Ovi -
we cover every issue
newsletterNewsletter
subscribeSubscribe
contactContact
searchSearch
Apopseis magazine  
Ovi Bookshop - Free Ebook
Stop human trafficking
Ovi Language
Books by Avgi Meleti
Stop violence against women
Tony Zuvela - Cartoons, Illustrations
Stop human trafficking
 
BBC News :   - 
iBite :   - 
GermanGreekEnglishSpanishFinnishFrenchItalianPortugueseSwedish
Art for the End of the World Art for the End of the World
by Alexandra Pereira
2008-09-16 09:08:35
Print - Comment - Send to a Friend - More from this Author
DeliciousRedditFacebookDigg! StumbleUpon

Simply an exhibition titled: Art for the End of the World


For the full Art for the End of the World Exhibition, click HERE!

For more Exhibitions, click HERE!


   
Print - Comment - Send to a Friend - More from this Author

Comments(131)
Get it off your chest
Name:
Comment:
 (comments policy)

Emanuel Paparella2008-09-16 10:31:28
Some musings and queries on the above “artistic expression.” Are the writings of Freud or Jung art or ideology? Hard to tell at times especially since they also claim to be scientific and based on reason while at the same time examining the intricacies of the sub-conscious which is not exactly based on conscious full-fledged reason. Are the Psalms, and Jesus' parables art? What would Jung say about that? (continued below)


Emanuel Paparella2008-09-16 10:34:05
Let’s pursue this a bit further: ideology claims itself to be rational, claims to give a kind of mould or form for the world and human nature under the cold dispassionate light of reason; art rarely does. Art is flexible, ambiguous; ideology is rigid and fixed. Art and ideology can often be found within the same area of human culture; for example, in the Judeo-Christian religion especially in certain medieval centuries such as the 12th. Can art be conceived and created as propaganda? Of course it can, look at Nazi art and Soviet art where hero tractor or thank drivers or factory workers with hammers or farmers with sickles are the subject matter. Which begs the questions: is it art? And if not, is there anything good and salvageable in such propagandistic art? (continued below)


Emanuel Paparella2008-09-16 10:34:50
Well, for one thing propagandistic ideological art can be a fascinating and revealing historical anthropological, even psychological lead; but I am afraid it is not art. However, there is a caveat and/or exception: there are rare instances when something has been consciously created as propaganda, but has somehow, mysteriously slipped its shackles in the actual creative process and transcended its original conscious purpose. For you see, there is a very strange thing that happens when you create a piece of art, in whatever medium it may be: a weird slipping away of the ego, a disappearance into something else. It's hard to explain, exactly--but every artist has to learn to trust that strange metamorphosis. If the ego is still there, you can be pretty sure that you are dealing with propaganda and not art. It is not a trance or dream like condition--on the contrary, it can lead to extremely clear
thinking--but it is an altered state. The Greeks equated it to a sort of possession by the Muse or the creative instinct. When Picasso was so possessed he would be heard exclaiming: I am god. It is 'a wood outside Athens'; and as such it is the opposite of ideology, which is created in an altogether different place.


Sand2008-09-16 10:52:50
Any immense overblown ego that will declare pompously what is and is not art is almost always the same ego that has neither the ability nor the imagination to create art itself and has no insight first hand in how or why it is created. For art cannot be pinned down to some rigid academic's mind that is embedded in a rigid past. Art is always new and exploratory and far too agile for someone totally mired in the past.


Emanuel Paparella2008-09-16 11:05:44
Point proven: a narcisistic overblown ego and even a whole nation and civilization with ideological Messianistic pretenses (often expressed in idolatrous modes) will invariably confuse art and ideology.


Sand2008-09-16 11:08:23
Of course, all those portraits of Christ on and descending from the cross had nothing whatsoever to do with ideology.


Emanuel Paparella2008-09-16 11:26:18
The title of this exhibition suggests the following to me, as already hinted on the comment to the thread by Christopher Wilkinson: the Apocalypse has been interpreted as a portrayal of the end of the world; the prophets too have also been assigned the misguided role of readers of crystal balls and astrologers. Nothing could be further from the truth. Their role is that of speaking truth to power so that we may better envision where our dehumanization and misguided ways will take us. It need not happen, but we’d surely be better off listening to them.


Sand2008-09-16 11:57:53
Humans are humans. They don't dehumanize. They are both immensely creative and destructive as you cannot do one without the other. They also are exceedingly brilliant and abysmally stupid and there is hope that the former might eventually triumph but at the moment it seems unlikely. And they are both very kind and exceedingly cruel. And the whole package is human and cannot be otherwise.


Alexandra P.2008-09-16 13:49:58
Mr. P., just to give you some more insight on the subject, "Art for the End of the World" has to do:

1. With the "prophesized" or, let's say, just easily antecipated/predictable reaction of yourself to it

2. With your distorted view of catastrophical outcomes as resulting from relatively harmless discussions

3. Ironically, it's a reference to the LHC, so I can remember that it started operating when I've made this propagandistic crap


Alexandra P.2008-09-16 13:57:47
It's incredible to notice how you've got no sense of humor whatsoever, by the way :)


Alexandra P.2008-09-16 14:03:59
4. as noted above, sometimes animals have more "desirable" characteristics than human beings themselves, that's why I can't see why pigs wouldn't look good by using a colourful lipstick.

5. art is the lipstick on the pig (just to give you a more academic definition) :)


Emanuel Paparella2008-09-16 15:11:03
"...they are both very kind and exceedingly cruel. And the whole package is human and cannot be otherwise."

Indeed, the Nazi is human and the saint is human and cannot be otherwise. And so Hitler gets off the hoot. He could not help himself: he was only human. Ethics 101: the study of what makes us human and how do we live an examined life as human beings acoording to our nature. The science not of things as they are (pretty nasty) but of things as they should be.


Emanuel Paparella2008-09-16 15:12:18
Errata above: hoot should be hook.


