Conditions for vigorous, innovative art ambience ?

Agreed as per first argument.Would you please demonstrate to me as per the second as I contend it, unless you are placing it in context of the first?

I'm referring to the LOGIC of the position that a bad man cannot, BECAUSE he is bad, produce good art. If we accept that logic, we must also accept the equally wrong position that a good man cannot produce good art.
The whole issue must contend with the problems of the determination of "good" and "bad" art and men.

fm wrote-



I have looked into it and been into it at great length.It caused me to knock off patronising women which is what I think you are in danger of doing.
The position you're taking assumes they are helpless little mental sub-normals.Picasso's women wanted something off him and knew how to go about getting it.If it didn't work out they screamed "foul" and we are all supposed to believe them.The types of women who "sat" for Picasso knew what they were doing and the risks involved.
It looks to me that you have been zapped by feminist ideas which is fair enough but not all of us have.What's emotional abuse anyway-not letting them have all their own way?

All's fair in love and war and it is men who get the worst of it for obvious reasons.

You'll be saying Mailer is no good next.Our top golfer has just been divorced by his wife and she got £15 million plus an annual income of 5 times the average miner's wages and one guy got stung for two years of marriage at a rate he worked out at £30 grand a screw.

A pal of mine,weeping on the bar,after being cleaned out said "They're as crafty as a cartload of monkeys."

Why don't you just wave the white flag.

youre just a misogynist whose been born a few centuries too late, and your understanding of Picasso is a bit, say skewed to some story your bar buds have told you.
In many cases Picasso just abandoned his wives . As I said befoe, he would be considered an abuser intodays culture.

Mailers book was the "Young Picasso" and hes a bit of a misogynist too

Here is a link on Picasso's women....
http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mwf/project4.html


The Guerrila Girls asked some provocative questions re gender bias in the practices of major museums. One of their posters asked:

Do Women have to be naked to get into the Met?
Less than 5% of the artists in the Modern art
sections are women, but 85% of the nudes are
female.

fm wrote-



Do you never bore yourself making up feverish,self-serving fantasies about other people?

I have at least 30 books,one cost me £100 second hand,concerning Picasso,and I've read the lot.I also have three decent reproductions on my walls.
None of my bar buds have either interest or knowlege of the guy.

He might be considered an abuser in your cultural surroundings but that only means what it says.His female acquaintances,which is all he could get like the rest of us,were devious,manipulative little vixens of the first order.What ordinary sweet young lady would tangle with a bloke like that.They were on the make goodstyle.

I'm not a mysoginist at all.I'm a realist.You seem to think women are harmless little pets that you can stroke when you feel like it and who will feel so grateful they will make your pobbies and warm your slippers.

What's wrong with abandoning wives.Anybody who isn't up for that if it becomes necessary has sold himself down the river of no return.And it is perfectly natural under sound Darwinian science.What's a "wife" anyway?It's a state sanctioned category isn't it especially when the ceremony has been conducted by a civil servant in a society with a 50% divorce rate.

"Then when I saw you break down in front of the judge and cry real tears,
It was the best acting I saw anybody do."

Brownsville Girl Bob Dylan

There's an article in the Sunday times-"Law lords to rule on rich pickings for ex-wives" which is Googleable.There's one nearly every week on this subject.

Get a lung disease from 40 years down a mine and you might get a few grand.
Get goosed behind a filing cabinet in a nice warm,air conditioned office once and you will get a hundred if you can sob and be traumatised enough.
At least.

And there's a case going on where 3 women are suing a bank for a few hundred million because they claim they were expected to go to lap dancing clubs to help bond with their male colleagues.

And wouldn't it be easy for me to accuse you of certain things that I could easily make up as an explanation of your evident surrender.

As if women respect surrender.

The neat thing about you spendius , is that I dont have to say a word. You beat yourself up so well that I can sit here and get my reccomended daily dose of bullscat without even moving.

Have you had your heart torn out by some woman? Are you a budding ax murderer? Do your Rice Krispies talk sense to you?

