Ovi -
we cover every issue
newsletterNewsletter
subscribeSubscribe
contactContact
searchSearch
worldwide creative inspiration  
Ovi Bookshop - Free Ebook
Stop human trafficking
Ovi Language
Murray Hunter: Essential Oils: Art, Agriculture, Science, Industry and Entrepreneurship
WordsPlease - Inspiring the young to learn
Murray Hunter: Opportunity, Strategy and Entrepreneurship
Stop human trafficking
 
BBC News :   - 
iBite :   - 
GermanGreekEnglishSpanishFinnishFrenchItalianPortugueseSwedish
Art and Feminism in the 21st Century Art and Feminism in the 21st Century
by Dr. Emanuel Paparella
2008-12-15 08:42:54
Print - Comment - Send to a Friend - More from this Author
DeliciousRedditFacebookDigg! StumbleUpon

“The last century has witnessed radical alterations to the nature of art and aesthetic opportunities…To what extent do the philosophical, aesthetic, and artistic traditions that peaked in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries still affect artists in the twenty first century? This is a complicated question, and answering it is made more difficult by the fact that we are actually living in the time under assessment. We don’t have the benefit of hindsight to judge the effects of the present art scene on developments yet to happen. Analyzing the artworld of today is necessarily tentative, for no one can foresee what the present will resemble from the perspective of the future…have the concepts of artists and art also utterly changed, such that their implicit masculine gender has all but faded away? …I suspect that this is not the case. The most noticeable reason for this judgment is that tradition remains the overarching point of reference for feminist and postmodern artists, who refer continually to the past, whether ironically, parodically, or confrontationally. Tradition unavoidably frames the work of even the most iconoclastic artists, for only God creates ex nihilo. The breakaway movements in art remain to that extent bound to rejected legacies, which therefore retain much of their power in these acts of confrontations. What will emerge from the collision of innovation and tradition that propels cultural history we have yet to see.”

                                                                                 --Carolyn Korsmeyer (Gender and Aesthetics)

Among the great social movements of the 20th century, feminism can perhaps be considered the most significant. It has affected the landscape of most academic disciplines, the philosophy of art, and the very character of artistic practices. Indeed, within the fine art tradition, there are dichotomies which have been all but undermined by the work of feminist artists. Whether this is ultimately good or bad depends on the reader or viewer’s perspective.

In her book Gender and Aesthetics, Carolyn Korsmeyer, for one, reveals a profound knowledge of those dichotomies within the fine art tradition. One such dichotomy is the evolution of the concept of fine art to a broad concept of art in which any skilled practice is called “an art,” to wit Robert M. Pirsig’s iconoclastic book Zen and the Art of Motocycle Maintainance. Such a fine art tradition is realized in the writings of philosophers who range from Vico, to Kant and from Kant to Heidegger. They developed a notion of art which separated it from the normal affairs of life. Not only was the experience of art considered something unique, but art objects themselves were considered radically different from everyday objects in our world. Moreover, aesthetic, or artistic values, if you will, was taken to be distinct from political significance. Overt politics was seen as a banal intrusion into the more elevated spheres of art proper. Such intrusion was often dubbed mere propaganda. This august tradition was convinced that art could only be validated by a radical separation of art from the quotidian.

Korsmeyer is well aware that much of 20th century art, such as Duchamp’s Fountain which exhibits a urinal as a work of art, attacks those above mentioned pretensions of the fine art tradition. However, she goes beyond this critique, for she is convinced that feminist artists have developed and further refined this critique. How so? She cites the works of Jana Sterbak and Carolee Schneemann to argue that contemporary feminist artists have compelled us to a rethinking of the basic notion of an artistic tradition, not to speak of the category of art itself and the current standards of taste.

And what exactly are those dichotomies that Korsmeyer claims feminist art has undermined? One of them is the distinction between art and craft. In the classical tradition of fine arts, craft products have been denigrated for their utility, whereas works of art were elevated exactly because of their uselessness. Feminists have challenged this dichotomy by exhibiting products of crafts as art objects. One example offered by Korsmeyer is Judy Chicago’s The Dinner Party, a grandiose work which includes weaving, embroidery, ceramics.

But that’s not all. It is important to point out that although the work was conceived by Chicago, over one hundred other artists helped in its creation. The communal nature of this work of art undermined the very notion that art is the product of a lone genius, as Kant surely believed. Moreover, the work depicted a dinner whose guests were feminists of all stripes. This gave the work a political content inseparable from its artistic merits and thus challenged another dichotomy of the fine art tradition: that the value of a work of art ought not to be related to its political significance.

