OT: Do politics and humour mix?

[Paul Burridge]

On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 13:58:09 -0400, Spehro Pefhany
<speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:

On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 17:24:54 +0100, the renowned Paul Burridge
pb@notthisbit.osiris1.co.uk> wrote:

On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 17:51:56 -0400, Spehro Pefhany
speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:

On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 08:15:41 GMT, the renowned Scott Stephens
scottxs@comcast.net> wrote:

For instance, an "artist" named Maplethorpe put a cross in a bottle of
urine and called it "art", and the NEA (National Endowment for the Arts)
gave him kilobucks to do it, and the elite celebrated his genius.

That artist was Andres Serrano, the piece was called "Piss Christ",
and it was a crucifix, not a cross, and, BTW, the urine was said to be
his own.

http://www.usc.edu/schools/annenberg/asc/projects/comm544/library/images/502bg.jpg

ahem> Isn't this a little blasphemous?

The Catholic Church made a fuss, at least when it visited Oz:
http://artslaw.com.au/reference/piss974/

Maybe that's why he never did obvious sequels such as "Piss Mary" or
"Piss Ganesh".

Wasn't there an outcry from
the Religious Right over a grant of taxpayers' dough for such a
questionable "work of art"?

Yes. I think Maplethorpe was "discovered" by that lot as a result of
the stir cause by Serrano's work.

How much can I expect to get for
photographing myself taking a shit?

If you're not a critically-acclaimed artist, probably nothing. It
might work as performance art. How about "Voice of Fire", the
"important" Barnett Newman American Expressionist painting bought in
1990 for the bargain price of $1.75 million Canadian taxpayer dollars:

http://temagami.carleton.ca/jmc/cnews/22101999/Gvoice.jpg

A visit to your local home improvement store for rollers and paint and
you could be done duplicating it in maybe half an hour.

Hmmm. Did this "masterpiece" achieve critical acclaim from the
cognoscenti?
--

"What is now proved was once only imagin'd." - William Blake, 1793.

 

[Kryten]

"Frank Bemelman" <f.bemelmanx@xs4all.invalid.nl> wrote in message
news:417404d6$0$48933$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...

"Spehro Pefhany" <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> schreef in bericht
news:a7v7n09i5hgc61upeki7l9ncou9p925mhj@4ax.com...

Daniel Goldreyer needed a bit more time to restore the damaged
"who's afraid of red, yellow and blue". Initially he asked
$500.000 for the job.

http://www.artnet.com/Magazine/reviews/esman/esman4-10-97.asp

A slash on canvas is called vandalism,
a slash in a bottle is art.

Are they taking the piss?

 

[Dbowey]

The answer is NO. Now kill this stupid thread.

 

[Kryten]

"Spehro Pefhany" <speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote in message
news:a7v7n09i5hgc61upeki7l9ncou9p925mhj@4ax.com...

On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 17:24:54 +0100, the renowned Paul Burridge
pb@notthisbit.osiris1.co.uk> wrote:
ahem> Isn't this a little blasphemous?

The Catholic Church made a fuss, at least when it visited Oz:
http://artslaw.com.au/reference/piss974/

Maybe that's why he never did obvious sequels such as "Piss Mary" or
"Piss Ganesh".

Indeed.

Salman Rushdie's sequel to "The Satanic Verses", entitled "Buddha you fat
bastard" never made it to print for similar reasons.

We should all heed the wise words of Monty Python's song "Never be rude to
an Arab".

Yes. I think Maplethorpe was "discovered" by that lot as a result of
the stir cause by Serrano's work.

Are you saying that Serrano is just a little-known ham?

 

[Clarence]

"Dbowey" <dbowey@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20041018201034.29660.00006141@mb-m16.aol.com...

The answer is NO. Now kill this stupid thread.

Well you certainly can't do it like that!

You have to "SNAP" the fingers of both hands at the same time three times with
a slice of bacon on each ear. Try it, I want to see if it works!

 

[Kryten]

"Scott Stephens" <scottxs@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1aWcd.271812$D%.150904@attbi_s51...