Emanuel Paparella2008-09-16 15:51:29
Ms. Pereira, had you read carefully and pondered a bit the above critique of art as ideology, before jumping on your horse for am all out counter-attack, you would have noticed that it was not a disparaging of your artistic production, and that in fact it left an opening to authentic art resulting even from propagandistic ideological intentions, intentions which the viewer cannot easily discern. You could have claimed that exception and declare your work an authentic work of art but you did not, which leads the reader to believe that in fact your ego is still very much involved in the process. That is fine for self-examination and self-discovery, but as mentioned the involvement of the ego in art is a sign that what we have in effect is pure propaganda. Propaganda will never lead to the transcendent in nature to which all authentic art points. Ultimately you will have to judge that for yourself.


Alexandra P.2008-09-16 16:38:47
And, and I'm not interested in your distortions.


Sand2008-09-16 16:38:59
I'm open to being convinced. Please specify the genus and species of Hitler, Gandhi, Stalin, Nixon, G.W.Bush,the Pope, and whoever else you want to add and tell me where the differences lie from being human.


ap2008-09-16 16:39:15
Yes, and


Sand2008-09-16 16:42:33
Since, according to Freud, all humans possess an ego (and yours is very continuously apparent, Paparella) how does one operate without one, artistically or otherwise?


Alexandra P.2008-09-16 17:03:47
I will take it as an insult if he is insinuating that my ego is the pig LOL


Sand2008-09-16 17:08:56
Actually pigs are much under rated. They are at least as intelligent as dogs, and far more, insofar as these discussions reveal, than Paparella. No average pig would have delusions of its creator floating somewhere outside the atmosphere.


Emanuel Paparella2008-09-16 17:51:34
Mock On, Mock On, Voltaire, Rousseau

Mock on, mock on, Voltaire, Rousseau;
Mock on, mock on; 'tis all in vain!
You throw the sand against the wind,
And the wind blows it back again.
And every sand becomes a gem
Reflected in the beams divine;
Blown back they blind the mocking eye,
But still in Israel's paths they shine.

The Atoms of Democritus
And Newton's Particles of Light
Are sands upon the Red Sea shore,
Where Israel's tents do shine so bright.

William Blake

P.S. Since you claim to be open-minded on the nature of man I'll take you at your word Sand and I will therefore send an answer by way of an article which, if I understand the rationale of the Ovi editors, ought to appear regularly next Monday, by way of a review of Tom Wolfe's novel "Men in Full" and its nexus to Stoicism, Greek philosophy of ethics and Humanism. Stay tuned and keep your mind open! It is never too late!




Sand2008-09-16 18:38:27
I will be very attentive. Not in modern times since Stalin sponsored a Lamarkian version of evolution has Darwin been challenged to insist that behavior can have a major genetic transmogrification has anyone offered such a radical theory. Since no other news source made any such indication I must assume you have been very busy in your laboratory.

One evening in the Fall
While contemplating the All
Paparella stumbled and down he sat.
A pig came walking by and it caught P's eye
And in a friendly way it lingered by his side.
Paparella hugged the pig which didn't give a fig
Until a lady passing by was heard to say,
"You can tell a man who sits with the company he fits."
And the pig got up and slowly walked away.


Alexandra P.2008-09-16 18:43:21
Sorry, but this is hilarious LOL


Emanuel Paparella2008-09-16 20:01:07
Indeed, pigs of a lipstick, flock and laugh together; and as Soren Kierkegaard aptly put it: “…therefore would I rather be a swineherd on Amager, and be understood by the swine than a poet, and misunderstood by men.”


Sand2008-09-16 20:10:28
You are overwhelmingly secure, Mr.P. in not being a poet. Your talents in herding swine are obviously untested and if you have even the slightest modicum of wisdom it might not be a good idea to try to outthink the swine considering your exhibited abilities.


Emanuel Paparella2008-09-16 20:25:17
Are we now into the poetics of swines? Well that's progress; a step forward from those of defecation. For once the voices gave good advice... Keep at it. Eventually you'll get to Shakespeare, hopefully that will happen before you dispose of his poems in some way or other... as you recently disposed of his dictionary of insults which I suggested for your consideration as a master of slander and insults.

Are we having fun yet in the Punch and Judy show? What is the modern expression favored by mindless activists? LOL?


Sand2008-09-16 20:34:04
I have the utmost respect for pigs and the thought that someone might put you in charge of a herd does provoke a slight shudder of an injustice to them so be assured I have no intention at all of slandering pigs. I detect a mild note of bitterness in your response at the tenderness with which I am treating you. I will do my best to sharpen up a bit to meet your standards.


Emanuel Paparella2008-09-16 20:44:24
That should net you a high five from Ms. Pereira and other like-minded people. Have you considered a project in common? After all, you may go down in history as the greatest poet of the poetics of mud and crap. That would be quite a legacy to leave to your posterity, if they indeed bother reading your ranters.


Alexandra P.2008-09-16 20:53:44
Yes, mindless activists, Mr. P. Or just people who don't have as much free time as you have to engaged in discussions with no way out.


AP2008-09-16 20:54:53
engage


Sand2008-09-16 20:55:06
Unlike you, Mr.P. I have no illusions of going down in history as anything and considering your performance in this sector you certainly wouldn't do well being remembered as the Caliban of academe. But history itself, from all indications, looks unlikely to be particularly long from this point on so we both can take some perverse comfort in that.


AP2008-09-16 20:57:12
Also a fairly good amount of patience is needed and although I admire that in Sand, I must admit that my own threshold doesn't go so far.


Sand2008-09-16 21:04:23
Well, AP, it's really not a matter of patience. Finnish TV is the pits and in the long evenings I find some mild exercise in poking sticks at total idiots and watching them helplessly fulminate - something in the nature of dropping pills into a bottle of Coke to watch it fizz.


AP2008-09-16 21:11:22
"Ms. Pereira and other like-minded people"
I'm curious now... name me a few.

