: New Yorker TOC

1823. wabbit - April 3, 1998 - 1:47 PM PDT
Reefer, thanks for the link, now I know which issue to look for (and a Bonnard piece in the same issue, what a bonus). Do you have the issue with the Adam Gopnik piece on Clement Greenberg?

1824. RobertDente - April 3, 1998 - 1:53 PM PDT
wabbit!!!!

Why aren't you at the Yale lecture?...

I'm gonna tell your teacher!

1825. wabbit - April 3, 1998 - 2:07 PM PDT
Robert, what makes you think I'm not in the art library posting from their terminals?

1826. CoralReef - April 3, 1998 - 2:17 PM PDT
Yep, an in-depth Gopnik piece. Gopnik is, IMO, the best writer at the current New Yorker.

1827. wabbit - April 3, 1998 - 2:21 PM PDT
Great, maybe we can discuss the article after I get a chance to read it? Greenberg always makes for a fun debate.

1828. CoralReef - April 3, 1998 - 2:25 PM PDT
sure, and there's a great cartoon with a cat in a tree calling the fire department with a cell phone saying "i've done it again."

1829. KurtMondaugen - April 3, 1998 - 3:53 PM PDT
Wabbit:

That Greenberg piece was fantastic, and the photograph of his living room was even more so.

1830. CoralReef - April 3, 1998 - 10:55 PM PDT
Yellow chairs and a blue sofa. Lots of ash trays.

Or did you mean the art on the walls?

1831. KurtMondaugen - April 3, 1998 - 11:32 PM PDT
oh yeah, the art wasn't bad, either.

1832. KurtMondaugen - April 5, 1998 - 2:06 PM PDT
Wolf Vostell passed away yesterday at the age of 66.Born in 1932 at Leverkusen. Between 1950 and 1953 he studied photolithography. In
1954-55 he studied painting and typography at Wuppertal, and painting, graphic art and anatomy at the École des Beaux-Arts, Paris. He noticed the word "décollage" in connection with a plane crash on the front cover of the Figaro. He used this term to refer to the process of tearing down posters, and for the use of mobile fragments of
reality. During this period, he got to know the composer Karlheinz Stockhausen. In 1957 he studied at the Düsseldorf Academy, at the same time engaging in studies of the Talmud and iconographic investigations of the paintings of Hieronymous Bosch. From 1958 he organized his Décoll/age happenings. He also studied the psychology of C. G. Jung and travelled to Spain. In 1960 he married Dona Mercedes Guardado
Olivenza. In 1962 he was one of the founders of FLUXUS in Wiesbaden. The first FLUXUS Festival was held at Wiesbaden, later going on tour to Copenhagen and Paris. From 1963 to 1965 he had one-man exhibitions and organized Happenings in New York. In 1964 he carried out the first FLUXUS events and Happenings at the Galerie Block, Berlin. Tha largest and most complex Happening, lasting for six hours in twenty-four places, was held in Ulm. In 1965 he published the documentary volume
Happening, Fluxus, Pop Art, Neuer Realismus with Jürgen Becker. In 1966 he carried out the Happening Dogs and Chinese not allowed in New York, which lasted 14 days, took place over all New York and used the entire subway network. He was also given a retrospective by the Kölner Kunstverein. In 1968 he founded LABOR with Mauricio Kagel, Feussner and Heubach. In the same year he realized the Electronic Décoll/age
Happening Space which was shown in Nuremberg and in a special exhibition at the Venice Biennale. In 1969 he founded the Kombinat 1 in Cologne and made his first ca

1833. KurtMondaugen - April 5, 1998 - 2:14 PM PDT
his first car set in concrete. In 1971 he moved to Berlin. In 1972 the Neuer Berliner Kunstverein commissioned him to make the film Désastres, in which a sleeping-car and bodies were set in concrete. In 1974 he had his first large retrospective in the ARC 2 at the Musée d'Art Moderne de la Ville de Paris, an expanded version of which was shown at the Nationalgalerie, Berlin, in 1975. In 1976, the Museo Vostell Malpartida was founded. He was included in the documenta "6", Kassel, in 1978. In 1978-79 he was given three large retrospectives in Spain. In 1981 he created a mobile museum in Nordrhein-Westfalen in the form of a "FLUXUS train", consisting of containers with
environments. The train stopped at 15 stations. Vostell's creativity will be missed.

1834. KurtMondaugen - April 5, 1998 - 2:24 PM PDT
The above bio was culled from an on-line database (I'm feeling too lazy to put together one of my own just at the moment). I would like to add, however, that Vostell is credited as the first person to incorporate a television set into a work of art. Odd distinction, but a distinction nonetheless. Carry on.

1835. CoralReef - April 5, 1998 - 11:25 PM PDT
"Artists have no vision of the sublime but they know culture (i.e., what they do) has a right to the honor and support of civil society."
-- The Closing of the American Mind. p.184

Just thought you guys might want to know you have no vision of the sublime!

1836. CoralReef - April 5, 1998 - 11:28 PM PDT
More on Chuck Close

1837. wabbit - April 7, 1998 - 12:53 AM PDT
thomasd, I haven't forgotten you. I haven't had any luck turning up any info on Bonnard's family other than his parents, neither of whom were artists. No other family is mentioned in any of the biographies I have seen, but you never know what I'll trip over next. I'm curious, though, why did you ask?

Reefer and Kurt, I have the Greenberg article, any interest in hashing through it?

1838. CoralReef - April 7, 1998 - 12:59 AM PDT
Fine by me. An art critic who the author says conforms to Camus's "virile ideal" -- who'da thunk it?

1839. KurtMondaugen - April 7, 1998 - 7:01 AM PDT
wabbit:

Sure, provided someone can fax me a Xerox or something. None of our NY's last more than a couple weeks before being recycled....the bane of the weekly.

1840. wabbit - April 7, 1998 - 7:06 AM PDT
Kurt,

No problem. E-mail me a fax number. btw, got the book from Phil yesterday and will be sending it out to you today, chapeau included.

1841. CoralReef - April 8, 1998 - 9:44 PM PDT
An NY Times article on how diplomats helped with the Guggenheim Exibition of Chinese art.

1842. RobertDente - April 9, 1998 - 1:11 PM PDT

Gretta Wabbit: Thanks for the Greenberg article. When is the ETA for a discussion?

1843. wabbit - April 9, 1998 - 1:20 PM PDT
Hey there Roberto!

I sent the article to the regular crew and hope to get started early next week. I'm away all day tomorrow and Monday, so maybe Tuesday? By then, the gang will have had a chance to read and digest it.

In case anyone else is interested, the article is by Adam Gopnik, called _The Power Critic_ from the March 16, 1998 New Yorker. I can e-mail the text to anyone who wants it. wwabbit@hotmail.com

1844. RobertDente - April 9, 1998 - 1:57 PM PDT
Wabbit- Grrreat, I'll have it with my breakfast!

1845. KurtMondaugen - April 9, 1998 - 5:31 PM PDT
I'll maintain that *nothing*, could get Greenberg's character across more clearly than that intoxicating, fetishistic photograph of his liing room. Still, I'm looking forward to the discussion.

1846. KurtMondaugen - April 9, 1998 - 5:32 PM PDT
er, 'living' room.

1847. wabbit - April 9, 1998 - 6:10 PM PDT
Kurt,

If I can convince the library that I *will* return their magazine, I'll scan the livingroom photo and post it for all to see.

Did someone say copyright violation?

1848. RobertDente - April 10, 1998 - 6:43 AM PDT

Okay Gretta, you have the right to remain silent...

1849. labarjare - April 10, 1998 - 10:04 AM PDT
wabbit - thanks for the e-mails (three came through!!) re the Greenberg article. Unlike Mon, our recycling goes in periodic spurts and I still have the article. Hey- does that terrific yellow remind you of anyone?