Great suggestions! True genius is most often unappreciated and unrewarded.
sigh

Kryten wrote:
Other 'artists' have sold cans of their own shit, labelled "Artist's
Shit".
Tracy Emin sold her unmade bed for Ł50,000.
Damien Hurst sells sliced pickled animals.
Another guy turns corpses into posed preserved anatomy exhibits.

Maybe someone could blend these ideas to make
"Sliced pickled artists in a bedful of their own shit"

Thank you Scott.

You're a damn sight more appreciative than the companies I approached for
sponsorship.

For example, Branston Pickles Ltd, and Slumberland Beds Ltd.

The Germans might be keener - possibly a bit too keen.
They might offer to build an industrial scale artist canning factory.

 

[Clarence]

"Kryten" <kryten_droid_obfusticator@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:HNZcd.1301$xX5.524@newsfe5-win.ntli.net...

"Clarence" <no@No.com> wrote in message
newsfXcd.32150$QJ3.17630@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...

"Nicholas O. Lindan" <see@sig.com> wrote in message
news:4cXcd.660$ta5.114@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net...
"James Arthur" <arthurj@aol.comet.net> wrote

My favourite artwork? Schematics, oftentimes. A clear
drawing of an elegant analogue circuit

I like my own schematics, which I draw in well-chosen sections.

Other people's schematics often seem to be drawn to hide the architecture.

Have you read the SF novel "A Canticle for Leibowitz?", you
might enjoy it. The novel has monks illuminating schematics
with gold leaf.

My brother read this and said that it wasn't the technical meaning of the
schematics that was important, but what they represented (civilisation).

I didn't read this, but I postulate that this merely mocks the stupidity of
human beings in their worship of things without the essential understanding
of their meaning.

e.g. religious texts saying people should love others as they love
themselves, then people murdering each other for centuries over how they
should not murder each other. Or people professing love of animals murdering
scientists.

Along with the "Pope's children" eating the brains of travellers.

Ah, junk food.

Nice book, I have tried to finish it five times, maybe some day I will try
again.

If you have to try to finish it, is it really a good book?

Well written, and somewhat interesting. But parts are quite gory, I can't get
past those. Skipped over to and Read the last four chapters, I thought it was
good. I just don't care for gore up to my knees!

 

[Rich Grise]

On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 22:02:26 +0000, James Arthur wrote:

On 10/18/04 jeffm_@email.com (JeffM) wrote:

an "artist" named Maplethorpe
Scott Stephens

If you look at art as having no intrinsic utilitarian value
--as only something that stirs the emotions--his work
passes the test.

My favorite artwork? Schematics, oftentimes. A clear
drawing of an elegant analog circuit, fer instance. Art *with*
intrinsic utilitarian value... Performing art?

To coin a paraphrase, "Music hath charms that soothe the savage breast."

Yeah, I say that "stir[ring] the emotions" itself has intrinsic
utilitarian value.

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 02:09:53 +0000, Clarence wrote:

Well written, and somewhat interesting. But parts are quite gory, I can't get
past those. Skipped over to and Read the last four chapters, I thought it was
good. I just don't care for gore up to my knees!

Then why are you pushing the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld carnage machine?
Or is it just, It's OK as long as it's up to somebody else's knees?

Thanks,
Rich

 

[Fred Bloggs]

JeffM wrote:

an "artist" named Maplethorpe
Scott Stephens


If you look at art as having no intrinsic utilitarian value
--as only something that stirs the emotions--his work passes the test.
It certainly has put a burr under your saddle.

That burr might be called an erection.

 

[John Larkin]

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 13:20:26 GMT, Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com>
wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 11:26:24 GMT, Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com
wrote:



John Larkin wrote:

On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 17:51:56 -0400, Spehro Pefhany
speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:



Robert Maplethorpe (1946-1989) was the photographer with the
explicit homoerotic art- including flowers.


And he died of AIDS. Nature has the last vote.

John




Better to have lived 43 years as a Maplethorpe than 100 as a Larkin-
damned boring idiot.


I'm not bored,

You bore others.

and I'm glad I'm still alive.

So are many cockroaches.


How are you doing?


NOYDB, idiot.

Not so good, huh?