Korsmeyer, while making a powerful case that the work of feminist artists has had a profound impact on our concept of art, declines to speculate on the new concept of art that may emerge from these practices; neither does she hazards a judgment on whether it will for the better or for the worse. What she however remains convinced of, is that feminists have succeeded in dismantling sexists and racist conceptions of art which reigned supreme in the not so distant past.   


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

Comments(39)
Get it off your chest
Name:
Comment:
 (comments policy)

Emanuel Paparella2008-12-15 16:49:56
A footnote may be in order here: when Chicago’s famous "Dinner Party" first came out and began touring the world before ending up permanently in the Brooklyn museum, it raised a furor in what Derrida dubbed the phallocentric artistic community, who while accepting as perfectly normal the exhibition of phalluses two feet long in museums found the drawings in the dishes at the dinner table (which had within them the names of famous feminine figures throughout the ages) highly objectionable, for they all represented vaginas. Of course Chicago did that on purpose, exactly to elicit that sort of reaction from male chauvinists of all stripes and persuasions.


AP2008-12-16 00:42:18
Doris Salcedo talks about politics and art during interview on her piece "Shibboleth" (Tate Modern):
http://www.tate.org.uk/tateshots/episode.jsp?item=12198


AP2008-12-16 01:11:20
Current exhibition by Cildo Meireles:
http://www.tate.org.uk/modern/exhibitions/cildomeireles/rooms/room2.shtm
"Meireles’s generation, emerging in the late 1960s and 1970s, were known for more politically engaged works, the extremity of their actions mirroring the extreme political situation. Meireles himself, however, links these two strands of Brazilian art.
‘In some way you become political when you don’t have a chance to be poetic. I think human beings would much prefer to be poetic’, he explains."


Sand2008-12-16 06:45:51
The concept that politics and good art don't mix is total nonsense. Art and politics has been mixed for centuries. Goya and Rivera and Grosz and Beckman et al clearly demonstrate that. Even the Renaissance artists who were financed by the church fall within the classification of propaganda which does not detract from their quality as art.


Sand2008-12-16 06:51:49
This incessant insistence that anyone who disagrees with a book must therefore consign it to conflagration betrays a rather obvious and strange obsession of Paparella to burn literature characteristic favoring the most deplorable actions of the Catholic Church at its worst and the Nazis.


Sand2008-12-16 07:21:37
One of the central problems of a simple minded propagandist like Paparella who's entire tsunamic output rests of groveling before his chosen authorities is that he displays no sensible critical abilities whatsoever. Once he has sucked up to some historical authority everything that authority, be it Jesus or Plato or Einstein or Nietzsche or Jung or Freud or one of many deluded popes said, everything spouted by these people is considered pure intellectual gold. Of course many of the things these historical people said or wrote is worth considering but the evaluation must take into account that all people at one time or another say ignorant or stupid things and each utterances must be looked at closely in the light of more recent analysis and understandings. Unfortunately Paparella is exceedingly adept at misinterpreting other people's words and conflating them into his personal stupidities and takes any criticism as a personal attack which must be fended off no matter how justifiable it may be.


Emanuel Paparella2008-12-16 13:32:12
Is that what the visiting voices of Christmas having been saying to you lately? Tell them, next time they visit, that even to misinterpret a Plato or a Dante one must first have read Plato and Dante. The cultural philistinism of which we are infected nowadays consists in considering those classics anacrhonistic and not worth even consulting because what comes at the end is always the best and supersedes what has come before. Some "best"!

The other philistinism quite apparent in the "enlightened" ideologically driven extreme left that thinks of itself as the solution to the world's problem while it is part of the problem, is that of substituting anticatholicism to anti-semitism. It seems to be the politically correct thing to do. But then again, that trend began some two thousand years ago with emperor Nero and is still ongoing to the chagrin of religion bashers.


Emanuel Paparella2008-12-16 14:54:26
P.S. I wonder if it has occurred to the self-appointed Grand Inquisitor in charge of political correctness in this forum that to say "I never read a book from cover to cover" (Bush), or "I never read books" (Pereira), or even to imply that classical books are passe and no longer needed is the equivalent of burning books which is now a metaphor for that kind of philistine cultural mind-set.