Mon et al - I just read the Arts section of the April 5 Sunday NYTimes and discovered a very long article by Roberta Smith re the MOCA show. If you can't get it via the net, let me know if you would like it mailed.

1850. wabbit - April 10, 1998 - 10:40 AM PDT
Labj,

I thought I recognized that garish yellow from somewhere.

Yikes, three? Sorry about that -- spamming with peeps is one thing, but Greenberg is, well, just *so* gauche.

1851. KurtMondaugen - April 10, 1998 - 7:11 PM PDT
special aside to labarjare:

You sure you don't wanna go to Vienna this summer?

1852. AzureNW - April 10, 1998 - 7:22 PM PDT

KurtMondaugen -

Well, I give up. What *is* going on in that picture?

1853. wabbit - April 10, 1998 - 7:41 PM PDT
AzureNW,

Try Message #1719 for a brief, albeit intriguing, description.

1854. AzureNW - April 10, 1998 - 7:47 PM PDT


wabbit -

"...roll around naked in vats of cow guts while playing tuba and drinking homemade wine..."

You know, I was going to say it looked like three people being skinned and splashed with red wine, but it just sounded too strange. hahaha

1855. labarjare - April 11, 1998 - 5:29 AM PDT
Mon - nah. I am sure I would be allergic to something going on. And, I don't like tubas. All I can say is it seems obvious that this is one of the more imaginative travel promotions going. I see that Mr. Nitsch encourages participation for the full six days but that special package performances, so to speak, for three or even one day are possible. A dip in a bathtub instead of the whole vat experience, perhaps.

Send me a postcard, though.

1856. TheCatintheHat - April 12, 1998 - 4:20 AM PDT
I think that I'm artistically impaired. It seems that the only thing I produce of aesthetic value is my daily deposit in the toilet, which I always wonder at for a few seconds before it disappears into the sewer.

1857. wabbit - April 12, 1998 - 10:30 AM PDT
Sigh.

1858. wabbit - April 12, 1998 - 10:33 AM PDT
In the interest of sparking a direction for the Greenberg discussion, I'll post this paragraph from the early part of the Godnik article:

"However the story gets told, and whatever end Greenberg was believed to be pursuing, he remains fixed in place as the type and image of the dictatorial critic-the power critic, in all his (or her) glory and terror, who exemplifies what terrible things can happen when the back of the book gets out of hand. So a study of Greenberg's life can open on a bigger question about the role of criticism in modern society: How do the inevitably tendentious and improvised opinions of one writer become a dogma that shapes consciousness and spreads fear and actually changes, or is seen to change, the art form he (or she) writes about?"

1859. KurtMondaugen - April 12, 1998 - 1:34 PM PDT
wabbit:

Some preliminary information which may or may not affect the Greenberg discussion is contained in these two letters to the New Yorker editors, which question the credibility of Gopnick's article:

"Adam Gopnik's review of the new biography of the art critic Clement Greenberg repeats arrant gossip about me. Whatever Greenberg told others, he never beat me up. I was on the boxing squad at the University of North Carolina, and when Clem got tired of swinging at me without any satisfactory result, he called the bout off, saying "I've got fifty pounds on you, so this isn't fair!" Also, though I did help Andre Breton get out the first issue of Triple V, the magazine he startewd in New York, I never had a repuation as a Surrealist, and never tried to get one by setting my hair on fire. And neither I nor Harold Rosenberg was responsible for the Partisan Review's turn toward Tortskyism, although I did welcome it. Rosenberg even refused at first to collaborate with the Review when it so turned -- I think out of fear of antagonizing the Communist Party, then powerful in publishing.

Lionel Abel"

"If Mr. Gopnik chooses to use a book review to skewer Clement Greenberg's work as a critic and a writer, that I must accept. However, if Gopnik chooses to claim in his review that Greenberg was a neglectful father, that I must refute. Clement Greenberg was a doting father to me all my life, and I am proud that my four-month-old daughter, Clementine, bears his name.

Sarah Greenberg Morse"

Hair-splitting, perhaps, but useful when these elements of the article may be touched upon.

1860. KurtMondaugen - April 12, 1998 - 1:39 PM PDT
CatintheHat:

Um, clever, but sadly old hat: Piero Manzoni, 1959.

1861. TheCatintheHat - April 12, 1998 - 1:47 PM PDT
Yeah, like I said, artistically impaired ...

==):-)

1862. KurtMondaugen - April 12, 1998 - 1:55 PM PDT
lab:

I tried, but couldn't seem to access the "Out of Actions" article from the Times' archive. Please mail, as I'd be interested in hearing Smith's reactions.

1863. RobertDente - April 14, 1998 - 11:40 AM PDT
Well I see that the Arts Thread is at the bottom of the screen yet again, so let me see if I can stir up my ex-Catholic guilt and attempt a passable contribution or in Greenberg critic's term: "Slip in a fast one here!"

Gopnick's first paragraph in “The Power Critic” certainly got this reader's attention--it was pretty cinematic. For the remainder of the article, I pictured Clement Greenberg with a big mole on his bald head, brown teeth and goose blood all over him! Of course, in no way did the first paragraph place any doubt or bias in my mind. (g)

The first provocative question in this bumping-car ride of a read, for me, was: *Is* the New York School of AA simply a Greenbergian spell of “oversized abstract watercolors” that crippled two generations of realists in this country? As I'm contemplating this question, CG is then described as a kind of faux intellectual entertainer akin to an art world Ragging Bull/Jake LaMotta playing to the gallery nightclub circuit. His persona then toggled into a kind of Rush Limbaugh of art--an opportunistic “scam artist and simultaneously a true believer of art-for-arts-sake? Do we focus on the writer or the person, or both--and why? I mean if the (dictatorial) Power Critic forced the stretch-limo of art history to take a particular unalterable turn down a one way street of what matter to us today.or those tomorrow?

1864. RobertDente - April 14, 1998 - 11:51 AM PDT
Gopnick/Greenberg cont'd...

The next question in the article that excited me was “the bigger question about the role of art criticism in modern society.” We're talking about an art scene when and where “the usual suspects” numbered under a thousand. Could we all fall for that kind of artistic McCarthyism today? (My mind now goes to David Bowie on Charlie Rose last week saying that: “Jeff Koons is a great great artist!”---Gee, maybe I should add him to the POC Thread?) I loved the line: ”amazing numbers of clever people will congregate at your feet, no matter how smelly they may be.” (The piece has lots of funny one-liners throughout which I've been thoroughly enjoying, btw; so thanks for the heads up on this article, all.) If we as a group tackle this question (role of AC in modern society), count me in!

Another interesting query, imo, is the critic-as-appraiser idea. Are art lovers like rare wine snobs who are willing to believe the ‘gifted palate” about what should next be consumed while we conform our acquired tastes to the expert as benchmark? And what about the courage of a critic? How did and does Greenberg win us over?

I've got to run, but if anyone has comments or would like to pick up the ball... please take this pass--dribble, shoot, drop the ball or hit me over the head with it, if I'm making a fool of myself again. (The last time I tried to make a contribution here regarding my experiences with the NYC crowd, nobody responded; so if there are no posts following this--believe me, *this time* I'll take the hint!)

1865. RobertDente - April 14, 1998 - 11:54 AM PDT
Sorry-

The third paragraph above has "*Is* the New York School of AA" and it should be *Is* the New York School of AE (Abstract Expressionism)

1866. RobertDente - April 14, 1998 - 12:48 PM PDT
opps again--I forgot this:

Gopnick/Greenberg cont'd...