"Have you considered a project in common?"
It wouldn't be an academic article relating Existencialism, Chinese Philosophy, Jerusalem and the Nexus of Verbiage, Mr. P., so I'm afraid it would disappoint you. And I thought we had been flocking together already?



AP2008-09-16 21:15:58
Oh, I saw that with the Coke (Pepsi works better), it can in fact be amusing :)


AP2008-09-16 21:21:01
Mentos and Pepsi, actually. Just look at that beauty:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKpsWRciQB0&feature=related

(here comes censorship by Mr. P)


AP2008-09-17 00:15:58
Not yet? Hummm...


AP2008-09-17 00:31:39
Mr. P., I believe a good nickname for you would be Pepsi Geyser:

http://br.youtube.com/watch?v=du1CF6frxKc


Emanuel Paparella2008-09-17 07:52:45
More on the poetics of the pig:

Why Did the Pig Cross the Road ?

Plato For the greater good.
Karl Marx It was a historical inevitability.
Machiavelli So that its subjects will view it with admiration, as a pig which has the daring and courage to boldly cross the road, but also with fear, for whom among them has the strength to contend with such a paragon of porcine virtue? In such a manner is the princely pig's dominion maintained.
Hippocrates Because of an excess of light pink gooey stuff in its pancreas.
Jacques Derrida Any number of contending discourses may be discovered within the act of the pig crossing the road, and each interpretation is equally valid as the authorial intent can never be discerned, because structuralism is DEAD, DAMMIT, DEAD! (continued below)


Emanuel Paparella2008-09-17 07:54:43
Thomas de Torquemada Give me ten minutes with the pig and I'll find out.
Timothy Leary Because that's the only kind of trip the Establishment would let it take.
Douglas Adams Forty-two.
Nietzsche Because if you gaze too long across the Road, the Road gazes also across you.
Oliver North National Security was at stake.
B.F. Skinner: Because the external influences which had pervaded its sensorium from birth had caused it to develop in such a fashion that it would tend to cross roads, even while believing these actions to be of its own free will. (continued below)


Emanuel Paparella2008-09-17 07:57:56
Carl Jung The confluence of events in the cultural gestalt necessitated that individual pigs cross roads at this historical juncture, and therefore synchronicitously brought such occurrences into being.
Jean-Paul Sartre In order to act in good faith and be true to itself, the pig found it necessary to cross the road.
Ludwig Wittgenstein The possibility of "crossing" was encoded into the objects "pig" and "road," and circumstances came into being which caused the actualization of this potential occurrence.
Albert Einstein Whether the pig crossed the road or the road crossed the pig depends upon your frame of reference.
Aristotle To actualize its potential.
Buddha If you ask this question, you deny your own pig-nature.
Howard Cosell It may very well have been one of the most astonishing events to grace the annals of history. An historic,unprecedented porcine quadruped with the temerity to attempt such an herculean achievement formerly elegated to homo sapien pedestrians is truly a remarkable occurrence.
Salvador Dali The Fish.
Darwin It was the logical next step after coming down from the trees. (continued below)


Emanuel Paparella2008-09-17 07:58:27
Emily Dickinson Because it could not stop for death.
Epicurus For fun.
Ralph Waldo Emerson It didn't cross the road; it transcended it.
Johann Friedrich von Goethe The eternal sow-principle made it do it.
Ernest Hemingway To die. In the rain. Alone.
Werner Heisenberg We are not sure which side of the road the pig was on, but it was moving very fast.
Schrodinger Pig? Pig!? Where's my cat?
David Hume Out of custom and habit.
Saddam Hussein This was an unprovoked act of rebellion and we were quite justified in dropping 50 tons of nerve gas on it.
Jack Nicholson 'Cause it (censored) wanted to. That's the (censored) reason.
Pyrrho the Skeptic What road?
Frank Perdue I breed the finest pig I know how, and it crosses the road as part of a vigorous fitness program to raise the leanest, plumpest pigs anywhere. Besides, I was chasing it with this axe at the time.
Ronald Reagan I don't recall.
John Sununu The Air Force was only too happy to provide the transportation, so quite understandably the pig availed himself of the opportunity.
The Sphinx You tell me.
Mr. T If you saw me coming you'd cross the road too!
Henry David Thoreau To live deliberately ... and suck all the marrow out of life.
Mark Twain The news of its crossing has been greatly exaggerated.
Molly Yard It was a sow!
Zeno of Elea To prove it could never reach the other side.


Emanuel Paparella2008-09-17 08:03:39
Mr. S. and Ms. P. To explore the world of lipstick and metaphores ans show his cleverness by half.


Sand2008-09-17 08:20:28
Well, AP, it looks like you were absolutely on target. The latest posts by Paparella are as about as close to a Pepsi eruption as a literary form can get and are just about as meaningless.


AP2008-09-17 13:36:42
I agree.


Emanuel Paparella2008-09-17 13:40:48
Indeed it is all in the eye of the beholder and the voices and the pigs in his head.


AP2008-09-17 13:52:54
Go on, provide me with some more artistical inspiration, that's all I can get from you.


Emanuel Paparella2008-09-17 14:36:09
That's fine, but you must leave your ego out of it or you'll never be sure that what you have been inspired to create is really art. The suffering of the Chilean miners inspired Pablo Neruda to write Canto General but Mario Ruopolo in the movie Il Postino has it more on target when he asks the question that Neruda cannot answer: are you telling me that everything in the universe is a metaphor for something not seen? There, I submit, is the essence of true poetry and art.


Sand2008-09-17 14:55:54
The concept that art is only concerned with symbolism is totally obsolete. No doubt symbols can participate in art but huge numbers of objects in modern art are devoid of any symbolism whatsoever. Anybody who cannot accept that is totally ignorant of the nature of art.


AP2008-09-17 15:34:29
I believe it is because of your ego that your articles are instruments of catholic propaganda, intelectual buildings parading as something close to scientific.


