The public tend to stay away from art exhibitions over here so there are
only a few art museums. Most art in on television.
The digression to socialism was of interest but welfare is not what
socialism is about - read Karl Marx or Engles and other founders of
socialism. There was no welfare in the USSR but they had GULAGS.
I actually found the discussion quite heavy going as I read the mail. This
is because of the neo-cortex suppressants that I have been forced to take.
In Britain the authorities do not like intelligent workers they say
intelligence in the working class is an illness. The authorities here prefer
paid slaves. They often damage the neocortex (also known as the neopallium I
believe) to reduce the minds of working class children to force them into
working class jobs for fear of an insurrection. I heard, by the way, that
the democrat senator who was shot in the head had her neopallium removed.
She won't be interested in politics any more..
("Cortex" means "skin", "Pallium" I think means "Roof") The neopallium
makes us human.
I now have a new computer but I am running XP because many of my
applications do not run under 7 and I cannot afford to buy new software.
This computer has a 64 bit processor and there are still applications that
will not run.
Unfortunately I had to delete my 32 GB of image files because I could not
handle that amount of data. I had no means of storing the images at the time
so I lost the lot. I will soon be scrapping my negatives and my image CD
collection and my old computer software.
It is best not to dwell in the past.
Chris
Chris
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Herschel Mair
Sent: 27 January 2011 06:14
To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students
Subject: Re: museum collections? (now FOB)
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.
>>
>
>