AP2008-12-16 16:20:12
Mr. P.:
First of all, something you should stop immediately and that I don't admit from anyone, be it an academic or a vagabond, someone my age or two or three times older: the habit of misquoting and decontextualizing one's sentences with the single purpose of denigrating them before others, present them as ignorant or uncultured. You have to resort to such methods in order to give yourself some credibility? If that's the case, then it's truly sad.
1. The fact that other people don't use quotes as often as you do doesn't mean that they don't read (what the hell do you know about the books I read or not? absolutely nothing)
2. Someone who uses and abuses of quotes, distorting them so they can suit one's purposes, shows a poor imagination
3. If you remember well, my sentence was not "I never read books", it was "Reading books is something I never bother to do"
4. If you remember well too, that sentence was an ironic answer to your long-lasting presumptuous and completely unbased suggestion according to which I don't read books (how could I? you seem to have the monopoly)
5. When people contradict you, they don't condemn the books you read, above all they just don't agree with... YOU and the use you give to the quotes you use out of context.

Such high level of arrogant presumptuousness is hard to come across with, but you manage to display it quite openly, as the best argument you have to answer to my open questions about your faith and its practical implications, for example, or the fact that I don't agree that politics and art can be mixed. Pity, such low arguments. Not ad hominem, I suppose?? Ad muliere, of course. Trying to compete with the male chauvinists whose methods, just some hours ago, you seemed to disapprove so vehemently?? Talk about politically correct...


AP2008-12-16 16:31:51
errata - "that politics and art can't be mixed"

Ps - The reason why you think that you were the only person on earth (or one of the very few, in any case...) to read Plato and Dante, Dostoyevsky or Derrida is still completely mysterious to me, and as astonishing as the constant need you have, like a countryman full of complexes (or just an intellectual full of complexes), to "show it off". Absolutely intriguing.


Emanuel Paparella2008-12-16 17:18:42
It is indeed quite intriguing and in fact it is a paradox of sort I’d like to share with the readers, that the modern rationalist trapped in the box of rationalism, who thinks of him/herself the inheritor of Voltaire’s “enlightenment,” will incessantly rant about the importance of submitting everything to the light of sweet reason and be skeptical of any and all authority. When quotes are submitted to them to judge independently of the authority that has proffered them or the one who has put them on the table, more often than not they will immediately reject them simply because they were proposed by someone whose views they disagree with, to wit, the quote in the thread on medical policy by Ivan Illich which immediately provoked an egregious personal attack by the self appointed Senior Grand Inquisitor in residence Mr. S., never mind the sweet light of reason or the scholarship or authority of the ones who originally proffered it. It got shut down simply because I was the one who proposed it for consideration. Some sweetness of reason an unbiased judgment, my ass. (continued below)


Emanuel Paparella2008-12-16 17:19:56
A truly asinine way of proceeding intellectually. Perhaps those rationalists, who indeed do no honor to reason, should stick to the swetneess of chocolate cakes. The priority invariably turns out to be the promoting and defending of their agenda at any cost, with insults if need be; not even proper names are immune from the mud slinging; their ideology and agenda seems to be their only yardstick of judging the viability of all ideas and arguments. It’s really a paradox which I am not sure I fully understand yet. I suspect it has precious little to do with learning and knowledge and sweet reason. Any reader with a modicum of common sense and good faith would have to acknowledge, at a minimum, that one can always learn something even from people one disagrees with, especially if those people have taken the trouble to submit scores of articles on various issues, without descending to the low philistine road of making it a contest of who can device the better insults and vitriolic aspersions, as indeed has been proclaimed publicly by the senior Grand Inquisitor in charge of political correctness in this forum. I propose that it is definitely unwise to follow that misguided example Ms. P.


Emanuel Paparella2008-12-16 17:36:25
P.S. Ms. P., could you explain to me the difference between "I never bother to read books" and "I never read books"? Yes, admittedly two words are missing from the first quote but the two quotes seem to me to have substantially the same meaning and therefore not out of context for the purpose of distorting that meaning as indeed has been done repeatedly with some of my quotes by the self-appointed Senior Grand Inquisitor of Political Correctness who, I have no doubt in that regard, if he had the power would have censored and silenced me a long time ago. Indeed, as was learned in ancient Greece a few millenia ago, horse flyes can be very annoying and irritating, but perhaps needed to keep the horse awake and aware, perhaps you'd concur, or perhaps, more likely, not.


Sand2008-12-16 17:45:58
Ah, "horse flyes"! Wahtever could those be? Perhaps if horses were outfitted with trousers the trousers would have "flyes" with zippers or buttons. But since horses have no fingers to zip up or down this perches on the edge of improbability.
But of course. Mr. P. means those insects with a shocking bite which horses should love because God made them to keep horses alert. And God never creates stuff that is useless, does he? Like cancer, for instance. I'll bet even Aristotle couldn't find much use for cancer.


