how about:
1. Exciting/Boring or Compelling/Uninteresting question
2. Derogatory comments about it including insults and aspersions with
references to art and isms
This saves a lot of time skirting the periphery...
So please don't hang about for the last round... let's get right to it
in step 2 no holds barred and save all the petty bickering in 3 and 4.
(Email me off the list if you disagree... even though that would be like
an admission of guilt)
Also read Mark Stevens and Annalyn Swan's biography of De Kooning... if
you want to know how art works... really... not what they teach you in
art school.
herschel
On 1/26/11 10:50 PM, YGelmanPhoto wrote:
The order of progression seems to be, in this case, the following:
1. Interesting comment or question
2. Interesting followup with interesting side comments
3. Detour to follow the side comments with beginnings of arguments
4. Full blown analyses with intricate fine points to back up arguments
5. Insults and aspersions
For the PhotoForum, why can't we agree to stay with 1 and 2 above, and
continue privately starting with 3? Otherwise, any subject at all
could be the start of stuffed inboxes for the whole group. . . which
contradicts the reason for having the group in the first place.
-yoram
On Jan 26, 2011, at 11:40 PM, Trevor Cunningham wrote:
On 1/27/11 5:35 AM, Karl Shah-Jenner wrote:
I must say that's one amazing piece of creative bookwork, a real
stretch to suggest all the tax dollars coming in from anyone who
considers themselves an artist as being a return on the dollars
injected into the industry!
I'm sure there MUST be more valid or at least convincing ways to
measure and state the contribution of the arts. that seems entirely
whacked to me!
Karl,
Indeed, there is no control for these stats. Although, it does make
the statement that the return is to local, state, and federal bodies
of govt from related programs.
There's sound arguments both for and against funding the arts..
chronic wastage is indefensible - and sadly demonstrable in many
cases (like the link I provided in my last post, from a largely
socialist society). I'm not however too fussed how much measurable
success in an economic sense our Australian tax dollars were spent
in funding the arts, however I very much feel it WOULD be nice if
those involved in the distribution of funding were a little less
political themselves!!
I couldn't agree with the argument more. As much as I don't want to
see the proverbial baby (cultural potential) thrown out with the
bathwater (budget), it is the other side of the coin to be
politically selective. So, before I add another metaphor (I'm not
writing a grant here), let me just say I would like to see such
decisions made on the principle of supporting and promoting free
expression, as a it has been written as a human right by Liberal
ideology, yet seldom practiced since it was flown as a flag of The
Enlightenment.
Sorry, Yoram. I overestimated your use of the delete button.