The next issue that held my attention was Gopnick's intimation that Greenberg jujitsued “a lot of Marxist thinking of the thirties” into Formalism. (I would have loved at least one good example at that point, but the sound bites wouldn't allow I suppose.) I'm struck by the image of a flock of birds all flying in unison and I wonder if today's cultural consumption of art will ever allow that kind mid century resonance to exist again. I mean we still go to coffee houses only today they are corporate Starbuck hangouts. Yet art seems like such a trivial indulgence in comparison to those heady days of Pollack. Marxism lost the war; Modernism has failed and Formalism seems to be gasping for air somewhat. Are those of us left in this old neighborhood still “searching for an ideological faith?”

1867. senecio - April 14, 1998 - 6:52 PM PDT
Quite a number of provocative points you've thrown in, Robert. If I may add to them (I hesitate to do so, as I will be unable to join in the discussion from this time and until Sunday evening, but what the heck!...):

1. Does anyone sees a parallel between Greenberg and his coeval demon Jean Paul Sartre? (Hint: Seductive, suggestive, high-minded ideologists, firm believers in pre-ordained destiny, the embodiment of the theorist as oracle and dictator, capable of annointing or overthrowing kings with a passing remark, subduing practitioners into the meek role of executors of their fancy blueprints)

2. Was CG really the initiator of the still prevailing contemporary tendency of of the art theorist to cast itself as equal co-participant of the epic of artistic creation (at best) or as the utterer of the WORD that must be illustrated by the artists (at worst)? BTW, I don't quite agree with Adam Gopnik that Tom Wolfe's "The Painted Word" can be termed a "conservative" view of CG's role in art history.

3. Was there ever a more absurd and short'lived prediction than CG's annoucement that the future of painting, after abstract expressionism, would lie in the kinds of flat stuff produced by Louis, Frankenthaler and Olitski?

4. CG may not have killed Paris as the world art center singlehandedly, but a retrospective comparison of the merits of certain American Abstract expresionism (not the top people like Pollock or de Kooning, but more the likes of Baziotes or Still) and their French counterparts of that time could be enlightening. Anyone?

1868. KurtMondaugen - April 14, 1998 - 8:15 PM PDT
senecio:

In relation (though not necessarily a response or elaboration) to your thought number 4, I'll remind you of Gopnik's amusing counter to the 'conservative' view put forth, in Gopnik's view, by Tom Wolfe. "The opposing, yet oddly complimentary, leftwing view is that Greenberg was the mouthpiece in a C.I.A.-sponsored covert action taken by the New York art market against the Paris one. (You will meet Parisian art-world types who will tell you this in all seriousness; in fact, you rarely meet any other kind.)"

btw, I learned today that the US Postal Service is planning a New York School series of postage stamps. Odd.

1869. RobertDente - April 15, 1998 - 5:54 PM PDT

wabbit-I went to the library today for the March 16 New Yorker, but it has been out for quite a while. So if you don't mind, please Email me the last page of Gopnick's review. The last .rtf file truncated as well, btw. Let me know if you want time and a half.

1870. wabbit - April 15, 1998 - 7:07 PM PDT
Robert,

Love your image of Greenberg. I always picture him as sitting a few stools down the bar at the Cedar Street Tavern from Pollock, both drunk, disheveled, insensible and holding court at maximum volume.

I have to say that I wholly believe that two generations of realists *were* crippled, at least in the universities. I've talked to several artists who went through university programs in the sixties and seventies, all of whom were pressured to paint in abstract, non-objective styles just to get their degrees. When they left school, they returned to figurative work, or landscape, or whatever it was they had hoped to hone while at school. While Greenberg was not solely responsible for the narrow vision of the university programs, he certainly contributed to the attitude.

I also think he added to the unfortunate public viewpoint that *real* art is, and can be, only appreciated by a handful of insightful, progressive viewers, possessed of a highly developed sensitivity. The "gifted palate" theory would be fun to get into. Greenberg was the polar opposite of what we have today; it was art if Greenberg said it was art vs. anything can be called art if the "artist" says it's art (takes me back to that Robert Hughes discussion, Robert).

If Greenberg wins us over, it must be that his taste in painting is still with us, because his theory often falls flat. One of his primary arguments was about the autonomy of a given art medium, that to preserve it's essence, a given medium must refer only to itself and not to any other medium. Certainly it could be argued that he is wrong when he says that "Three dimensionality is the province of sculpture, and for the sake of its own autonomy painting has had above all to divest itself of everything it might share with sculpture." [_Modernist Painting_, 1963] The *representation* of three-dimensionality on a two-dimensional surface is within the province of painting, dr

1871. wabbit - April 15, 1998 - 7:09 PM PDT
cont.

The *representation* of three-dimensionality on a two-dimensional surface is within the province of painting, drawing and photography, but not sculpture. To claim that illusory space should be excluded from painting seems arbitrary to me.

More to come as time and interest in the discussion allows.

[note to Slate: will you people PLEASE change the word count, and get some html codes up and running?]

1872. wabbit - April 15, 1998 - 7:10 PM PDT
Senecio,

Good to see you! Some really interesting observations, which I hope I'll have time to get to in the next few days. A quick note about your #3: do you suppose his relationship with Frankenthaler had anything to do with this prediction? imo, she was the only artist who was able to take anything from Pollock and go one step further. Pollock was, for everyone else, pretty much a stylistic dead end.


Kurt,

[looks left, looks right, whispers. . .] It's a conspiracy.

1873. wabbit - April 15, 1998 - 7:11 PM PDT
Robert,

It's in the [e-]mail. Time-and-a-half? What happened to pizza and a couple beers? [k]

1874. RobertDente - April 15, 1998 - 8:54 PM PDT
wab-

The rain check for the pizza & beers is still there!

What about the image of Greenberg from the New Yorker?

( I know--I'm a cheeky monkey!)

WRT realists--I remember Sylvia Plimock-Mangold telling me that she came to landscape painting through the back door of still life via the cellar door of Formalism at Yale. She painted the floors, mirrors and the trompe l'oeil rulers because of the pressure to have a conceptual hook on which to hang everything. Another artist whom I admire (and also married to a Formalist--Joel Shapiro) is Ellen Phelan. I don't know about her development, but her abstraction and her representational work is as strong as anything that's being painted today.

Thanks for the response.

1875. RobertDente - April 17, 1998 - 8:20 PM PDT

Yet another take on The Rubenfeld Book:

inclement weather by Charlie Finch

Clement Greenberg: A Life by Florence Rubenfeld, Scribners, $30.

This is a deeply depressing book. Misanthrope, drunk, drug addict, cultist, artist abuser and all-around shit, Clement Greenberg doesn't even come off as the worst person in his own biography!

As portrayed by Florence Rubenfeld in prose that never really comes alive, Dore Ashton is a ninny; Irving Sandler timorous; Hilton Kramer a coward; Ken Noland vain and needy; Jackson Pollock mentally retarded; Lee Krasner a greedhead for free art; Jules Olitski grandiosely self-obsessed; and Alfred Barr tasteless.

All of that would be forgivable, if their vaunted lives weren't so boring, at least in this telling. Booze, shrinks, dull wife-swapping between Plain Janes and their ugly men, and, above it all, master puppeteer Clem, as slackjawed, cold-blooded and self-loathing as the Grandest Guignol.

The book's best chapter, by far

1876. RobertDente - April 17, 1998 - 8:22 PM PDT
inclement weather by Charlie Finch continued...

The book's best chapter, by far, is the first one, the great David Smith caper of 1974.

Nine years after Smith expired on the wrong end of a tire, legend-in-her-own-mind Rosalind Krauss and news-hound Betsy Baker, just beginning her Victorian reign at Art in America, conspired to expose Clem's stripping of Smith's monumental outdoor sculptures of paint (rather like Napoleon stripping one's epaulets!).

Of course, Baker and Krauss conveniently elided the key fact that the paint was only primer.