AP2008-09-17 15:37:05
Don't deceive your ego though: I find inspiration in many more things.


AP2008-09-17 15:41:33
It's incredible that the only one here who cannot produce art nor have sense of humor is the only one who thinks he knows what it is and how it is done. Hummm... Seems to apply to many more things in your life, Mr. P.


Sand2008-09-17 16:14:53
Anyone who claims that art can only be a metaphor knows nothing of the art of Calder, Pollock, Hepworth, Albers, Appel, Arp, Duchamp, Gabo, Hoffman, Kandinsky, Miro´,Reinhardt, Schwitters, Smith, Tinguely, Tobey, Vasarely, and a host of other acclaimed artists. In other words he is an artist ignoramus.


Emanuel Paparella2008-09-17 16:22:04
Actually you know precious little about my life Ms. Pereira, and the attempt to encapsulate it in a few slanderous statements and reduce all issues to the personal and the ad hominem (a common trait you seem to share with your bird of a feather Mr. S.) frankly smacks of sheer desperation. As for lack of humor, anybody that fails to see the humor in the witticism by famous people on the pig crossing the road which I just sent while applauding the inanities of her bird of a feather fellow idealogue, simply because of an animus against a differing viewpoint and is reluctant even to consider that viewpoint because it upsets her assumed certainties, ought not be accusing others of lack of humor so readily. It is not very wise for those living in glass palaces to be throwing stones out the window to passerbys.


Sand2008-09-17 16:27:47
Nobody gives a damn about your life, Paparella, it's your stupid posts to this publication that generates comment.


Emanuel Paparella2008-09-17 16:28:52
Indeed, as I tell my students of humanities, there is much worthwile in modern art but the jury is still out on a final judgment and its inability to grssp the importance of symbols and myths (which cannot be avoided try as one may)and its ineptitude in conceiving the transcendent does not augur well for a final postive verdict by history a few centuries hence.


Emanuel Paparella2008-09-17 16:34:05
P.S. As far as the Catholic propaganda and other gratuitous insinuations, I am beginning to wonder if the voices that visit Mr.S. on a regular basis have also been visiting you lately. Don't listen to them, they are liars and slanderers and lead to self-deception.


Emanuel Paparella2008-09-17 16:38:10
Karl Rowe is looking for a few good people with experience in slander and bashing and pigs with lipstick. You may consider applying if you need some extra cash.


Emanuel Paparella2008-09-17 16:41:53
Which way do you want it, S. on one hand the posts are stupid and can be safely be ignored; on the other hand they genrate all the animus that you and Ms. Pereira have been exhibiting on the pig's lipstick. Having the cake and eating it too. Did you not say that you would stop rebutting unless you heard something new from me? Well, it must be the voices...There is no other logical explanation.


Sand2008-09-17 16:43:10
That you are posing as an art expert to a bunch of kids who are led to trust your judgment and declaiming that the jury is still out on art that has received worldwide acceptance by experts in the field verges on the criminal. You should be ashamed of yourself, but obviously you you have no capacity for shame.


Sand2008-09-17 16:47:40
The big lie again. You do feel comfortable with Nazi tricks. When did I say you could be safely ignored?


Emanuel Paparella2008-09-17 18:40:53
The voices again? Don't listen to them; they are liars. I am almost tempted to be flattered by that back-handed statement to the effect that I cannot be safely ingored (am I really that important?) but you have given too much evidence in this forum of villanous slanderous and near criminal bad faith to be taken at your word. Had you been Pinochio, by now your nose would haver crossed the Atlantic. Indeed, the worst thing one can do when confronted with an authoritarian bully out to impose his views rather than dialogue is not to respond to what he takes for granted that he can get away with. Sen. Kerry know all about that. I hope Sen. Obama has learned the lesson.


Sand2008-09-17 19:25:48
When did I say you could be safely ignored?


Emanuel Paparella2008-09-17 20:34:20
"Although Paparella is very free with quoting classical references his misuse of them betrays no intellectual capability whatsoever so real intelligence is totally safe from any ravages." (Sand)

If that be the case, why the fuss. You have nothing better to do or have the voices stopped visiting? That would be good news, actually.


Emanuel Paparella2008-09-17 20:43:01
Regarding the scurrilous insinuation above which seems to be your trademark, here is a view on modern art's excesses by an expert:


“Much of modern art is devoted to lowering the threshold of what is terrible. By getting us used to what, formerly, we could not bear to see or hear, because it was too shocking, painful, or embarrassing, art changes morals.”
--Susan Sontag

There are plenty of other expert opinions but the above ought to suffice for now.




Sand2008-09-17 21:59:14
Evidently you are horrified that modern art has an effect on morality by exhibiting the reality that surrounds us, a point well taken by Sontag. You would prefer, of course, that the raw force exhibited by modern art be supplanted by the goofy Disney nonsense that hides reality under the saccharine crap of children's religious parables.


Sand2008-09-18 06:46:39
In line with his doctrinaire dogmatic religious conservatism Paparella wants to dictate to creative artists that their efforts have to deal with this or that or the other thing to have any validity and to fit into his tidy conceptions and his monomaniacal standards. But as an artist I am well aware that art is a wild beast and if it is tamed with doctrine it loses its right to be art. For art is exploration of the unknown if it is worth anything at all and it reveals things unsuspected and that is its prime value. Paparella wants a pussycat and art is tyrannosaurus rex if it has any value at all.


Emanuel Paparella2008-09-18 06:55:02
Is that what the voices put in my mouth? Don't believe them. They are liars...

Here is something from an undisputed artist. What will the voices say about him?

"The history of modern art is also the history of the progressive loss of art's audience. Art has increasingly become the concern of the artist and the bafflement of the public.”
--Paul Gauguin






Sand2008-09-18 10:19:03
Your furious digging for authorities denigrating modern art has kept you busy for quite a while but the popularity of modern art throughout the world and the high market prices it receives clearly indicates what a hole you've made for yourself to fall into. I hope you're comfortable down there with Paul but he's physically dead and it seems you are only dead from the neck up. Obviously Gauguin does not speak for many today.


