Michelle Marder Kamhi's "Who Says That's Art?"

[william.scherk]

I give you an untitled artwork, for slaughter, for joyous deconstruction, for grumbles, for emotional reaction, for an artist's appreciation..

William should have a restraining order keeping him away from children.

Greg dreams of using the force of government to punish creators of art that he doesn't like. Not at all surprising.

Greg's oddball notions of homosexuality are what lead him to suggest a 'restraining order,' I think.

In an earlier comment, he made his notion clear and simple:

Childhood sexual molestation is the foundation upon which homosexuality rests.

-- and expanded the notion:

Homosexuality is the consequence of the failure to resolve emotional sexual traumas of the past. It only takes the shock of a violation to displace a child's natural gender identity with the imprinting of a foreign gender identity... but it requires the violated one's own hatred to retain that unnatural identity. Without the emotional energy of hatred to keep the imprinting "alive", the identity cannot endure.

What is left implied is that a new generation of gays requires 'initiation' by abuse, and that gays and lesbians are most likely to revisit this abuse upon new victims. Thus a gay man like myself is ipso facto a putative criminal in waiting ... I can't see any other reason to suggest the law be called in. It cannot be the blue painting.

So, I guess Greg believes I must be 'restrained' by legal order to keep away from children, lest I molest them or otherwise abuse them. He may believe that I am an acute danger to most children.

I don't take this noxious nonsense personally, nor am I offended by Greg's opinion that it's time for someone to apply legal force. The notion and suggested remedy are too unwarranted to provoke anything but laughter.

However, should Greg wish to proceed on his suggestion, he can either contact someone in British Columbia who also feels 'the children' are at acute risk -- or he can attempt to obtain an order himself from the Surrey RCMP: Obtaining a Peace Bond or Restraining Order.

I'd advise Greg to have his homosexuality-via-child-sexual-abuse explanation ready for his order application, since the untitled blue painting might not be the best evidence to convince the RCMP that my freedoms need curtailing.

All in all, my impression has only deepened that Greg is no friend of reason or objectivity.

-- to those who have suggested offstage that Greg has defamed me, I disagree strongly. Greg's notions and opinions here deserve only ridicule.

I would, however, relish what reasoning Greg might supply to ensure that my freedom be legally restricted. He can release those reasons here and we can all learn a lot. Not about art, not about sexual abuse, not about me or my danger to children, but about Greg's bigotry. I would actually advise him to say no more about why William needs to be put under an order. What reasons he will pull up will only make his arguments look more stupid and nasty.

All rise. Court is in session.

[Brant Gaede]

Why am I not surprised? True, I didn't imagine Greg would find an ally. Well, it's shameful to talk about art qua art when the subject is child abusing.

--Brant

still naive after all these years

[moralist]

William wrote:

Here, to re-orient to the original topic, "Who says that's art," I give you an untitled artwork,

for slaughter, for joyous deconstruction, for grumbles, for emotional reaction,

for an artist's appreciation..

You're all free to subjectively disagree with my subjective opinion of William's picture...

...but apparently NONE of you actually READ his own words when he posted it!

It is an accurate portrayal of leftist values... perverted, pedophilic, and ghoulishly ugly.

Greg

[moralist]

Jonathan writes:

Greg dreams of using the force of government to punish creators of art that he doesn't like. Not at all surprising.

That's not true, Jonathan.

You making things up.

I don't mind leftists being totally free to call their useless ugly crap art. The lie that it has value only sells to other leftist suckers who share their values. So each deserves the other...

...because all business transactions require two people who share common values.

No common values = No sale

Greg

[moralist]

(edit) Adam writes:

The conservatives that I know personally, do not believe in "imposing" censorship, do not want to "determine" moral values and do not want to enforce a "governmental establishment of morality."

Same here, Adam. No American I know wants government enforced censorship. That's a lie peddled by leftists.

The real irony is that it's leftists who want to enforce a "governmental establishment of immorality."

Their process is to go from:

1. government enforced tolerance

2. to government enforced acceptance

3. to government enforced celebration

...and anyone not marching in politically correct lockstep with the leftists is labeled a bigot.

And that's just fine by me. I don't mind being regarded as a bigot...

