View Camera Magazine

On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 12:59:04 GMT, Gregory Blank
<bugstopped_ RemoveThis @gregblankphoto.com> wrote:

 >In article <g6bmv0lnh01hf7usrkvq5mh0t29qg9bqb1 RemoveThis @4ax.com>,
 > rafe bustin <rafeb RemoveThis @speakeasy.net> wrote:
 >
   >> >> Absurd to suppose that Michelangelo's David
   >> >> is somehow an expression of something "base" --
   >> >> or a sign of a decadent civilization. Quite
   >> >> the opposite, in fact.
   >> >
   >> >I don't think Greg was talking about Michelangelo's
   >> >David, but people obsessed with feces and urine
   >> >as "art"? Which brings us to this pissing match,
   >> >equally as silly and anal. If I remember Ron was
   >> >somewhat amused by all the fuss over one little
   >> >exhibited nude.
  >>
  >>
  >> No, Gregory specifically suggests a preference
  >> for art that is "non sexual in its execution."
  >>
  >> OK, I guess Michelangelo's David isn't the best
  >> example. Even so, Gregory's preoccupation with
  >> "base ... human functions" strikes me as
  >> somewhat puritanical.
  >>
 >
 >I am amused by your penchant for trying to inform others
 >what I state.


Maybe I'm trying too hard to find sense
or logic in your statements.


rafe b.
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.terrapinphoto.com" target="_blank">http://www.terrapinphoto.com</a><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: View Camera Magazine 

In article <6u7mv01g7d7pqqcguejl8gkc0pgu26d1b7.RemoveThis@4ax.com>,
rafe bustin <rafeb.RemoveThis@speakeasy.net> wrote:

  > >Knowledge.

 > Denial of sex makes you wiser? WTF?

I didn't say that,..... Knowledge and wisdom are separate,...besides,
what if it does?

--
LF Website @ <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank" target="_blank">http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank</a>

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: View Camera Magazine 

In article <g75nv09f8td92qegb8ifck1b632aqj2sf5 RemoveThis @4ax.com>,
rafe bustin <rafeb RemoveThis @speakeasy.net> wrote:

 > On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 12:52:38 GMT, Gregory Blank
 > <bugstopped_ RemoveThis @gregblankphoto.com> wrote:
 >
 >
  > >I don't wish anything of the sort. Just making the
  > >point and observation that when sexuality becomes an obsessive
  > >preoccupation, whether it be one's own urges or societies in general
  > >that makes that society less productive.
 >
 >
 > So you value productivity (GDP) over sexuality?

Hardly, all things require balancing oneself.

 > Profits over pleasure?

In society at large you can not completely divest
one from the other. There are many forms of pleasure.

 > I'd call that a misplaced priority.

Most humans would.

 >
 > I think your concerns (at least about the USA)
 > are misplaced.

Why? I think there are many things about this country
to be concern about.

 > Are we talking about Janet's breast at half-time?

Rather lame and who really cares? I don't.
& FYI I'don't have a problem with public nudity.
I just don't advise it in the wintertime in
Wisconsin.

 > Are we talking about "Piss Christ?" Disgusting
 > as it appears, that's pure art in the sense
 > of being totally divorced from profit and
 > the almighty dollar.

There's nothing in that, I viewed as art, no talent
& no skill. The smirking ignorant fool that seeks to
offend with one's "art" is akin to our primordial
relatives. Think about it this way,... Do you appreciate
graffiti,....then where do you live,.. I have a couple cans
of spray paint left....from one of my projects
I am sure if you want press the issue I can find
lots of ways to better offend you.


 > In a nutshell, most of the "cultural depravity"
 > that you see in the USA is part and parcel of
 > the glorious "free market." Sex, violence and
 > shock value grease the wheels of consumption.

I don't see cultural depravity in the USA because
I don't look for it,... nor do I place a lot of effort
into finding it.

I think that was my initial point, if you see no
wrongs done in unrestrained free market economy
then I rest my case.