Always transparent in his own self-regard, Greenberg admitted to the author that this and other Oedipal acts he committed on not so innocent artists were really attacks on the aging, immigrant businessman Pere Greenberg, who lived eight blocks away from Clem for most of his life with little intimate contact. Clem was unjustifiably ashamed of him.

1877. RobertDente - April 17, 1998 - 8:24 PM PDT

inclement weather by Charlie Finch continued...

Belying his personal sensuality, Greenberg's criticism grew out of a Puritan strain of '30s Communism. His condemnation of "kitsch" was the typical denial of pleasure characteristic of a '30s left winger, and his adoration of work for its own sake, obsessing on the picture plane, the application of paint, the gesture, etc., also grew out of Communism's worship of the work ethic.

According to Rubenfeld, Greenberg discovered Pollock, Still, Rothko, Newman, all the greats, before he even set foot in Washington, D.C., Color Field land. But as Irving Sandler told this reporter, it was Harold Rosenberg who was the star in the '50s, not Greenberg.

Greenberg was a firm believer in Duchamp's maxim "Le peintre est bête." Only Clem would journey to the D.C. barn for dumb animals like Morris Louis and Noland, tramping through the studios where the grapes of wrath are stored, turning out Color Field art like wine.

1878. RobertDente - April 17, 1998 - 8:26 PM PDT

inclement weather by Charlie Finch continued...

Think of all the idiotic swerves in Noland's dumbed-down career, the chevrons, the stripes, the groops, the globs. They're all just portraits of Clammy Clem!

Personally I enjoyed partying with the old boy in 1992, at a Washington Square bash arranged by a female chum.

The ratio was Clem, seven chicks and your scribe. At age 82, Clem easily smoked a carton of Camels, sending me into the street to buy more, and sucked up a whole fifth of Jim Beam.

His hands worked tirelessly to tactilely assess a 25-year-old redhead's curves. What about her "career"?

At 3 a.m., when I meekly put out my hand to get Clem a taxi, he thrashed me with his cane --

"I can get my own cab!"

Yet Clem apparently couldn't control his own life and, in Rubenfeld's most sensational revelation, turned over its management to a cult formed around the behavioral ideas of Harry Stack Sullivan.

1879. RobertDente - April 17, 1998 - 8:28 PM PDT


inclement weather by Charlie Finch continued...

Rubenfeld doesn't discuss Sullivan himself, a pederast who focused his research on teenage boys, whom he desired to cut off from nuclear family ties. Unlike Freud, who regarded a son and his mother as the perfect relationship, Sullivan saw nirvana in two teen boys in what he called a "fugue state." In its infinite wisdom, the U.S. government put Sullivan in charge of all psychological testing of U.S. military draftees during World War II!

Rubenfeld picks up the story in the '50s, when the Sullivanians lived commune-style on the Upper West Side, around the corner from Clem's Central Park West digs. As in most cults, women cooked, cleaned and were expected to swap 'n' fuck on demand, one of its main appeals to Greenberg, who managed to suck one Bennington coed after another into the Sullivanian clutches.

Rubenfeld convincingly argues that the entire Bennington art faculty became Sullivanians at Clem's command!

1880. RobertDente - April 17, 1998 - 8:29 PM PDT
inclement weather by Charlie Finch continued...

By all means read this book to disabuse yourself of "the good old days of the New York art world." Things are a zillion times more pluralistic today, on the surface.

Yet, paradoxically, the twin obsessions of Gen X and Gen Y artists are, at their core, totally Greenbergian!

The fixation on childhood dysfunction that occupies so much art today is so Sullivanian that it's creepy.

And the neurosis of labor-intensive process art (Charles Ledray, Tom Friedman, Ann Hamilton, et al.) owes so much to Greenberg's sadistic dictations about flatness, objecthood, nongestural strokes and the other of creation.

The Clem Colossus even lives on biologically. Greenberg's only daughter, Sarah Greenberg Morse, writes in a letter published in last week's New Yorker that she named her daughter "Clementine," after her old man.

Sarah should have called her "Helena" after Helen Frankenthaler, the only person ever to bring Greenberg to

1881. RobertDente - April 17, 1998 - 8:31 PM PDT

inclement weather by Charlie Finch continued...his knees. He kept wanting Franky's yoni, but she spurned his desperate marriage proposals, dumped him and is still building a lucrative career on one allegedly good painting, reified by Greenberg.

Clement Greenberg: A Life doesn't pack a lot of pop, but it's the only place you'll find a lot of this poop. Besides, the photo of young Rosalind Krauss nuzzling her typewriter is worth the price alone!

CHARLIE FINCH is the New York editor of Coagula Art Journal and has coauthored the forthcoming Most Art Sucks from Smart Art Press.

1882. RobertDente - April 17, 1998 - 8:42 PM PDT

Apologies for all the trashy trendoid gossip (for which Finch is infamous), but I thought some parts might be of interest to some (wabbit) wrt Irving Sandler and helen Frankenthaler.

1883. wabbit - April 17, 1998 - 8:43 PM PDT
hahahahaha, Robert, I just read that review!

I've heard many, many stories from Irving, as you can imagine. I am going to have to get this book just to talk to him about it. Irving timorous? Soft-spoken, but not timorous. Of course, I suppose anyone would appear to be timid next to Greenberg. And Dore Ashton must be spitting fire right about now. . .

1884. wabbit - April 17, 1998 - 8:51 PM PDT
Yep, I should have taken that job, eh? All the gossip I've missed, and you *know* what a gossip hound I am...not!

For anyone who wants to see the pictures that go along with this review, you can find them here.

1885. wabbit - April 17, 1998 - 9:44 PM PDT
Robert,

Well, ok, about the Gopnik article.

Gopnik makes a good point about Greenberg's Marxism and how Greenberg shoehorned Marxist thought into formalist art criticism through the "if it's not part of the solution, it's part of the problem" line of thinking. We can come back to that later if anyone is interested. I also appreciate the way he justifies Greenberg's "eye" by describing it as an elbow, a much more apt term in Greenberg's case, imo.

The one-liners in this article are priceless. Since I'm sure Socko never ventures in here, I'll point out my personal favorite: "Hannah Arendt, once again earning her reputation as the Mrs. Magoo of the New York intellectuals — an amiable visionary who could not see what was right in front of her nose - maintained that Greenberg's readiness to hit people was a sign of his vocation for criticism. The trouble with intellectuals, this intellectual remarked, is that "everything became a matter of talk, talk, talk." Greenberg was admirable because he conformed to Camus's "virile ideal" and had "some sense of manliness and honor."" Ok, three lines, I know.

As far as whether Greenberg forced art criticism, or indeed the New York School specifically, down a particular path, I think he probably did, though perhaps no more than Rosenberg, and though Greenberg seems to be having something of a revival now, Rosenberg is still the more respected of the two. Perhaps their choices of artists to champion has some influence there, Greenberg for Pollock and Rosenberg for de Kooning. De Kooning has proven to be the bigger influence. I have a funny story about how de Kooning painted, which I'll save for another time.

1886. wabbit - April 17, 1998 - 9:45 PM PDT
cont.

I absolutely part company with Gopnik when he credits Greenberg with "relocat[ing] the center of the art world from Paris to New York..." We have Hitler and Stalin to thank for that, not Clement Greenberg.


I hate to nitpick about things like this, but Pollock was from Cody, Wyoming, not Arizona. I haven't gotten the book yet, so I don't know if the error is Rubenfeld's or Gopnik's. I'm thinking maybe we should actually read this book and do our own critiques, what do you think?

btw, I've also heard the Lionel Abel story. I'll see if I can find any independent corroboration of whether the event actually occurred.

1887. wabbit - April 17, 1998 - 11:26 PM PDT
One more thing -- what's up with Bowie? Did you read his interview of Balthus in _Modern Painters_?