...when I consider who is doing the regarding.

Greg

[moralist]

William writes:

I would, however, relish what reasoning Greg might supply to ensure that my freedom be legally restricted.

I don't, William. So there's no need for you to role play the leftist victim however attractive that is to you.

American freedom includes your own freedom to promote the leftist values you live by, for the enjoyment of other leftists who share your values.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

Brant writes:

The conservatives that I know personally, do not believe in "imposing" censorship, do not want to "determine" moral values and do not want to enforce a "governmental establishment of morality."

Same here, Brant. No American I know wants government enforced censorship. That's a lie peddled by leftists.

The real irony is that it's leftists who want to enforce a "governmental establishment of immorality."

Their process is to go from:

1. government enforced tolerance

2. to government enforced acceptance

3. to government enforced celebration

...and anyone not marching in politically correct lockstep with the leftists is labeled a bigot.

And that's just fine by me. I don't mind being regarded as a bigot...

...when I consider who is doing the regarding.

Greg

You quoted Adam.

--Brant

[moralist]

Newberry writes:

About Bill's painting I stayed away from the subject matter and commented only on that I like the color harmonies. But if I look at the subject matter, what I see is some naked transsexuals, notice the head gear of the two guys top left and right. And notice top right the floating red lips and extreme makeup of the eye; which looks kind of evil to me. The setting is quite misty, and I wonder what are partial nude transsexuals and other males doing? Taking a sauna together? Maybe the subject is a drug induced experience where figures morph from a drag show into an a naked gathering?

It looks kind of evil to me, too.

I fully understand that sexual perversion and drug induced experiences are regarded as holy sacraments by the left, so it's perfectly natural that they would promote their values and seek to have them belong to a nations culture. And leftists have been highly successful in this regard.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

deleted

[moralist]

Brant writes:

You quoted Adam.

Sorry for the mistake.

So many people were piling on.

Greg

[Jonathan]

Jonathan writes:

Greg dreams of using the force of government to punish creators of art that he doesn't like. Not at all surprising.

That's not true, Jonathan.

You making things up.

I don't mind leftists being totally free to call their useless ugly crap art. The lie that it has value only sells to other leftist suckers who share their values. So each deserves the other...

...because all business transactions require two people who share common values.

No common values = No sale

Greg

No, Apey, I'm not making things up. The discussion was covering the topic of Bill's painting and its meaning, and, in that context, you had said that you think that Bill should have a restraining order keeping him away from children. I naturally assumed that your comment had something to do with the discussion. Apparently it didn't. Apparently your apey brain just threw out the restraining order thing for no reason other than your apey fears of homosexuals?

J

[anthony]

-- to those who have suggested offstage...

Offstage. Heh.

The good and the not so good of the personal messaging service.

If it's honest and worth saying, what's wrong with saying it up front? Especially in art discussions, I have the feeling there is much more going on offstage concerning individuals here, than is seen in the spotlights.

[moralist]

Jonathan writes: No, Apey, I'm not making things up.

Yes you are.

My subjective opinion has absolutely nothing to do with William's freedom to peddle leftist crap as art to those who value leftist crap highly enough to buy it. I'm all for the Capitalist free market where sellers and buyers deserve each other because of their shared values.

The discussion was covering the topic of Bill's painting and its meaning, and, in that context, you had said that you think that Bill should have a restraining order keeping him away from children.

(shrug) So what does that have to do with the freedom to do business with your own kind?

In my opinion, William's ugly picture reveals his ugly values. But my purely subjective opinion has absolutely nothing to do with his freedom to sell anything that other leftists who share his values are willing to buy.

Greg

[moralist]

William writes:

What is left implied is that a new generation of gays requires 'initiation' by abuse,

Just to clarify your implication:

In my opinion, homosexuality is a symptom ,not of abuse although it can include it, but is specifically a result of childhood sexual molestation.

Greg

[moralist]

William wrote:

-- to those who have suggested offstage that Greg has defamed me, I disagree strongly. Greg's notions and opinions here deserve only ridicule.

I'm glad you didn't take it personally, William.

By displaying your picture you let everyone here know that you are proud of your leftist values, and that you feel they are good and right for how you live.