Emanuel Paparella2008-12-16 17:51:08
Point confirmed. It is nearly impossible to teach an old dog new tricks.


Sand2008-12-16 17:53:36
I know you have personal problems, Paparella, but moaning about them in public is unfitting.


Emanuel Paparella2008-12-16 17:58:31
Besides the fact, of course, that the attempt at cleverness reveals Mr. S.'s cultural philistinism, for it seems that the allusion to Plato's Apology went right over his head; he probably has never read it if he even knows what it deals with, despite the fact that he proudly went to Pratt's Institute of Industrial Design.


Emanuel Paparella2008-12-16 18:07:31
Indeed, the visiting voices have managed to make you "know" many things of which you know precious little about. I am afraid that to come out of that kind of self-deception you have to come out of the cave and look at the genuine primary light of the sun for a change. That, by the way, is also a metaphor which will find in Plato's Republic.


Sand2008-12-16 18:09:28
Your understanding of design displays the same ignorance you unashamedly display about art in general.


AP2008-12-16 18:17:57
"to have substantially the same meaning and therefore not out of context for the purpose of distorting"
Not only the quote doesn't agree with the original sentence ("never bother" gives a taste of the extent of my intellectual laziness) as, of course, it's out of context because the meaning was originally ironical and you present it as being ...literal. Want more out of context than that?

"they will immediately reject them simply because they were proposed by someone whose views they disagree with"
I don't reject the quotes, I often don't agree with what you use them for. Which is different.

"especially if those people have taken the trouble to submit scores of articles on various issues"
Therefore the editors and ALL collaborators should be grateful to you and feel that they OWE you much - so they should always agree with you. Shouldn't you deffend and prove your academic merits in academic journals instead of opinion magazines? The paternalistic moral position you adopt before most of the writers and even... cartoons is slightly annoying - I feel that sometimes we should just let you talk alone.

"without descending to the low philistine road of making it a contest of who can device the better insults and vitriolic aspersions"
I'm sorry Sir, without descending? You have descended! You keep doing it, actually, while playing the victim. But I maintain: leave the fools alone with their foolishness. No one can disagree with you, but you can insult poems, articles and cartoons by others. Funny rules.


Sand2008-12-16 18:21:33
You talk as if you have seen the light of that metaphorical sun but since you keep your head plunged deep into your own bowels that is more of your self congratulatory bluster.


AP2008-12-16 18:35:04
...Yes, I said insult.

How can designers or artists ever read Plato, Dostoyevsky or Derrida? Impossible! I don't believe they are even authorized to talk about! In spite of your recent effort to show some eclecticism in your articles, and in spite of the high consideration you have for artists and designers and their work, Mr. P., having been a student at the Pratt Institute would make any designer proud, and I don't see anyone showing off their academic galloons except you. So shut up now.


Emanuel Paparella2008-12-16 19:34:17
"Shut up now." It sounds quite familiar. That was said against a godfly in Athens to dared question the love of truth and democracy of some people who paraded it but did not possess them. In other words he called the emperor naked and that irritated and stung them to no end.

It also appears that you too having learned from the bird of a feather the Grand Inquisitor in charge of Political Correctness, to which position you may be aspiring, are now imitating him and attempting to discredit and cast aspersion on my academic credentials by challenging me to go and publish in some academic journal. This may surprise you, but I have done that and more. One of those journals which I have mentioned previously and that can be easily be retrieved on line is "The Global Spiral" (see link and click under author and columns): while at it you may consider reading it from time to time: it is full of intriguing and scholarly connections and nexuses between science and religion which may be of interest and may be worth knowing before engaging in pseudo-dialogues on the subject which turn out to be diatribes. You may ask: why do I continue contributing to Ovi? Because it is a wonderful magazine of opinion which lives up to its name and respects free speech. Free speech of course means that those who respect tolerate even opinions with which they don't agree. That is a lesson that those who would silence others need to learn eventually, even in their old age. In any case here is the site once again:

http://www.metanexus.net/magazine/


Sand2008-12-16 19:56:51
Ah! If only you had an opinion I could respect I would have no difficulty in the matter. Pretty much you have offered other people's opinions that I found not slightly respectable. Your pissing and moaning about censorship is getting to be rather disgusting. One could no more censor you than quash an explosive sewer.