1888. RobertDente - April 18, 1998 - 8:07 PM PDT
(short-haired) hare- Here is a rebuttal post that I received in the Arts & Architecture thread at the NYT's website:

oontt - 12:01pm Apr 17, 1998 EST (#105 of 106)

"WDB to robert dente: Gopnick's review is provocative because it is so full of errors, misreadings and misinterpretations. That's a hell of a reason to recommend it to anyone. There is plenty of ongoing discussion of "that period of critical influence". You don't need to refer to someone who doesn't even read his review books carefully, although frankly I'd be hard put to find anyone in this area who does. The review in the NY Times was virtually slanderous. Everything said about Clement Greenberg must be taken with a huge grain of salt. I knew the man well and all I can say is that they are talking about some other person. See the letters in this week's New Yorker."

robertdente - 12:20am Apr 18, 1998 EST (#106 of 106)

"oontt-Thanks for the tip and even more so for your passion!"

What does WDB mean?

I have to say wab: I think Gopnik's piece *is* kind of a cheap and shallow shot, but I totally agree with his final evaluation of Greenberg as a kind of "bathtub ring!" (Which may mean I'm just as shallow, I suppose?) I also reread a chapter from Rosenberg's "The De-definition of Art" and an essay on Hans Hofmann by Greenberg in the Cynthia Goodman book. Rosenberg--Oldsmobile and Greenberg--jalopy! (A jalopy can be fun though, as long as you don't mind breaking down or having birds shit in your face!) I also came across the Irving Sandler essay on Hofmann which I will also reread, btw.

I also think that *all* of your opinions are accurate and fair, fwiw.

1 of 2 posts...

1889. RobertDente - April 18, 1998 - 8:11 PM PDT
wabbit continued...

Finally (for now), I'll leave you with an excerpt of an Email that I received this morning which may be of interest:


"Hey Robert,

I've known FR since the early 70's. Met her in Washington but she grew up near here and her summer home is just 5 minutes away. I've been waiting to read the book for over 5 years.

CG, on the other hand, had a place in Norwich, NY near my sister's, tho I never saw him there. He told me one time that the future in American art would arise out of self taught landscape artists. CG was a closet landscape painter tho I never did get to see anything.

Best regards,

Bob Stark"

(Bob Stark is an artist and the founder/directory of an arts center in upstate NY.)

1890. CoralReef - April 18, 1998 - 8:34 PM PDT
Was that wild about that homeless man being found to be a ballet dancer or what??

1891. RobertDente - April 18, 1998 - 9:07 PM PDT
Reef- What? Where? When? Huh?

1892. CoralReef - April 18, 1998 - 11:39 PM PDT
"Associated Press

NEW YORK -- Arthur Bell, a 71-year-old man, was found homeless and disoriented on a Brooklyn street last month, barely standing, his feet frozen. He told paramedics that he was once a ballet dancer in Paris.

"And they went, `Yeah, yeah, yeah,' " recalled social worker Maria Mackin. Bell's medical chart, after all, noted possible signs of dementia.

But in the next few days, Bell told Mackin tales of Paris and London, Frederick Ashton, Margot Fonteyn, Olga Preobrajenskaya, Katherine Dunham and James Baldwin.

"He started telling me things that only someone who was really in the dance world would know. And I thought, `This is not dementia,' " said Mackin, who happened to have been a ballet photographer at one time. She also saw that Bell was "incredibly graceful ... slender, sleek."

The accuracy, the detail and the clarity with which he spoke led her to the New York Library for the Performing Arts at Lincoln Center.

Bell's story checked out."

1893. CoralReef - April 18, 1998 - 11:41 PM PDT
(cont)

"He had been a pioneering black ballet dancer. Though he was no star, he left his artistic mark on the 1940s and '50s, "when there was no place for African-Americans in classical ballet," said Madeleine Nichols, curator of the dance collection at the library.

Bell worked odd jobs after his dance career ended, but can't remember how he wound up on the street, where he had been living for months in the dead ofwinter. His last address was a men's shelter. He would have been sent back there had Mackin not intervened."

1894. CoralReef - April 18, 1998 - 11:43 PM PDT
And finally reunited

1895. CalGal - April 18, 1998 - 11:47 PM PDT
CoralReef,

I had read about the original story and, I believe, posted it somewhere else--not in Arts (oops! Is that what you do here?)

But I hadn't known about him finding his family. That's wonderful.

1896. CalGal - April 19, 1998 - 2:46 AM PDT
Wabbit,

Okay, I actually read all of this stuff and I have a few comments:

1) Robert! I didn't understand a word you said but your writing is wonderful! In the rest of the threads we usually only get your four words and a picture.

2) Since I didn't understand a word not only Robert but anyone else said about this ultimate J (at least I assume it was Greenberg you were referring to), I went searching and found out about him, this essay (which was the only thing I could find that referenced the same subjects as your posts), once I made my way through it, helped enough that then I reread your posts and they all made sense.

3) Your references to CG are confusing; *I* am CG.

4) So Greenberg's "Avant-Garde and Kitsch" was a big deal and, according to this guy "quickly became canonized as a sort of uniquely American perspective on the issues surrounding the creation and marketing of art in a contemporary democracy"; kitsch is bad, avant-garde is good.

5) Greenberg seems to have been an incredibly powerful art critic and may have actually "controlled what Pollock produced and sold"? That's what this guy says, but other links I found said if nothing else he influenced Pollock directly. (like I know who Pollock is other than the spatter guy) Weird.

6) Finally, someone answer a long-standing question for me. How can visual art be political? I'll religiously read all links. Unless it's not okay to say religiously around the subject of Greenberg, a Marxist.

7) Okay, it wasn't finally. Why does the only picture of him I could find look like he's doing something indelicate with his nose? You'd think a better picture could have been found.

1897. RobertDente - April 19, 1998 - 6:54 AM PDT
CR- Thanks for that delightful story!

CalGal-(Someone has insomnia or a heavy project again, me thinks.) If you think of art as a visual gesture (which I *do*, ever since I studied art in Italy) you'll see a kind of fast track to the human soul. The study of art is really for everyone because it's the fastest intake of information. For those of us who have a dominant sense in our eyes (as opposed to our ears or body--music, dance etc.) art is savored like an exquisite meal and it's a silent and contemplative experience that enriches like no other. The rub of course is that in our frenetic and shallow culture, it becomes road kill very quickly by the meretricious powers that be. WRT your question, Pollack's gesture of defiance to a three-dimensional illusionistic forming artworld gave painting a whole new direction. It was a big visual "Up yours!" so to speak. But there are countless examples and I hope that wabbit responds to your question--she has better radar than I when it comes to the history of visual history.

1898. RobertDente - April 19, 1998 - 10:16 AM PDT
wabbit-
WRT Bowie and the Balthus article--what specifically? I read it, but it was a while back and I wasn't all that impressed with the article as much as I was with the fact that he cared about art.

Since then however, he's starred in Snotabble's Basket (Schnabel's "Basquiat" as Andy Whorehole (Who I think, btw, is a perfect example of an artist making a political gesture CalGal.

Anyway, after seeing Bowie and his Modern Painting Team (A dealer; a transplanted "Yank-woman" editor; and a very sharp critic who were all very likeable) on Charlie Rose, I came away with the impression that they would indulge Bowie's art school fixations as long as he would pay the bills. Their new Magazine called "Blimey" is devoted to those non-artspeak lovers of the "visual gag" like Jeff Koon's poodle contribution to Documenta--which I like to refer to as Documental!

1899. wabbit - April 19, 1998 - 11:10 AM PDT
Wow, our little thread is busy this weekend!

Reefer, thanks for posting the story about Arthur Bell. I had heard something on the radio about him not long ago, but this was a nice follow-up. I find it discouraging that there are so many elderly people on the street; it doesn't speak very highly of us as a nation of caring or compassionate people, imo, but that's another thread.