John

 

[Rich Grise]

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 13:20:26 +0000, Fred Bloggs wrote:

John Larkin wrote:
How are you doing?


NOYDB, idiot.

Noshing on Your Dick, Brainiac?

Thanks,
Rich

 

[James Arthur]

On 10/18/04, Rich Grise rich@example.net wrote:

On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 22:02:26 +0000, James Arthur wrote:

On 10/18/04 jeffm_@email.com (JeffM) wrote:

an "artist" named Maplethorpe
Scott Stephens

If you look at art as having no intrinsic utilitarian value
--as only something that stirs the emotions--his work
passes the test.

My favorite artwork? Schematics, oftentimes. A clear
drawing of an elegant analog circuit, fer instance. Art *with*
intrinsic utilitarian value... Performing art?

To coin a paraphrase, "Music hath charms that soothe the savage breast."

Yeah, I say that "stir[ring] the emotions" itself has intrinsic
utilitarian value.

Cheers!
Rich

Yes, perhaps. Merely stirring seems rather a commonplace though,
doesn't it? Inspiring might be a loftier aim.

A cool thing about schematics-- they're symbolic,
yet actually say something!

--James

 

[James Arthur]

On 10/18/04 "Nicholas O. Lindan" see@sig.com wrote:

"James Arthur" <arthurj@aol.comet.net> wrote

My favorite artwork? Schematics, oftentimes. A clear
drawing of an elegant analog circuit [snip]

Have you read the SF novel "A Canticle for Leibowitz?", you
might enjoy it. The novel has monks illuminating schematics
with gold leaf.

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio

Nope, haven't read it. Thanks for the suggestion. Are the
schematics clever?

The fun of a schematic, to me, is its expressiveness: the thing
itself, the way it flows, reveals & highlights its function; the ideas
it relays as well as the considerable insight it offers into its
designer, not to mention draftsman.

Schematics can be quite beautiful in ways ordinary folk can't appreciate.
How apt Win's title: The Art of Electronics.

On top of these, besides conveying a raft of intentions in unusually
dense form, a vision, a plan -- hopefully unambiguously -- when realized,
a schematic *does* something, has a life beyond itself, a purpose.

We're lucky bastards, we.

--James Arthur

 

[Rich Grise]

On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 04:36:06 +0000, Mac wrote:

On Sat, 16 Oct 2004 01:48:47 +0000, Rich Grise wrote:
....
And it would destroy the fabric of the space-time continuum if
Trey Parker and Matt Stone turned out to be for the neocons.

Thanks,
Rich

I haven't seen the movie, but how can you have a movie called _Team
America: World Police_ and be pro-neocon?

The title of the movie itself ridicules one of the tenets of faith nearest
and dearest to neocon hearts? Doesn't it?

Anyway, for what it's worth, the reviews I've read say that it mercilessly
makes fun of everybody.

The reviewer for my hometown Newspaper hated the movie, though, and my
wife thinks it looks stupid. So I may have to wait for it to come out on
DVD.

About the only thing they talked about on the talk show was getting

marionette sex past the censors. But if a reviewer didn't like it, that's
always a good thing, and I'm not surprised that practically anyone would
find a piece of their work stupid.

Stupid, but hilarious. Also either deeply bitingly satirical, or quite
inane - I don't know if anybody's ever really determined which. ;-)

BTW, here's a review of their first movie - the neocons would probably
agree with the analysis here:
http://www.capalert.com/capreports/southpark.htm

Cheers!
Rich


Thanks!
Rich

 

[John Fields]

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 00:14:37 GMT, "Clarence" <no@No.com> wrote:

"John Fields" <jfields@austininstruments.com> wrote in message
news:nqabn0tv0pdbsnkajq8032qv2pqh63mega@4ax.com...
On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 17:08:51 GMT, "Clarence" <no@No.com> wrote:


snip

I was talking about a book.
WTH are you on?
Don't answer, I know!

---
You don't know shit.

Gee, I KNOW you!

---
A moronic attempt at a clever retort? Notice that I wrote that you
_don't_ know shit, which means that if I _were_ shit, (which you're
trying to imply) you _wouldn't_ know me. It follows, then, that since
you _think_ you know me, you _can't_ logically think I'm shit.
---

You are predictable and may have a heart attack any day.