And now we have the godfly. Is this a secret reference to Asmodeus? You really are having all sorts of troubles with flies these days.


Emanuel Paparella2008-12-16 20:22:29
Indeed that is a typo, the word is spelled gadfly, but the issue was: do you know that the term refers to Socrates or frankly sir you don't give a damn as long as you know how to write it correctly? And by the way, commenter is no longer in use. The word in use nowadays is commentator. I know it is hard at a certain age to keep everything straight in one's head, but on the other hand those who live in glass building ought not to throw stones at those passing by.


Sand2008-12-16 20:44:00
And now I am completely at sea.
How can I tell your typos from what you really mean to say. I mean, even a name like Paparella looks a bit strange to me. Should it be Cinderella or Mozzarella or Citronella? Which one is the typo and which the real name? So hard to tell with them coming so thick and fast.
So Socrates was a gadfly, not a godfly. Are you sure? If he was a father he might have been a popfly. Or was he a variation of Drosophila melanogaster? I know a bit about that since I cultured them through P1,F1,F2 and did some statistical work with the vestigial wing mutation. But of course, that really is difficult to connect up to the Holocaust or burning books.
But I'm sure we'll get there. We always do.


Sand2008-12-16 21:08:56
By the way, the word "commenter" is clearly indicated in my modern Merriam Webster Dictionary and since your penis goes flaccid and your gaze goes down in the face of any authority, my dictionary takes command. Anyway, if I use the word, it is officially in use. Whatever your tin pot position in society you have no control over language. You have my permission to use the word when you find "commentator" a bit clumsy but I cede that right with trepidation considering how you persistently fuck up your spelling so consistently.


Emanuel Paparella2008-12-16 21:25:23
I see that true to form, you are back to the poetical language you find most comfortable: that of bodily functions and excrements and vulgar expressions of which surely you have a dictionary on your desk. Pigs can hardly help themselves, they may have lipstick on, but the pig remains a pig and the emperor remains naked.


Emanuel Paparella2008-12-16 21:32:06
And since we are back to casting aspersions on proper names and who has the most imaginative insults, come to think of it Mr. S. too looks somewhat strange when one looks at it, wouldn't you say? Somebody might mistake it for Mr. Ass. Perhaps we should start using the full name; that too however may conjure up "sand in the eyes" which indicates the devious way a scoundrel fights. Ah, the power of names.


Sand2008-12-16 21:34:55
Why Mr. Paparella! You mean you don't shit? Despite all denials it is becoming apparent you are an atomic powered robot designed by the Vatican to deny its ugly history. Gotcha!


Sand2008-12-16 21:41:03
Now look who's casting aspersions. Cinderella is an old and honored name. You should be proud of it! Perhaps some beautiful Italian princess will knock on your door and you would deny you are Cinderella and couldn't try on the glass slipper and lose out from living happily ever after. What a loss!


Emanuel Paparella2008-12-16 21:57:18
I advise reading the Marquis de Sade. You'd find him fascinating, a soul mate of sort and a bird of a feather. His very name should conjure up all sorts of things a Grand Inquisitor in charge of political correctness would enjoy to no end, especially when the visiting voices show up at night.


Sand2008-12-17 06:28:51
Lipsticked or otherwise, your stuck pig squeal rings down the halls (metaphorically speaking)of these interchanges again and again complaining of my persecution of poor helpless little Paparella. If you go out in the rain (metaphorically speaking) you will get wet (metaphorically speaking).


Sand2008-12-17 08:13:55
In our long and rather lively interchanges Paparella and I have developed rather personal forms of insult and it is interesting to examine the qualities and character of these insults since they are based on fundamental individual paradigms of looking at the world.