Robert, I don't read Gopnik's piece as a cheap shot at all. I read it as a book review with a few of the common anecdotal Greenberg stories thrown in for color (though they may well be mentioned in the book). Greenberg largely created his own legend and the people around him augmented his outsized image of himself by repeating the stories. For anyone to say that all the Greenberg stories must be taken with a huge grain of salt because they are exaggerated and/or untrue is a bit sanctimonious. The man himself started the ball rolling. His defenders now cry sour grapes. Too bad.

As for the landscape painting, I came across a piece about Pollock once, and will try to locate it, that claimed he was an untrained landscape painter! Ha! I guess those years with Benton didn't count.

Ok, so Bowie is into “Blimey” now, that explains his sudden recurring appearances as an interviewer/interviewee and all-around man-of-the-arts. I should have you tape those interviews for me. I don't miss television except for the occasional program; there just aren't enough interesting shows for me to justify hooking up the cable. Anyway, perhaps Bowie will become an interesting figure in the little art world. I hope "Blimey" does well.

1900. wabbit - April 19, 1998 - 1:03 PM PDT
CalGal,

Hey, welcome aboard! It isn't so bad in here, is it? Some of us even post more than one or two sentences here, right Robert?

I'm glad you found that particular essay. I've seen some really dreadful stuff on the web about Greenberg. Anyway, allow me to bore you with a few more things about Greenberg – we so seldom get to hold forth on anything in this thread. . .

Greenberg's "Avant-Garde and Kitsch" is something you might want to read sometime, if for no other reason than I think you'll get a kick out of it. Greenberg's Marxism was amazingly elitist and the essay isn't particularly well done, but it did have an impact. Pollock's importance would have been recognized with or without Greenberg, though it may have taken a bit longer, and perhaps without Greenberg we wouldn't have so damn many of the drip paintings. Greenberg hated Rosenberg's term “action painting” because he thought it was misleading and gave painters (thinking particularly of Barnett Newman and Pollock) the excuse that what mattered wasn't the painting as an art object, but how the painting was made. Greenberg's preferred the term “painterly abstraction,” because it described both the surface characteristics and the subject of a painting, and made a distinction between Abstract Expressionism and Geometric Abstraction. (two links there) It is also worth noting that Greenberg positioned himself as the anti-Rosenberg, whom he didn't even regard as a critic but as a commentator (said to Saul Ostrow, 5/84).

1901. wabbit - April 19, 1998 - 1:05 PM PDT
cont.

As far as visual art being political is concerned, there are so many examples of political art I don't know where to begin. It may depend on how you choose to define “political.” I'll give you a few examples of what are commonly thought of as political art, and if you want anything more specific, let me know. An obvious current example for political art would be the Guerrilla Girls, but others would be Francisco Goya y Lucientes, Honoré Daumier and any number of Social Realists in 1930's Germany.

Enough for now?

1902. wabbit - April 19, 1998 - 1:12 PM PDT
And lest people think we never let our hair down...

1903. RobertDente - April 19, 1998 - 1:31 PM PDT

A classy class in cyber-art-school, Gretta--in spite of the bad links! (g)

(CalGal- Now you know why I will always defer to the pro with the concise and unaddled brain...)

1904. wabbit - April 19, 1998 - 1:40 PM PDT
Yikes! Let me fix the links now and make my humble apologies, they worked for me earlier [hangs head in embarrassment]...

1905. RobertDente - April 19, 1998 - 1:47 PM PDT
Hey wab- The Guerrilla Girl's email is an interesting read--thanks!

1906. wabbit - April 19, 1998 - 1:58 PM PDT
The above links don't work, but these should:

Barnett Newman

Piet Mondrian

Kasimir Malevich

Guerrilla Girls

Francisco Goya y Lucientes

Honoré Daumier

1907. TomHewson - April 19, 1998 - 8:56 PM PDT
What the hell are you people talking about? This man Greenberg was such a fake that he turned communist as a way to pick up women. 'Would you like to come up and see my ugly apartment?' must not have worked as well as 'artists of the world unite!'

If you folks are going to talk about the SoHo scene please get into who slept with whom, as it is the only part that has a chance of keeping me awake.

On a more cheery note, there is a wonderful new book out that I have purchased today called "The Portrait of Dr. Gachet". It is not availabe in London yet, so I was unable to get it while on vacation when I actually had time to read, but I found it here. God Bless America, land of the malls.

1908. CalGal - April 19, 1998 - 9:10 PM PDT
Wabbit, RD,

I haven't had a chance to read all your links yet, but I want to clarify something. From the essay I linked to (which I'm not taking as gospel but I've seen statements like this before:)

"Indeed, Benjamin argues, every aspect of the life of a work of art becomes politicized, and falls somewhere along a spectrum between Fascism (aestheticized politics) and Communism (politicized aesthetics). In this realm, audiences of art become teeming mobs, who are apt to respond alternatively progressively or in reactionary ways towards art objects. The production and subsequent mythologies of art, once constructed so solidly around notions of purism, artistic genius, and unsullied aestheticism, are polarized and become material currency in a larger economic power-play.

Upon publication, BenjaminÕs article was roundly praised and remains highly respected and cited as a paramount example of Marxist theory....'Avant-Garde and Kitsch,' the first major work of art criticism written by Clement Greenberg, set a stage for an art world that, in the next three decades (if not even also today), would exist almost exactly as BenjaminÕs theoretical musings prescribe.'"

Okay. So let me rephrase the question. I *think* the work you showed me is art that expresses an opinion about the subject at hand. So if someone paints a picture that shows the poor sympathetically or the rich looking mean and ugly...yeah, I get that it has a point of view that is political.

But how can art represent a political theory? If Greenberg was Marxist and approved of Pollock and Pollock's work is spatters instead of a pretty painting of Marx (g), how does one know that Pollock's work was reflecting Greenberg's view of art which was Marxist?

(I'm probably saying that badly, of course.)

1909. CalGal - April 19, 1998 - 9:10 PM PDT
Put another way--from the essay, again: "it is my contention that his theories, criticisms, and political stances made himself a currency in the art world, in ways which are both active and passive. "

How do his political stances as regards to theory (as opposed to poor people in the street, whatever) become reflected in art?

RD--yes, I'm both insomniac *and* have a project.

1910. wabbit - April 19, 1998 - 10:03 PM PDT
CalGal,

Ok, I see what you want. I'll find you some art that expresses a political theory tomorrow when I have a bit more time. Meanwhile, since I know you're just dying to read up on this stuff, here's a link to the Walter Benjamin essay "The Work of Art in the Age of Mechanical Reproduction." Good stuff.

1911. KurtMondaugen - April 20, 1998 - 12:09 AM PDT
wabbit:

The Guerilla Girls recently appeared here in town and effectively displayed themselves as largely clueless and outdated. Kind of like Gilbert and George (all gimmick) without the wit. I will be posting on Pollack tomorrow, after I get some sleep.

1912. KurtMondaugen - April 21, 1998 - 10:20 PM PDT
Pollack's perceived status as the sole perpetrator of the concept that a painting was merely the material embodiment of an action has been overstated in general to the degree that other similar experiments received little recognition. Still, his works, as objects whose creative process is recording in as of themselves and in documents of their creation, did have a large impact on the direction of both Color Field painting and performative art. The 'myth' that has been made of Pollac's life emphasises his method, almost at the expense of his paintings. His most "identifying" works, the pure drip paintings, constitute a brief period of his oeuvre, and the most orthodox of these works ("No. 1", for example) are recognized as having been carefully constructed, even utilizing brushwork to achieve coherent, constructive compositions. This runs counter to the general image of Pollack (distributed by photographer Hans Namuth) as a brute force, creating at random. Which view is correct? Well, both of course.