Emanuel Paparella2008-09-18 12:16:51
OBBIOUSLY! How cannot it not be obvious since it comes from the authority of a self-proclaimed artist far superior to Gaugin and supported by the voices in his head projecting "foam at the mouth"...


Emanuel Paparella2008-09-18 12:28:29
P.S. S., Had you read my comment about modern art carefully you would have noticed that it was not a blanket condemnation of modern art (I write there "there is much worthwhile in modern art")but a caveat to overall blanket praize and indiscriminate acceptance and rush to judgment for or against. But of course one of the ignominous tricks of all slanderers and bashers and trashers and bullies is to simply ignore what does not suit them and selectively pick on what they wish to attack as if it were a chess game of sort rather than a dialogue and debate. And it is done unashamedly, for they are convinced that if one tells a lie often enough it will stick. Hypocritically, those are the same people who then go around mouthing platitudes about a heritage to leave to their grandchildren. Pity.


Sand2008-09-18 12:39:30
Amusing how stereotyped your thinking is. You cannot accept that an ordinary person can penetrate your phony facade so you must assume I have some huge egotistical picture of myself so you can tear it down. No, Paparella, I am merely an ordinary person with a good realistic background in art and can easily spot you draping yourself with an out of date quotation from an artist who had no full knowledge or experience of the era of today's art since he died in 1903. You, on the other hand have had the full opportunity to witness the explosion of new ideas and concepts and are still a total ignoramus in the area.


Emanuel Paparella2008-09-18 12:59:54
Is that what the voices told you? Don't believe them. They are liars and slanderers foaming at the mouth.


Emanuel Paparella2008-09-18 13:05:52
P.S. What does Mr. Higgins sing in "My Fair Lady'? I am just an ordinary person...while he keeps on bullying the fair lady. Sounds familiar; most bullies think of themselves as ordinary reasonable fellows.


Emanuel Paparella2008-09-18 13:16:54
P.S. Another critique of modern art from a famous British playwright still alive:

“Skill without imagination is craftsmanship and gives us many useful objects such as wickerwork picnic baskets. Imagination without skill gives us modern art ...It is not hard to understand modern art. If it hangs on a wall it's a painting, and if you can walk around it it's a sculpture.”

--Tom Stoppard



Sand2008-09-18 13:31:33
If you are aware of the Shavian story you know that Professor Higgins made a good deal of useful progress with his subject whereas you have all the capabilities of a rotten potato and despite my best efforts to drum a bit of perception into that empty skull of yours you stubbornly cling to your vacuous stupidities and rush around to find some way to justify your total ignorance of a massive and intricate field. I do my best but all the potential of even an ordinary human appears to be totally lacking in you. If only you were a beautiful girl selling flowers I might have some hope but you are only a pitiful stodgy academic fraud pretending to understand a world that has eluded you completely. Too bad.


Emanuel Paparella2008-09-18 14:33:00
Is that what the voices in your head told you lately? You ought to stop inviting them in; they are liars and slanderers.


Emanuel Paparella2008-09-18 14:36:49
“Modern art is what happens when painters stop looking at girls and persuade themselves that they have a better idea.”
--John Ciardi



Emanuel Paparella2008-09-18 14:44:45
By the way, before there was a Shavian story there was the story of Pygmalion, of which you seem to be blissfully unaware. In Pygmalion, the sculptor doesn?t see the beauty in earthly women, but finds his true love in his own sculpted creation which suggests something about the nature of art, especially modern art, as Ciardi also hints at. Reinventing the wheel is indeed a waste of precious time...


Sand2008-09-18 14:48:32
You are determined to believe that the whole movement in modern art is some kind of fraud. As someone whose whole life is based on misconceptions and scurrilous dishonesty I can well understand your interpretation of everybody else in terms of yourself. If Stoppard and Ciardi do not understand modern art I am sorry for their lack. They probably don't know much about plumbing or aircraft design either and I would not consult them in those matters.


Sand2008-09-18 14:53:52
And then, of course, there was that stupid fellow Michelangelo who deluded himself he could capture something of the emotion of the tragedy of Christ in his Pieta.


Emanuel Paparella2008-09-18 17:05:32
"There is much worthwhile in modern art" (Emanuel Paparella)

The voices have been visiting again? May you the fellow envious of Michelangelo who went to St. Peter's basilica with a hammer to destroy the Pietá of that stupid fellow so that now it is behind a glass partition? Is that why you changed your name and are now hiding in Finland?

To the bonfire the plays of Stoppard fro which he won Tony and Emmy awards? To the bonfire the poetry of Ciardi? Sounds as if you'd approve of that other bonfire of May 1942 in Germany.


Emanuel Paparella2008-09-18 17:08:53
Errata above: may you the fellow should be "may you be the fellow..."


Emanuel Paparella2008-09-18 17:14:30
Thanks for proving the point of John Ciardi which is basically this: when the cultural philistine thinks that what arrives at the end is always the best, he also thinks that what preceeded modern art is inferior and can safely be consigned to a big bonfire and that Michelangelo was stupid. And that is why the jury is still out on modern art.


Sand2008-09-18 17:49:24
It seems the fizz out of your empty head is unstoppable. I judge people on what they say and not peripheral awards they may have earned. If you have quoted Stoppard correctly (and your past prevaricative behavior puts much doubt on that) then he has very little taste or understanding of modern art. And if Mr. Ciardi, whatever his poetic accomplishments, views art only as an adjunct to his testosterone production then he is missing a great deal out of life. Frankly, since I admire both Stoppard and Ciardi for their professional output, I can only assume your talent for distortion and misquotation is hard at work as has been your efforts with my statements.
As usual your knowledge of history is totally lacking since it is well known that a fellow named Laslo Toth attacked the Pieta claiming to be Jesus Christ. So your ignorance in that matter is resoundingly demonstrated. If you want to make a formal accusation of me in that matter I might have an easy interesting and remunerative legal recourse.