Paparella is a professional teacher which means he is in charge of taking children or young students who come to him with open and eager minds. Like many teachers he must control and direct the emotions of these flexible minds which can easily descend into open criticism and disorder since iconoclasm is a delicious activity to youngsters who frequently revel in disorder. A good instructor will be delighted with a degree of disorder since that evokes individual creativity and children have the gift of producing new and innovative insights into old material. He delights in analysis and thinking and is adept in demonstrating the power of his ideas when confronting novel attitudes. But Paparella has shown clearly that he is not this type of instructor. He initiates by exhibiting his academic victories to cow any obvious doubts. He waves his Ph.D. like a conquering flag to establish his dominion. He leads an army of subjugating papier mache´ idols made to look like respectable historic figures like Plato, Nietzsche, Jung, Freud, Aristotle, Santayana, Newton, Einstein, etc. which he leaps behind to quote out of context aphorisms which have very little to do with their integrated philosophies but by collaging them into a tattered mosaic he tries to support his fantastically demented views of reality. He perverts huge and diverse generalities into single minded classifications. Art is just this or that and likewise, reason, science, religion, ethics, morality, etc are stripped of their flesh and variability to become skeleton zombies dancing to his simple minded tunes. And thereby he fabricates his peculiar insults. To use reason and analysis is an insult. To debate within one’s mind the pros and cons of a situation is to “listen to the voices” which he implies is a step towards schizophrenia. Since his own mind is locked in brittle cast iron dogma that cannot be questioned for fear it might shatter and leave entrances for doubts that any rational and sane mind welcomes as a price for confronting a universe that contains wonderful potentials of exciting unknowns, he despises rationality and analysis and deep perceptions of the nature of the world and the surprising conclusions it leads an adventuring mind into. His eternal veneration of ancient and most frequently hugely ignorant primitive cultures and old power invoking mirages and naïve images shows clearly how he clings to his teddy bear myths and is horrified at facing reality.

My insults are of a more earthy order. I am not inhibited at openly declaring an idea a mound of smelly shit that was emitted by an asshole and not a thinking mind. There is a good and healthy force involved in recognizing excrement for what it is and not planting bouquets of plastic flowers in it to hide its basic nature.
I do not live in Victorian fear of recognizing we are all animals and delight in being animals and because of that we shit and piss and fuck and laugh and hate and love and that is what life is about and it’s wonderful and short and we better grab it while we can because that’s all there is. And yes, we humans have ideas which are sometimes worth considering and sometimes obvious nonsense and it is very healthy indeed to be able to think clearly and demonstrate which is which and say so as forcefully as we can muster.


Emanuel Paparella2008-12-17 10:16:44
Aside from your self-serving nihilistic philosophy about which we know enough by now to arrive at some sort of objective assessment, I am still left wondering: when the terrible voices come visiting at night, a la uncle Scrooge, do they actually take you to visit your nemesis by making you invisible first? The way you tell the story of my teaching style the reader is led to believe that such is the case. There is a glitch however, they must have taken you to the wrong professor’s classroom and probably the wrong school too, or perhaps they created an hallucination for you, for in the real world I do not teach kindergarten or elementary school children, I never have, whatever you wish to insinuate with such an assumption, something you have actually tried before; insinuations, innuendos, bullying, intolerance of others’ views, casting of aspersion, character assassination and slander being all in your general area of expertise and competency well demonstrated in this forum as most fair-minded readers would probably acknowledge, and even violating the comments policy of the magazine. (continued below)


Emanuel Paparella2008-12-17 10:17:48
Indeed, had the terrible night visiting voices invisibly transported you to the right university and the right classroom you would have known that, as a matter of fact, presently, although retired, I continue teaching part-time in a program dubbed ACE, which stands for Adult Continuing Education, at Barry University and therefore the vast majority of my students happen to be adults, often married with families and ongoing careers, sometimes doctors, sometimes nurses, sometimes civil servants. You would also have known that my classes are always conducted in the spirit of free speech, convivial dialogue and debate and freedom of expression, albeit there are academic standards and requirements prescribed by the syllabus. As I said, the visiting voices took you to the wrong venue and they may be out to deceive you. There may be a method to their obvious villainy and deviousness but their ultimate goal can hardly be good when compared to the ultimately beneficial one of Dickens’s uncle Scrooge.


Sand2008-12-17 10:35:28
My point demonstrated openly again that you find it extraordinary that a mind can internally debate an issue. Your concern with my ability to do so seems to demonstrate you lack this common very necessary basic mental ability and it leaves you helpless to subjugate yourself to any proffered "authority".


Emanuel Paparella2008-12-17 15:43:00
As I suspected, the real issue about the slandering voices present at my teaching lessons is conveniently side-stepped by the self-proclaimed champion of objective and scholarly fairness and love of truth and the English language. No great surprises there.

By the way, if you re-read carefully your last sentence, it ends up meaning the opposite of what you probably intent. Even a cultural philistine and intellectual villain needs to keep staight the syntax or he will not win the last word in a debate and will end up saying things he does not mean to say. In fact, even liars, tell the truth 90% of the times or nobody would pay attention to them any more.


Sand2008-12-17 15:56:39
To have your disability in thinking further limited by a severe lack of reading comprehension, Mr.P. is very sad indeed.

If you could only attain that 90% ideal we might be well on the way to helping you in your profound difficulty.


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