1913. KurtMondaugen - April 21, 1998 - 10:30 PM PDT
With Pollock and other action painters of the period (Kline, etc.), a particular shift took place in painting. With some notable exceptions, painters had previously tended to conceal the fact that their works were the result of a process, in favor of displaying carefully selected compositions which could be readily appreciated as such. With action painting in general, and Pollack in particular, the emphasis is shifted in the opposite direction (inadverdently at first, perhaps), in that the artist's actions were the subject of the finished product (at least, from a viewer's standpoint), leaving previous, less successful departures (Surrealism, etc.) in the realm of the merely aesthetic, rather than the dissoluted primacy of the action painters.

1914. KurtMondaugen - April 21, 1998 - 10:42 PM PDT
In 1956 (two years after Pollack's death) Allan Kaprow (developer of the "Happening" concept) proposed that the performative quality of an artist's work would become most significant, and that Pollack's paintings signalled the end of the tradition of two-dimensional representation (Kaprow called Pollack's works "environments", something which never really applied, but Kaprow's own "Happenings" could certainly be called such). Kaprow's writings on Pollack (esp. "The Legacy of Jackson Pollack") seem now to be more perceptive of Pollack's "legacy" than the more commonly accepted alternative of the 1950s (Color Field). With Kaprow's declaration, Happenings, events, performative and much conceptual works are defined for the first time as extensions of Pollack's achievements. (Similarly, in 1979, critic/historian Barbara Rose addressed the significance of the *documents* of Pollack's process as equally essential as the paintings themselves). For subsequent schools of thought, the step from the frame to the body was simply logical...Guitai, Klein's anthropometries, Fluxus, Viennese Aktionism (Nitsch, etc), Cage/Cunningham, on down to the aforementioned Guerilla Girls and even Koons owe extreme debts to Pollack for both content and form. This is something Pollack (nor Greenberg, or anyone else, except maybe Kaprow) really knew at the time, but in retrospect it seems undeniable.

1915. KurtMondaugen - April 21, 1998 - 10:48 PM PDT
Sorry, the 2nd sentence of Message #1912 should read "Still, his works as object whose creative process is recorded in the works themselves, as well as in documents of their creation...". Carry on.

1916. KurtMondaugen - April 21, 1998 - 10:52 PM PDT
"objects", rather....I give up.

1917. wabbit - April 25, 1998 - 10:35 PM PDT
Mondaugen,

I've never been quite convinced of all of Kaprow's argument, although it's easy to see the genesis of his ideas. Just a couple points: Pollock died in 1956, and Kaprow wrote his article within a few months of that, while still very saddened by the accident (although the article wasn't published for two years, I think, I can't find my copy of it right now). Also, I think Lee Krasner made the first "drip" paintings, though Pollock was the one who got the publicity. If I can locate my copy of that article we can discuss it further, if you like. It's somewhere in one of several stacks of art books that are currently serving as tables.

1918. wabbit - April 25, 1998 - 10:41 PM PDT
Calgal,

Sorry to be so long getting back to this, a zillion research projects to write up right now. Take a look at this page for some pretty good examples and explanations of political art. I'll be able to dig up more for you in about four weeks time, if you're still interested.

1919. senecio - April 26, 1998 - 10:03 AM PDT
Wabbit, how do you manage to find such interesting sites? This one was excellent although I was somehow left with a teensy tingle of doubt about the site-maker's true feelings towards accomplished nazi art

1920. wabbit - April 26, 1998 - 10:19 AM PDT
Senecio,

Good to see you! Hey, did you see that your post made the new Best of the Fray column?

I do a lot of research on the net these days. It's amazing what is (and isn't) available. I thought that site gave some decent examples of that kind of political art, but it does make one a bit queasy.

1921. CalGal - April 26, 1998 - 6:29 PM PDT
Wabbit,

Well, I meant to post longer than this but things got away from me and I have to go.

Thank you for the link--that definitely clarified things for me. I agree with both of you--I got a clear feeling of rationalization in that link that made me queasy.

Haven't finished the Greenberg article yet, but I've scanned it. "The die is cast; the boy will become an art critic." after the story--very funny line. My other favorite thus far is, "The notion that what he lacked was selfishness was pie to Greenberg".

Apologies if either of these were mentioned earlier; I didn't review your comments prior to this post.

See ya!

1922. labarjare - April 26, 1998 - 6:58 PM PDT
Wabbit - did you by any chance see the exhibit put on the the NYC Library several years ago with a number of examples of both the "degenerate" and Nazi approved art? As is usual with them, the exhibit was well done (the juxtaposition of a number of approved/disapproved pieces made the point in spades. Static(heroic, stereotyped, moralistic and righteous) vs. animated and varied would be one way of putting it.) The "narrative" was quite good as well. I don't recall, however, if there was a printed booklet.

1923. labarjare - April 26, 1998 - 7:14 PM PDT
btw - welcome back, senecio. Your appearances here are far too sporadic!!

1924. wabbit - April 26, 1998 - 7:46 PM PDT
Labj,

No, I missed that one, but I'll ask about a booklet next time I'm there. It sounds like a good one. I have seen a couple "Degenerate" style shows in galleries that don't quite pull it off, but in my experience the NYPL has both depth and quality in their exhibits.

I trust you saw the NYTimes review of the Fogg's Bernini clay sketches exhibit? I wonder if they have their fading Rothkos out with the Abstraction show.

1925. labarjare - April 27, 1998 - 5:42 PM PDT
Yes, I saw that review. Certainly doesn't sound like your typical display of sculptural pieces. Deep teal walls no less. Theatrical lighting. Sounds terrific. Were you as intrigued as I at the thought of having the FBI search for latent fingerprints? Makes sense in some ways.

Your link to the various things going on at the Harvard museums certainly makes one want to conjure up an excuse to take a trip to Cambridge.

No - the Rothko currently on display in the abstraction show is not one of the muddy ones. I saw the show shortly after it opened in February and, actually the more I think about it, I am sure I made a comment or two about it here at the time. The Rothko on display is blue and green, not very large, and imo not very inspiring. The ones turning to a more or less mud color are, ummm, rather embarrassing to Harvard and I think are shown once a year for a day or two. Somewhere.

1926. PamIAm - April 27, 1998 - 7:44 PM PDT
FYI, Robert's new show:

Robert Dente's NATURAL TENDENCIES

1927. wabbit - April 27, 1998 - 7:45 PM PDT
Labj,

The fading Rothko paintings come out less frequently than that, I think. I seem to remember they are shown for two weeks every five years, though I could be wrong. I have been told that they were originally hung in direct, bright sunlight in one of the dining halls, by someone who didn't realize the damage that direct sunlight could do to paintings. I'm sure the Woolworth's (or whatever) paint Rothko used was no help. I remember your comments about the Rothko in the current exhibit now that you remind me. Disappointing. Still, perhaps there is enough on display to prompt me to drive to beantown in a few weeks. I think MIT has some interesting things up now as well.

1928. labarjare - April 27, 1998 - 8:03 PM PDT
Oh by all means, go Wabbit. The abstraction exhibit (umm only about ten paintings as I recall) in and of itself was quite interesting.

Yes, those paintings were commissioned for a dining hall (well, probably a faculty dining room or something. I just don't know.) So, it was a direct contract with Rothko. My understanding was that he wasn't at all sympathetic when Harvard, in its ever so charming way, got pissed at what was happening to its new paintings. Querry - at that point of his professional career he obviously was earning enough money to afford good oils etc. and he presumably knew that the Woolworths oils were not going to make it over the long haul. Why did he continue to use inferior materials?

1929. wabbit - April 27, 1998 - 8:11 PM PDT
I just saw a student installation that I thought I'd share with you all. Perhaps we'll get some of the HS thread crowd to jump in.

This student is a film major, and I'm not convinced he knows how to put a static exhibit together. He claimed his exhibit was meant to communicate his innermost fears and desires. sigh.