Just a few more questions and well be done

shepaints-

I have read the link.Very poor writing.Slippery phrases all over the place designed to leave an impression on undiscerning readers which hasn't actually been stated.I would bet it was written by a stroppy woman with an axe to grind.But even then there's nothing to counter the charge that they were manipulative vixens on the make and nothing at all like ordinary women.

I suppose some young women,a very small %,would rather pose nude than work in shops or factories or hospitals or African refugee camps.You can't build a case about women off this tiny number.

You can't stop yourself can you?You must be insufferable at close quarters.Making up daft,unjustified,inexcusable assertions to satisfy your ideas in a discussion is infantile.

Is that a white feather in your avvie.

Pack it in fm.You're not up for discussions at all.You just spew out smears at anybody who questions your views and cheapskate,trite and illiterate smears at that.

Why do subjects like child molestation and vicious homicidal activities jump readily into your mind?

they dont , Once again you prove my point that youre insane.

They have jumped readily into your posts on a few occasions so it is reasonable to assume from the last post that you haven't even noticed.

spendi says This quote that you attribute to me (at least by using the quote button) is something that you accused of me.

Well, I may be trite and illiterate but I dont believe in ipsidixitism as a proper debate tool.

Here is one antithesis of ipsedixitism:

I am hungry and my stomach tells me so, I'm thinking spaghetti.

Can we get back to discussing the question of this thread?

If women artists are so underrepresented on the walls of great institutions, don't you think these same institutions then present a very male-centric view of art, art imagery and art history.

Does this encourage conditions for a vigorous, innovative art ambience
(for all)?

Could you entertain the thoughts of less exclusion?

She who must be obeyed-

I agree.It is silly not to.

But I'm not having Picasso blackguarded on inadequate evidence.

I think that women are the subject of art and,as such, are incapable of producing art due to a quite understandable lack of objectivity on their part.

If I was to accept forms of female art I would require men to be the subject.Unfortunately the Arts Council,to coin a phrase, do not generally approve of such an approach on account of their being designed primarily to underwrite male dignity which is a brief I personally would only undertake for money.

Thus a "vigorous,innovative art ambience" is very carefully avoided and the "easy streeters" can carry on in the manner to which they have become accustomed.

Hi shepaints,
Assumed sexism as pivotal? Show me where sexism's presumed absence has had the net improvements I assume you allude to.

I contend conditions for a vigorous, innovative art ambience are not proportional to any real or idealized sense of equality among the sexes.
I suggest you are juxtapositioning woman's studies onto artistic creativity.

The black's jazz and blues should be ample evidence of non-equalities creating vigorous, innovative art ambience. I contend that true artistic innovation and creativity may be as or even more likely under conditions of duress.

I in no way discount woman's struggles, just as I in no way discount homosexuals or transgenders in their struggles. But I do not see the idealized parallels between equality and artistic creativity that you perhaps suggest.

Hey Spendius, I love the appellation! Do you mind
if I distribute it to the members of my household?!!!

Good points, Chumly, and definitely material
to ponder. I still wonder though what the gender divide would be amongst the most successful
artists of the jazz and blues movements.

spendi


Since when does objectivity have anything to do with anything. look at Kollwitz work, it is the chronical of horro, bert Morrisot is as great as any Impressionist, and Okeefe broke new ground in a stylistic colorist manner.

Two things in music you can say fer sure:
Women usually hit softer and sing higher.
Men usually hit harder and sing lower.
Beyond that your guess is as good as mine.

Chum

Women move differently around the microphone.
Natch,I'm talking about the best.

Did you ever see Dylan do that crazy Watchtower at Earl's Court in '81.Or the I and I at Newcastle in '84.A woman couldn't do that unless she dressed in leather gear and acted tough.

And Dylan couldn't sing Mahler's Song Of The Earth like some of the ladies do or did.Ever hear Kathleen Ferrier sing that?



Would you go so far as to suggest "equality" puts a damper on the vigor and creativity in society of which what we call art is merely the pinnacle?