bush
Yes, they do not know what Democracy is, and don't care to know. The only freedom that makes sense to them is Laissez faire economics. Clinton's private picadillo was condemned because it took place in the people's house, the publically-owned oval office. But now the White House is Laura's private residence. Gag! What we clearly need IN THIS COUNTRY (for the sake of the American way of life, ideally speaking) is a REGIME CHANGE!
salcedo
My problem with Doris Salcedo as with most conceptual artists is that her work lacks an aesthetic element: It does not provide a powerful or moving visual experience and, most of all, it is ESOTERIC. Its meaning must be explained to the viewer. To me (and this may be very narrow of me) a work of visual art must speak for itself; it must SHOW us what it's about. Cindy Sherman's work hits us between the eyes with its meaning. The meaning may be felt subliminally; but explanation will not serve its purpose--it would be like explaining a joke. And that's why her works are untitled. She is a conceptual artist but her work is also aesthetic (I don't mean pretty or even beautiful; they are visually powerful) and her meanings are not silly or trivial--neither are Salcedo's). But unlike Salcedo, Sherman provides us with visually immediate artistic impact, what we might think of as (photo)GRAPHIC sociology--at least that's what much of her gender relations materials does, confront us with images that expose us.
As stated in my post above (over on the Doris Sacedo thread) I do find her works compelling on a purely visual/design level and feel that like with all good art the "literary" meaning is not essential to appreciation of the visual component. Techniclly much of the work I've seen comes out of the "found objects", using old wooden furniture pieces and modifying them by changing possitive/negative space. Now this is a crummy cop-out sorry, but I really have found it hard to find good illustrations of her work on the net but have seen quite a few great pieces in person. I don't find her work to be "conceptual art". It just has meaning beyond the visually obvious like a lot of other art both contemporary and classical.
I was up at my studio last night, cussing out a bothched matt job when my good friend and artist told me a great story. I don't know if this is a true tale or not, but I prefer it to be valid. It seems that with all this war trash going on, Iraqi artists are having a hard time getting art supplies. The story goes that because of the shortage, the artists have gone to the streets and are using anything they can their hands on to make art, wood, metal scraps, anything. I hope this tale is true. I hope that from all this hate and deceit, something good and true emerges, the essence of the collective, creative soul. Maybe in 10 years we'll have a new testament to war to hang in the UN. Maybe it will show humanity shining through the darkness.
iraqiart.com arabsart.com If you're interested in our brothers and sisters across the sea.
Covering Guernica was a stupid and tactless affront. The ones doing this tried to spread a hint comparing the USA and the Nazi Germany. It is known that the main purpose of bombing Guernica was killing civilians. U.S. Army does not plan anything of the kind.
I don't need this example to compare Bush's administration to Nazi Germany (notice, I took out USA - this is a Bush thing, not USA) - Bush proves this point without any further ado. His speeches are staged with staged audiences, he abhors the lesser class of citizen, he tinkers with the constitution - removing the freedom of speech, his actions are Empiricalism at its worst, and if he goes through with what he plans-there will be many, many civilians killed. Many more than were in Guernica, Spain.
guernica
Kayla, even if the story were apocryphal, it's valid. From your mouth to God's ear.
BillW. Imperialism?
Jl, opps, I make mistakes - but not as big a mistake as Iraq!!! I can go edit my previous post - Bush can not bring back life!!!!! His oops will be a crime!
Bill, you cannot put the USA out of equation: whose President Mr. Bush is? I guess, he is neither Russian, nor Chinese...
I can, he does not speak for me. That is the beauty of a democaracy. However, we also do not have a duly elected President either - he (Bush) is illegitimate!!!!!!!!
But more than half of Americans support his policies...
Less than half! And growing smaller.
"But more than half of Americans support his policies..."
really?
54 percent: is this more or less than a half?
And size means nothing, I still have a voice and I will shout it from the tops of the mountians:
THIS WAR IS IMMORAL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
OK, you have all the rights to express your dissent: it is protected by the First Amendment. I wonder, whether the Iraqi dissenters under Saddam enjoy the same freedoms you do under President Bush's rule?
Then let's kill'm!!!!!!!!!
Whom? Iraqi dissenters? What for? They are not involved in Saddam's trespasses...