Using a film set, he painted the walls to look like a Mansonesque scene, though he should know that blood on a white wall does not dry to a cherry red color. Suspended from the ceiling was one of those large metal spools used to roll electrical wiring, a metal version of the wooden spools the phone company uses. The spokes of this spool were skewered with rotting meat, a blood splattered baby doll, his own shit (which he had been saving and freezing just for this occasion) and a photo of a woman about to blow a huge penis. The fragrance was not attractive. Think bright, hot studio lighting.

He meant for the audience to interact with this piece, walk around it and examine it up close. I say, he failed to consider his audience.

The pornography was gratuitous (if he had had 5 or 6 photos, it wouldn't have been) and the rotting meat wasn't varied enough or rotten enough. Saving his own feces for this was, imo, a waste of time (and one can only wonder what kind of roommates he has that would tolerate his frozen shit in the freezer). The walls were the most interesting part of the room, and a three second glance was enough.

Overall, an abject failure as an installation, but I am somewhat proud to be at a school where this kind of thing is not only tolerated, but encouraged. And, if anyone is interested, this kid has no piercings or tattoos, and his short hair is it's natural color.

1930. labarjare - April 27, 1998 - 8:20 PM PDT
for a moment I thought you were trying to intice the High School crowd but now I know better. Ummm - you say this kid is a film major?

1931. labarjare - April 27, 1998 - 8:23 PM PDT
Maybe he saw some Naumans, Barneys and Chapmans in close succession and got confused.

1932. KurtMondaugen - April 27, 1998 - 8:47 PM PDT
wabbit:

Sounds like one of the all-too-frequent "deliberatly shocking" or otherwise provocative pieces whose point would have been less obscured by its decidedly juvenile presentation. That stuff's a dime a dozen (not literally, of course), especially at the 'alternative' or independent spaces. I agree with your comment that the school should be commended for not trying to restrict its presentation due to the, ahem, "controversial" materials, but the sad fact is that the work itself sounds from your description to be typically boring (and not just as an object..."meant to communicate his innermost fears and desires"? sigh, indeed).

1933. wabbit - April 27, 1998 - 8:56 PM PDT
Kurt,

You already know how bored I am with this, ahem, crap. If this guy thought his presentation was shocking or controversial, all I can say is, he doesn't get out enough.

1934. coralreef - April 27, 1998 - 8:59 PM PDT
OTOH this guy is a cynch for an NEA grant.

1935. senecio - April 28, 1998 - 7:10 PM PDT
That site about political art left me thinking. I would never have put the kinds of Tatlin and Larionov as sort of a socialist mirror image to nazi art. The socialist realism of later years, yes, of course. But, then again, how are some of the Russian artists of the late teens and 20s different from, say, some of the Italian futurists, harbingers of the facist state of spirit, with their ugly manifestos about the cleansing beauty of war and all the rest? Hmm...

Labarjare (MSG 1923) True, I have been posting little and far between. It's a long story. Basically, I cannot sit often in front of my PC these days, but when I do, I make sure to catch up with all the posts in this thread.

Wabbit, thanks for mentioning that best-of-the-fray article. I fed myself an extra carrot, as a reward.

Robert: nice show. I particularly liked the first one, which is worthy of Constable's cloud sketches.

1936. turntable - April 29, 1998 - 4:42 PM PDT
"Amusement under late-capitalism is the prolongation of work." Name the artist.

Also, I'm rather fond of those "ugly manifestos" penned by the futurists. I mean, nothing like getting all theoretically hyper-ventilated by something that eventually kills you.

1937. wabbit - April 29, 1998 - 5:08 PM PDT
Senecio,

The Italian Futurists, yes, fascists all. Here is Marinetti's 1915 essay "War, the World's Only Hygiene."

The Russian Contructivist artists were caught up in their own ideological world, and most of the art and writing they did to promote Lenin's policies went over the heads of their intended audience, when that audience even saw their work. This site does a fair job of superficially explaining Tatlin's "Monument to the Third International."

1938. wabbit - April 29, 1998 - 5:14 PM PDT
Turntable,

Welcome aboard. Amusement usually makes me think of Collingwood, but not in this case. How nice of you to bring the "The Culture Industry: Enlightenment as Mass Deception" to our attention.

1939. KurtMondaugen - April 29, 1998 - 5:45 PM PDT
I dunno, senecio and wabbit, I'd say Marinetti and D'Annunzio were more concerned with simple self-promotion and in attacking the Parisian establishment values of academic artmaking. Marinetti's first play "Roi Bombance" (naturally directly influenced by Jarry) spoofed revolution, and while the first Futurist evening did feature several militant calls to arms, it was more of a means of disrupting the public than a sincere gesture. In "War, the Only Hygiene", Marinetti indicates that applause is reserved for the 'mediocre, dull, regurgitated or too well digested', while being booed assured the artist that the audience was still alive. When the Futurists burned Austrian flags in the Teatro dal Verme and in the streets of Milan, it was described by them as more for the benefit of 'the fat families eating their ice cream' than any kind of statement on the Austo-Italian conflict. Really no more inherently political than the Dadaists "demanding the right to piss in different colors" or the drop-dead hilarious rhetoric of Debord's Lettrism (and subsequent Situationism). Of course, Russian Futurism and Constructivism were rather different entities entirely, but that stands to reason, I suppose.

1940. turntable - April 29, 1998 - 6:11 PM PDT
Hey Wabbit,

Very fine eye! But then again, no one else really could have said it. Thanks for the Adorno link. In a little over my head though. Who Collingwood? Are you familiar with the West (former) German record lable WERGO? Adorno completists must own disc WER 6173-2. Theodor W. Adorno: Kompositionen. He actually pulls off some almost easy listening Schumann covers. From the liner notes: "So it would be wrong to classify Adorno's artistic work as mere leisure time activity, especially since he was A SEVERE CRITIC OF HOBBIES." emphasis added.

1941. wabbit - April 29, 1998 - 7:09 PM PDT
Mond,

Goofy, maybe, but still fascists. :)

1942. wabbit - April 29, 1998 - 7:14 PM PDT
Turntable,

R. G. Collingwood (1889-1943) was an English philosopher who explored the implications of idealism for aesthetics and the philosophy of history. Collingwood proposed that historical understanding be achieved through empathetic reconstruction of the thoughts that motivated the actions of historical figures. In _The Principles of Art_, he uses the term "amusement" to distinguish entertainment from true art (his term for which is "art properly so called").

I see by your handle and post that you are a music fan, which will stand you in good stead with Mondaugen. Alas, I am a printmaker and a mere dauber.

1943. KurtMondaugen - April 29, 1998 - 7:23 PM PDT
Ah, yes, the venerable Wergo. Coincidentally, I just picked up the first two volumes in their brand-new electronic/computer music series, Edition ZKM (Mesias Maiguashca and Martin Olbrisch, respectively). Haven't listened to them yet, though.

1944. turntable - April 29, 1998 - 8:21 PM PDT
Wabbit,

"Empathetic reconstruction" means just winging it, no? Or have they managed to refute the intentional fallacy?

Kurt,

Maiguashca and Olbrisch? Yikes. Do tell.

1945. senecio - April 30, 1998 - 9:40 AM PDT
Wabbit, thanks for those links... Again: how do you do it? only in the world of cartoons one has everything one needs to make a point (dinamite, springboards, axes) at the tip of one's fingers.

1946. senecio - April 30, 1998 - 9:47 AM PDT
Wabbit, I think I am beginning to understand. I typed "amusement under late-capitalism" in altavista and got just one reference-- bingo, the Adorno document... I'll practice

1947. turntable - April 30, 1998 - 5:56 PM PDT
cheating.

1948. cllrdr - April 30, 1998 - 7:59 PM PDT
Everybody head for www.dhalgren.com and read "Stranded in the Jungle.