---
More fuzzy thinking. Consider: If I were predictable, then you
should have written ..."and will have"... and you should have
specified the precise time of the event instead of merely writing
...."any day."
---

11002 --- 78758-5426

Just a hop-skip-and-jump away!

---
A veiled physical threat?

Be careful; a glock and spiel like yours makes music no one likes but
that the authorities _will_ listen to, and they're harsh critics.
---

Crawl back under the covers now, and take a nap.

---
OK, I could use the rest, and you crawl back under your rock.

--
John Fields

 

[Nicholas O. Lindan]

"James Arthur" <arthurj@aol.comet.net> wrote

The fun of a schematic, to me, is its expressiveness: the thing
itself, the way it flows, reveals & highlights its function;

Myself, I'd take a woman ...

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio
Consulting Engineer: Electronics; Informatics; Photonics.
Remove spaces etc. to reply: n o lindan at net com dot com
psst.. want to buy an f-stop timer? nolindan.com/da/fstop/

 

[Rich Grise]

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 03:35:28 +0000, James Arthur wrote:

On 10/18/04, Rich Grise rich@example.net wrote:

On Mon, 18 Oct 2004 22:02:26 +0000, James Arthur wrote:

On 10/18/04 jeffm_@email.com (JeffM) wrote:

an "artist" named Maplethorpe
Scott Stephens

If you look at art as having no intrinsic utilitarian value
--as only something that stirs the emotions--his work
passes the test.

My favorite artwork? Schematics, oftentimes. A clear
drawing of an elegant analog circuit, fer instance. Art *with*
intrinsic utilitarian value... Performing art?

To coin a paraphrase, "Music hath charms that soothe the savage breast."

Yeah, I say that "stir[ring] the emotions" itself has intrinsic
utilitarian value.

Cheers!
Rich

Yes, perhaps. Merely stirring seems rather a commonplace though,
doesn't it? Inspiring might be a loftier aim.

Ah, but the secret, you see, is to stay consciously present for the
stirring and subsequent movement, because the movement of the
magnetic emotional field induces an electrical spiritual current,
and increases your Understanding, as long as you have loving
acceptance for the emotion that's released. And _all_ emotions
are unconditionally acceptable - it's the stuff that they're
trying to _tell_ you about that needs to be sorted out. That's
what they're for.

A cool thing about schematics-- they're symbolic,
yet actually say something!

_Everything_ is saying something - you just have to learn to read. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

 

[Rich Grise]

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 03:37:49 +0000, James Arthur wrote:

On 10/18/04 "Nicholas O. Lindan" see@sig.com wrote:

"James Arthur" <arthurj@aol.comet.net> wrote

My favorite artwork? Schematics, oftentimes. A clear
drawing of an elegant analog circuit [snip]

Have you read the SF novel "A Canticle for Leibowitz?", you
might enjoy it. The novel has monks illuminating schematics
with gold leaf.

--
Nicholas O. Lindan, Cleveland, Ohio

Nope, haven't read it. Thanks for the suggestion. Are the
schematics clever?

The fun of a schematic, to me, is its expressiveness: the thing
itself, the way it flows, reveals & highlights its function; the ideas
it relays as well as the considerable insight it offers into its
designer, not to mention draftsman.

Schematics can be quite beautiful in ways ordinary folk can't appreciate.
How apt Win's title: The Art of Electronics.

On top of these, besides conveying a raft of intentions in unusually
dense form, a vision, a plan -- hopefully unambiguously -- when realized,
a schematic *does* something, has a life beyond itself, a purpose.

We're lucky bastards, we.

Yes, I've known the feeling - to have your circuit spring to life on

the bench. ;-) But I've also done some mechanical design, and it has
the same order of beauty, to me - once I learned how to do solid
modeling in Autocad, I found myself driving down the street fantasizing
drawing stuff like oil refinery towers and catwalks and stuff. And
when you release a print, and the machine shop makes a part, it's
kinda like seeing your baby.

I think we had an Erector Set before I started getting the electronics
kits.

Cheers!
Rich