Emanuel Paparella2008-09-18 19:57:39
Why don't we try the legal recourse and bet $10,000 dollars that your slanderous insinuations, suggested by the voices in your head, are false, as usual, and those quotes are in fact accurate. I can also wager with anybody interested that you will not legally pick up the challenge but will continue foaming at the mouth, to use of your own preferred expression. Pity.


Sand2008-09-18 20:09:48
I knew you were dumb, but I had hopes you weren't illiterate. Your response indicates you have no concept of what I wrote.


Emanuel Paparella2008-09-18 21:03:24
I thought so! You did actually write that my "talent for distortion and misquotation is hard at work" and I challenged you to a bet on the accuracy and veracity of the Ciardi and Stoppard quotes and the scurillous and shameless nature of your insinuations. As it was to be expected you promptly declined to pick up the challenge hiding behind more scurrilous insults and insinuations. How brave indeed! One has to begin to wonder if you're all there or have the voices taken complete control.


Sand2008-09-18 21:20:15
Stop the bullshit, Paparella, I challenged you on your accusation I had something to do with the damaging of the Pieta. I said I doubted your other quotes but didn't challenge you on them. Your idiotic attempt to change the subject is typical of your stupidity.


Emanuel Paparella2008-09-18 22:12:13
I thought so. No great surprises here either. Indeed, there is stupidity and there is stupidity and the most damaging is the one that thinks itself clever and "enlightened". And there is also ethical destitution and dishonorable shameless behavior hiding behind an assumed cleverness and proceeding by bullying and even threats. You have exhibited them all in this forum and what is most astonishing is that you seem to be proud of them.


Sand2008-09-18 22:22:15
Just noise, Paparella. Whenever you're confronted with a subject you want to avoid you make meaningless noises and unwarranted accusations like a squid throwing ink. Too bad you're such a jerk you can't face reality.


AP2008-09-18 23:17:04
"Is that why you changed your name and are now hiding in Finland?"
This concept of "hiding in Finland" is very curious. Are you one of those who think that there are still spies having dinner in the Torni tower? Very 007.


AP2008-09-18 23:24:24
"On Her Halonen's Secret Service"?


AP2008-09-18 23:28:05
"From almost-Russia With Love"?


Sand2008-09-19 05:46:22
The point of this discussion has sunk from a somewhat interesting exposure of Paparella’s total incomprehension of the methods, objectives, delights, and range of modern art to his attempts to insult me in his exceedingly limited and repetitive and ineffective manner. I tried to open him up to the new directions in art but it seems his basic capabilities are insufficient for the exercise. The insults, while giving me a bit of leeway in creativity, seems to have totally exhausted his supply as he uses the same ones over and over. So it is well past time that I move on to more rewarding interactions.


Sand2008-09-19 09:19:38
One thing must be said. The Ciardi quote:

Modern art is what happens when painters stop looking at girls and persuade themselves that they have a better idea.

Was misappraised on my part in the context of Paparella's obvious contempt for modern art. A second look revealed that Ciardi merely noted that there was more to modern painting than mere admiration of women. On this I wholeheartedly agree.


Sand2008-09-19 10:44:28
The Stoppard quote is also worthy of re-examination:
“Skill without imagination is craftsmanship and gives us many useful objects such as wickerwork picnic baskets. Imagination without skill gives us modern art ...It is not hard to understand modern art. If it hangs on a wall it's a painting, and if you can walk around it it's a sculpture.”

Upon looking up the reference it was revealed to be two separate quotes which Paparella joined for his own purposes. Nevertheless each is worthy of a second look.

The first is: “Skill without imagination is craftsmanship and gives us many useful objects such as wickerwork baskets. Imagination without skill gives us modern art.”
The first sentence implies that craftsmanship is without imagination. Any understanding of good craftsmanship easily belies that. The second sentence would imply that all modern art is without craftsmanship which indicates either a monstrous contempt coupled with a broad ignorance or an attempt at being clever with no thought at all of verity. There are, of course, many fascinating concepts in modern art that have been rendered crudely as the concept was the point, not the execution and frequently the crude execution renders a power to the piece that fine craftsmanship would destroy.

The second is: ”If it hangs on a wall it’s a painting and if you can walk around it it’s a sculpture.”

This is merely a comment that what had been a separation of the two artistic disciplines has broken down and many objects hung on a wall frequently have three dimensional aspects and many sculptures have acquired the aspects of color and line previously confined to two dimensional graphics and, if anything it accepts the delight of the crossover of the techniques.



AP2008-09-19 15:28:31
It makes sense like that.


Emanuel Paparella2008-09-19 18:18:46
Indeed it makes sense to call Michelangelo stupid and proceed with his destruction.

"Let us to then, you and I, when the evening is spread out against the sky...in the rooom where women come and go, talking of Michelangelo."
God must undoubtedly be a woman and birds are birds and pigs are pigs, and chickens are chicken and thy flock together and nobody knows why they cross the street; they only know the how.


Emanuel Paparella2008-09-19 18:32:20
"Another unsettling element in modern art is that common symptom of immaturity, the dread of doing what has been done before."
--Edith Wharton

Dumb and dumber may wish to chew on that for a while, but it needs to be properly before jumping on horses for an attack via distortion and spin, for anger and ad hominem attacks always cloud the judgment... and reveals one's intellectual destitution.


Emanuel Paparella2008-09-19 18:34:18
Errata above: "to be properly" ought to read "to be properly digested".


AP2008-09-19 20:13:08
I was mentioning the re-examination of Stoppard's quotes.

ps - I'm not sure if I am the dumb or the dumber, Mr. Pepsi Geyser.


AP2008-09-19 20:23:55
I think God is a transvestite, Mr. P.


