Re: OT Musical languistics
|From:||Sally Caves <scaves@...>|
|Date:||Wednesday, June 4, 2003, 4:10|
----- Original Message -----
From: Roger Mills
Sally Caves wrote:
>I went to the
L.A. County Art Museum (the one with the treacherous tarpits!) when I was
seventeen, along with our art history class. There was a big room full of
dirt. It was called "room full of dirt."
>Tarpits bite. Roomful of dirt, no bite.
Ah ha ha ha! ho ho ho ho... If only I had had the wit then to say to my
teacher, well the tarpits, in that case, are more interesting. Why should I
look at a room full of dirt in HERE when I can look at a goopful of tar out
THERE? With gaseous breathings, no less, and big flabby iridescent bubbles?
>Kitsch can have bite (Keane's sad-eyed waifs, dogs playing poker) but only
because it's camp and you laugh at it.
>Generic flowers-n-kittykats and hotel-motel sofa paintings just don't make it.
Exactly, exactly. I had made a remark about "vulgar" art, and hotel-motel sofa
paintings are I think it. Paintings made to hang in dentist offices, intended
to give the impression of non-vulgar art, and to make money. Even that by some
very prominent and expensive artists. Like Tarke/Tarque (sp?). Tarke paints
colorful pictures of rich women in floppy hats lounging in cafes. They go for
about 10,000 dollars and are meant to hang in very expensive homes, matching
the decor. They're all alike.
Maybe it has to do with what's in the artist's mind-"Hey, I'm going to do
something so ridiculous it's outrageous" as opposed to "Gee, how much can I get
Eskkoat ol ai sendran, rohsan nuehra celyil takrem bomai nakuo.
"My shadow follows me, putting strange, new roses into the world."