--
LF Website @ <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank" target="_blank">http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank</a>

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: View Camera Magazine 

"Tom Phillips" <nospam777 RemoveThis @aol.com> wrote in message
news:41FB3470.62FCF811@aol.com...
[SNIP]
 > I didn't read it that way. OTOH people (artists)
 > obsessed with their anal functions seems a rather
 > low artistic standard. I knew an art student who
 > scanned his penis and thought that was good art.
 > Hope he cleaned the scanner afterwards
 >

Hope it wasn't a drum scanner. Ouch!


Peter<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: View Camera Magazine 

  >> It's interesting how the definition of what is acceptable in art has
  >> changed with time.
 >
 >Blah, blah, blah. Are you trolling?

I know Charles and I don't believe the idea would occur to him. Please set
your sensitivity trigger down a notch or two.

Mike

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
C program run. C program crash. C programmer quit.
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: View Camera Magazine 

In article <20050129175924.13941.00000231.TakeThisOut@mb-m19.aol.com>,
msherck.TakeThisOut@aol.comimagine (Msherck) wrote:

   > >> It's interesting how the definition of what is acceptable in art has
   > >> changed with time.
  > >
  > >Blah, blah, blah. Are you trolling?
 >
 > I know Charles and I don't believe the idea would occur to him. Please set
 > your sensitivity trigger down a notch or two.

Thanks, Mike. I only meant to remark on how ideas about what is
acceptable in art have changed with time. I have no idea why that should
have been considered "trolling," or why I should have rated a "blah,
blah, blah." Fortunately, I know what to do with my kill file.

Charles Hohenstein<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: View Camera Magazine 

"rafe bustin" <rafeb.DeleteThis@speakeasy.net> wrote in message
news:ktbmv0dfc9fgj7b9fn856qjk65i8rnierl@4ax.com...
 > On Sat, 29 Jan 2005 04:22:17 GMT, Gregory Blank
 > <bugstopped_.DeleteThis@gregblankphoto.com> wrote:
 >
  > >In article <jnplv05mp19gaiicisl313lulmddncdg6u.DeleteThis@4ax.com>,
  > > rafe bustin <rafeb.DeleteThis@speakeasy.net> wrote:
  > >
  > >
   > >> > Maybe they will grow up beyond the need to be so base and
pathetically
   > >> >interested in the human functions that have existed for millions of
   > >> >years. Perhaps by constant "exposure" maybe the dim recesses of these
   > >> >human drives will be enlightened and realize art of form can be non
   > >> >sexual in its execution. Then again every great society that has come
   > >> >and gone has gone through this type of era just prior to its final
   > >> >decline. Only time will tell.
   > >>
   > >>
   > >> Pfft. We are humans. The human body is
   > >> certainly fit subject for art. Sexuality
   > >> is one of the driving forces of life.
   > >> What would be the point of denying or
   > >> ignoring that?
  > >
  > >Pfft,... yourself.
  > >
  > >Sexual pleasure is a perk of life not a driving force, sexuality
  > >and procreation is a driving force its true. Do you not understand the
  > >difference? Some people do not and that was my point, so maybe that was
  > >missed by you.
 >
 >
 > In what way does this relate to your earlier
 > statement (which I quoted and responded to?)
 >
 > It seems you wish to separate sexuality from
 > pleasure? What is your point?
 >
 > Your earlier statement simply comes off as
 > priggish. You seem to suggest that sexually
 > explicit art is somehow related to the
 > decline of "great societies." I find that
 > notion absurd.
 >
 >
 > rafe b.
<font color=purple> > <a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.terrapinphoto.com</font" target="_blank">http://www.terrapinphoto.com</font</a>>

Yes, it's very uncool of him to lambaste sexually explicit images for not
being art. Keep browbeating him, though, maybe you can get him to change
his mind.

--
Regards,
Matt Clara
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.mattclara.com" target="_blank">www.mattclara.com</a><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: View Camera Magazine