Emanuel Paparella2008-09-20 00:11:40
You must have been attending the Eddie Izzard’s shows Ms. Pereira. He describes him/her-self as a “male lesbian” and a straight transvestite but not a transgender lesbian, and cross dresses both on and off stage, for as he says “women wear what they want and so do I.” Of course those who don’t believe in God see no confusion of identity there: a human being is a human being, period; those who do, on the other hand, have to deal with the biblical idea that we all carry his image in our psyche and that She knew that there were going to be Eddie Izzard types around but created the universe in any case; in fact after the creation She says that it was “very good” and blessed it. Then of course came the snake and the apple and man thinking that he was created before woman…and the knowledge of good and evil. Now, this issue too is comparable to the pig crossing the street to get some lipstick and can easily carry us very far into Jung’s animus and anima and the ancient’s Psyche’s and in the process we could easily ignore the theoretical and jump on our pet ideological horses and end up superficially trivializing it and caricaturing it, make it another activists’ issue, an article of faith, a la Eddie Izzard. Hopefully that will not happen. Meanwhile stay tuned for my book review of Wolfe’s “Men in Full” that should appear shortly and which touches on the issue too.


AP2008-09-20 03:51:01
Someone has to trivialize it Mr. P., such a heavy, serious burden cannot resist humour?

So you have some fondness for Izzard's faith, huh?
It's interesting, you seem to think that "the image of god that we all carry in our psyche" is the responsible for people's sexual identity. So atheists are not sure? It would be good if you could show some critic of Jung's writings as well, they're sometimes delusional.


Emanuel Paparella2008-09-20 06:12:50
Read what is there Ms. Pereira, not what you wish to impute and spin. What it says there is that God being a spirit can be conceived as a woman or a man, as a father or as a mother, the important feature of that image is not sexual identity but the fact that such a God is providential and cares for her/his creation the way a mother and/or a father care for their children. Even the genius of the Greeks who by reason arrived at a conception of God could not surmize a providential and loving God. If on the other hand there is no Father or Mother originating the whole show, then not only the brotherhood of the French revolution is a shame and a chimera, but all we have left is the law of the jungle and the survival of the fittest as advocated by the likes of Mr. S. in this very forum. We need to be lucid on the matter and not muddle the waters with gender issues.


Sand2008-09-20 07:53:58
I can well comprehend Paparella's motivations as a proponent of the survival of the unfit.


Emanuel Paparella2008-09-20 12:10:53
Unfortunately that seems to be the only thing you can well comprehend, the world of the fit and the world of the unfit. If your petrified mind-set still allows it, try asking yourself why should a being wish to survive at any cost and why Greek tragedies reveal heroes who sacrifice their own survival.


Sand2008-09-20 15:35:47
Paparella's stupidity rides again! Whether a person wants to survive or not has nothing to do with his or her ability to survive. If it was a matter of will alone almost nobody would ever die. I wonder why Greek fiction is more important than any other fictional depiction of fictional characters. In fiction, anything is possible.
Just look at the Bible.


Emanuel Paparella2008-09-20 16:13:27
Pompous S. rides again on his ideological horse rattling sabers and argumenti ad hominem...while ignoring the issue of the hero who sacrifices his survival in Greek tragedy still being performed on all the stages of the world...Life considered a privilege of the strong and the clever. Sounds quite fascistic to me and in fact dumber and dumber, indeed. May I suggest you peruse Nietzsche's Birth of Tragedy before making pompous and ignorant pronouncements on the superiority of the modern ethical system. That is, if your present mind-set is not hard wired and fossibized by now.


Emanuel Paparella2008-09-20 16:15:52
Errata above: fossibized should be spelled "fossilized."


Sand2008-09-20 17:25:32
And Peter Pan is performed over and over as are revivals of Frankenstein and Dracula and I various versions of Batman and Superman etc.,etc. I cannot see that that proves anything except they are great fun and people will pay to see them.


Sand2008-09-20 17:52:19
Incidentally, I wonder why you keep mentioning things I never have written and then demolishing them as if that has some relationship to my statements. I never claimed a modern ethical system is superior to any other as it seems quite obvious that the world is just as nasty and brutal today as it was in any other historical era religious or otherwise.


AP2008-09-20 18:31:16
Not only you don't show any critic of Jung's writings, you also show complete incomprehension of Izzard's stand-up performance and humour (not great news!).

Although he does not believe in God and you try to attribute his supposed "gender confusion" (that you invented yourself just now) to that, between his declarations that he is "a male lesbian", etc, he affirms also very clearly that he just feels attracted to women (more than that, he believes that most transvestites fancy girls too).
He's just a person that likes to wear anything he feels like wearing and that, of course, serves very well his performance purposes.

Can't God just be bisexual, Mr. P.? Is that any greater sign of confusion than being heterosexual or homosexual? And why does it even have to have a sex? To conform your prejudices?


AP2008-09-20 18:37:54
What has one's comedic appearance to do with one's sexual identity certainty/self-knowledge? Nothing.

And what has all that to do with believing in God or not? Even less.


Emanuel Paparella2008-09-20 18:44:14
Again, read what's there Ms. P. and not what you wish to spin and read into. What it says there is that God being a spirit She/He can be conceived to our mind in need of symbols to get to the transcendent as either a Mother or a Father. That does not make bi-sexual for the simple reason that She/He is not composed of a material body. The greatest fallacy is to turn the primacy of spirit on its head and consider it as issuing from matter. The most on the cutting edge scientists nowadays are becoming increasingly aware that the Big Bang suggests that spirit and energy is primary; and that despite the illusion of the eight day of creation by our scientists who think they can do one better on the Creator without realizing that their puny little bang in the lab did not come out of nothing. I am afraid that "why is there something rather than nothing" the wander with which philosophy begins is a question that no materialistic positivistic science will ever answer, if they can even conceive of it. And by the way, that was not only the question of the ancient Greeks; Heidegger begins his influenttial Being and Time with that very question.


Emanuel Paparella2008-09-20 18:46:50
Errata above: "wander" ought to be "wonder."