Greg

[Selene]

By displaying your picture you let everyone here know that you are proud of your leftist values, and that you feel they are good and right for how you live.

Greg

Wow, I think he said you are an aesthetic flasher!!

How cool is that!

[moralist]

Adam writes:

Wow, I think he said you are an aesthetic flasher!!

How cool is that!

Flashers could also be right wing.

This is more specific to the feminized leftist values as portrayed in William's picture.

(Priscilla Queen of the Desert)

[Jonathan]

I wanted to come back to one of Roger's subjective interpretations which he presented as "objective," and as the one, true, correct interpretation:

The same can be said about the guitar intro lick - more of the same circling around and around 3 notes, building tension through repetition. It leads right into more of the same thing in the opening lyric section.

Most everything else in the song is geared to building restless, frustrated tension - as opposed to the aspirational tension in the "climb." But it all works to get across the idea that it was now socially acceptable to talk about sexual desire and frustration...

As for *why* this works, and why it's not arbitrary or subjective...

Repetition to build tension needs almost no explanation...

I think that it does need an explanation, especially since most rock and blues-rock songs contain quite a lot of such repetition despite not being tense, and, because, personally, I experience repetition in rock as evoking many different possible emotions or meanings, and I've known many others who do as well. The fact that Roger, who is not a big fan of rock and therefore isn't necessarily all that familiar or comfortable with the genre's "language," personally experiences repetition as being tense doesn't mean that it is the only interpretation, of even the most common. It doesn't follow that Roger's having experienced tension means that no explanation is required. (Heh, remember earlier when Roger lied that fans of abstract art take the position that "To those who understand, no explanation is necessary, to those who don't, none is possible"? And now that's his position on the effect of repetition in music. Hahahaha!)

So, this past week, I've been casually asking friends who are rockers -- both fellow musicians and non-musicians -- if they experience musical repetition in rock as evoking or representing tension. I asked some of them while sharing a few beers and listening to several samples on my phone. Generally speaking, they answered "no." They experience repetition as the context or background of rock songs. The pulse and pattern. They see it as the establishing and maintaining of familiarity, which tends to evoke more of a feeling of being informal and at ease. Some talked about the feeling of relaxation in repetition, and of its aesthetic trance-like qualities. Some talked of repetition as being a gateway into shutting off the over-analyzing/intellectualizing part of their brains and just being able to purely aesthetically feel the groove. They spoke of long-winded repetitive jams by bands like Umphrey's McGee and The Grateful Dead as being anything but tension-building, regardless of the chord structure that they were played in. They saw it as comfortable and relaxing.

When I've asked specifically about The Stones' Satisfaction, no one has yet described the repeating guitar lick as "restless, frustrated tension." They felt that the "build" or "climb" added tension and expectation, but that's generally why the pre-chorus is called the "build."

So, it appears that familiarity with a genre, and subjectively liking it to begin with, does play a big part in how people subjectively interpret music. Whatever "objective" rules that Roger thinks he's observed, developed and identified for the genres of music that he likes don't necessarily apply or translate very well to the genres that he's not immersed in. The fact that he would subjectively find a musical element or device irritating or tension-causing in his preferred genres doesn't logically mean that anyone or everyone also would or should, especially in other genres. The fact that he might not like shutting off the over-analyzing/intellectualizing part of his brain, and that he may not like trance-like experiences and getting into the groove doesn't mean that such experiences are or should be uncomfortable and tense for everyone. The fact that he may be impatient and lack the ability to savor the same simple flavor over and over doesn't in any way suggest that that mindset is normal, universal, "objective," or superior.

The need to believe in the "objectivity" of musical interpretation is silly, as is the need to believe that one's personal aesthetic preferences, limitations and interpretations are "correct" and universally representative of proper cognition.

J

[Jonathan]

Jonathan writes: No, Apey, I'm not making things up.

Yes you are.

My subjective opinion has absolutely nothing to do with William's freedom to peddle leftist crap as art to those who value leftist crap highly enough to buy it. I'm all for the Capitalist free market where sellers and buyers deserve each other because of their shared values.

The discussion was covering the topic of Bill's painting and its meaning, and, in that context, you had said that you think that Bill should have a restraining order keeping him away from children.