AP2008-09-20 19:24:23
You were the one calling the gender issues to this, Mr. P., not me.


AP2008-09-20 19:30:26
The fact that God is not composed by a material body does not mean that God can't have a gender identity.
So God has no sex nor gender for you, Mr. P.? God cannot be a transvestite and like to wear all spiritual clothes, nor have a bisexual identity?


Sand2008-09-20 20:06:56
Whether Heidegger fiddled with it or not, the perennial puzzler "Why is there something rather than nothing?" is a meaningless philosophical question favored by theologians because it connects the query "why" to a process and thereby implies intent. It is not a scientific question because science does not deal with intent, it deals with dynamic structure in time and space and the questions there deal with "how", not "why".


AP2008-09-20 20:37:32
Of course science deals with the "how", not with the "why".

But even for someone interested in achieving some tranquility through the "why", the answers can be multiple. It is clear nevertheless that "why" makes us part of a plan (or the side effect of a plan) a priori, so it serves theologians.


Emanuel Paparella2008-09-20 21:44:39
So that readers are not left with the impression that Heidegger was at the level of the two birds of a feather who have just trivialized him and his philosophy with aspersions, here is a short excursus in the famous question with which he starts Being and Time:

Writing allegorically in "The Way Back into the Ground of Metaphysics," Heidegger notes that although metaphysics is undeniably the root of all human knowledge, we may yet wonder from what soil it springs. Since the study of beings qua beings can only be rooted in the ground of Being itself, there is a sense in which we must overcome metaphysics in order to appreciate its basis. Looking at beings of particular sorts—especially through the distorted lens of representational thinking—blocks every effort at profound understanding. We cannot grasp Being by looking at beings.

This was the point of Heidegger's introduction of the term Dasein. It isn't simply a synonym for "consciousness", he maintained, but indicates the vital fact that human beings—and only human beings—truly exist, in the fullest sense, only when being-there for-themselves. Properly understood, self-awareness leads to the authenticity of a life created out of nothing, in the face of dread, by reference only to one's own deliberate purposes.

For this process of self-creation, Time is crucial. What we are at present matters less than what we are becoming, through the dynamic temporal process that constitutes our personal histories. There is no abstract essence of human nature; there are only individual human beings unfolding themselves historically. In the end, this is the answer to the question of why there is something rather than nothing.


Sand2008-09-21 00:28:37
The concept of a human "unfolding himself historically" is one of the oddest I have come across since there is the implication that a "folded" human being is like a completed diagram to be unwrapped in time which, of course, is completely silly. A human, like any other living creature is deeply embedded in its environment and does not develop independently of it. It is the interaction of a creature with the influences surrounding it that reveal its potentials and any creature is intimately involved with time and space and not either something or nothing. It is a peculiar sickness particularly of theological conceptions that humans are specially divorced from their surroundings and are somehow empowered to violate the laws of cause and effect denied other living and non-living things. This, of course, is total nonsense.


Emanuel Paparella2008-09-21 08:05:54
Of course. Funny, though that of all living beings on this earth Man seems to be the only one that creates his world by the consciousness of being in space and time besides cause and effect; what Kant calls the categories of the understanding. Undoubtedly you have read and pondered carefully Heidegger's Beind and Time, to understand why it had such tremendous influence on the philosophy of the 20th century. Would you now recommend that his book be consigned to the bonfire simply because it does not agree with a misguided mechanistic, materialist,reductionist, deterministic viewpoint of the nature of man?


Emanuel Paparella2008-09-21 08:08:12
Errata: "Beind" ought to be "Being"


Sand2008-09-21 09:45:18
Your incessant insistence that any book or series of books that I find does not agree with my perspectives or that I find in even a small part is defective should be cast into a fire indicates some strange delight with Nazi control of literature and ideas. Aside from its deleterious effects on air pollution and global warming the mere concept of burning books is repugnant to me, something again over which we seem to have a major disagreement.


Emanuel Paparella2008-09-21 15:52:32
That we do, but you got the designation of the book burner. Being a materialist and a determinist you cannot help yourself and must logically think of book burning as merely a physical act. It can also be metaphorical. When Vico deisgnated the extreme rationalism of a Descartes as "barbarism of the intellect" leading to de-humanization and conceiving or ourselves as mere animals or worst robots, he was envisioning the bullying cultural philistinism which will cast aspersion on anybody who disagrees with his point of view no matter how emeinent he/she may be in their respective field. With a bit of imagination one can see that he was talking about book-burners in an allegorical mode. Alas, they are still with us.


Emanuel Paparella2008-09-21 15:55:04
Errata: wrong should be added to the first sentence and emeinent should be eminent.


Sand2008-09-21 16:43:29
Do not, Paparella, try to sneak away from your continuous use of the term "book burning" by claiming it is metaphorical. It was an actual and relatively unique Nazi process and references quickly bring to mind the Nazi solution to written material they opposed. It is one of your favorite references to whatever analytical criticism I may have had to written material you favored, no matter how minor the criticism and is obviously a smear technique to try to indicate I could not discriminate between errors I indicated and a whole body of work. How quickly you rush to clothe yourself in classical references that have little if any bearing on your overbearing techniques of gross and unfounded insult.


Emanuel Paparella2008-09-21 18:42:23
Is that what the voices told you that I wrote? Don't believe them, read what is written there. What is written there is that there is physical book burning and then there is metaphorical book burning and of the two the worst is metaphorical book burning which reveals a "barbarism of the intellect" parading as progressivism and enlightenement. But the Emperor remains naked.


Sand2008-09-21 19:12:12
If you stop your stereotypical blather and make some sensible post I will respond.


© Copyright CHAMELEON PROJECT Tmi 2005-2008  -  Sitemap  -  Add to favourites  -  Link to Ovi
Privacy Policy  -  Contact  -  RSS Feeds  -  Search  -  Submissions  -  Subscribe  -  About Ovi