(shrug) So what does that have to do with the freedom to do business with your own kind?

In my opinion, William's ugly picture reveals his ugly values. But my purely subjective opinion has absolutely nothing to do with his freedom to sell anything that other leftists who share his values are willing to buy.

Greg

Apey, go back and read what you wrote. You wrote that Bill should have a restraining order against him based on your having viewed his art. Now, think really hard. Use that ape brain to its maximum ability, and you might be able to figure out that advocating restraining orders against people based on your apey interpretations of the art that they create is not consistent with the notion of "freedom to do business."

J

[Jonathan]

So, right now we have only two interpretations of Bill's painting, and neither is what I would call objective. Can we please have some interpretations that at least kind of appear to be somewhat objective, and aren't based in purely subjective personal responses and fears? Anyone?

Why is it so hard to get Objectivish-types to follow their own stated rules and criteria when judging art?

J

[Brant Gaede]

So, right now we have only two interpretations of Bill's painting, and neither is what I would call objective. Can we please have some interpretations that at least kind of appear to be somewhat objective, and aren't based in purely subjective personal responses and fears? Anyone?

Why is it so hard to get Objectivish-types to follow their own stated rules and criteria when judging art?

J

Why is it so hard to get them to drink after you take them to a dry watering hole?

--Brant

[Selene]

Why is it so hard to get Objectivish-types to follow their own stated rules and criteria when judging art?

J

Ah, to ask an unanswerable question...

An aesthetic Man of La Mancha...

[william.scherk]

Earlier I mentioned that Bill has a lot of talent but is missing some technical fundamentals. [...] One of the things about the more you know in technique the more you flesh out exactly what you want to say, and it forces the artist to really examine what they are offering. But if the skill is haphazard deeper introspection can stay vague.

Yes, a canvas painted in 1985 ...

I would have liked to have you as a serious student at around 19 years old, but I would have pushed you to master anatomy, form, and space.

I appreciate the technical notes, and the confidence you have in your own teaching skills. It's nice to be thought of as talented, whatever my amateur, dabbler status. I make no great claims for my artistic chops, and I think you are probably right that I would have benefited from extensive art studies when I was a brash youngster.

As for mastering anatomy, form, and space, this is assuredly difficult. It looks to my eyes that you have struggled to approach mastery yourself at times earlier in your art-making career. I was struck by a number of technical errors in several of your paintings and drawings (from the Newberry Art site).

For example, you have given a couple of online backgrounders and analyses in tutorials featuring your 1990 canvas "Counterpose" -- which you write is one of your most satisfying paintings.

Here is a reproduction:

And here is the image rotated 180 degrees:

Michael, do you see the same defects as I do? I see hip dysplasia and several other apparently broken bones. I'd say your modeling of the human form/anatomy is significantly off (how did your model manage to put her knee into her crotch without de-socketing? How did her buttocks move around from the back of her body to the side without major injury? How can she put a knee in her own crotch without snapping the bones in her leg?).

I think you will find these questions important to the greater goal of accurately modeling anatomy, form and space. We can all learn from mistakes ...

[moralist]

Jonathan writes:

Apey, go back and read what you wrote. You wrote that Bill should have a restraining order against him based on your having viewed his art.

Yes. That's my subjective opinion.

And it's not just William. I wouldn't want any leftist who produced crap like that anywhere near my grandchildren.

Answer me this, Jonathan... Why are you so desperately trying to conflate two completely unrelated issues, when being near children has nothing to do with selling "art"?

I'm totally fine with William (or you) selling your "art" to others who share your leftist values. That's just business, where buyer and seller each deserve the other. As far as I'm concerned you both already enjoy the same freedom to deal with your own kind, just as I do. And that's as it should be, because what William (or you) do has nothing to do with me or my life.

Greg

[Newberry]

I appreciate the technical notes, and the confidence you have in your own teaching skills. It's nice to be thought of as talented, whatever my amateur, dabbler status. I make no great claims for my artistic chops, and I think you are probably right that I would have benefited from extensive art studies when I was a brash youngster.

Glad you thought that. And thanks for sharing Counterpose, and links to some of my articles.