From: The Artist
Date: 7/5/2004 11:12 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"S888Wheel" emitted :

I didn't say standards don't exist in any sphere at all.. they are
usually employed by artisans of a craft.

Trying to seperate the two now? That is a typical layman's mistake. What's
up
with calling yourself an artist if you are going to make such a basic
mistake?

No such mistake has been. The illiteracy you exhibit is a manifestion
of your failure to accept defeat.

No such mistake has been....what? I thought only Arny would attack someone's
literacy with the use of an incomplete sentence.

You are aware of the difference between literacy and accidental typing
errors?

Sure, typos usually lead to an odd looking word. They rarely result in
incomplete sentences.



You also share is and Saddam's
quirkie notion of victory.

Zzzzzz....

Craft.. again. The topic is ART.

Inseperable. Any real artist would know this.

I wish I had been forced to learn to play an instrument by my parents.

I'd like to see or hear any of your art that you think has no craft. Or
maybe I
wouldn't come to think of it.

I assure you I routinely break the three objective musical standards
you proposed but, as you have demonstrated, until you've seen or heard
anything I've done you can't possibly judge - it's subjective.

So you don't use any musical scale? You play off key by accident and you have
no sense of rhythm? If so I have a hunch your music may very well have some
problems, objectively speaking. I am kind of curious to hear music devoid of
any technique and any craft. Should make for interesting "art." How does one
play guitar with zero technique and zero craft? Does it sound anything like
Pete Townsend at the very end of a concert?

From: The Artist
Date: 7/5/2004 11:25 AM Pacific Standard Time
Message-id:

"S888Wheel" emitted :

No.. art is ALWAYS subjective.

The mantra of many an unskilled artist.

..as deemed by the self-appointed Final Arbiter of all Things ;-)

Ridiculous. You still don't get what I am saying. Oh well, not my problem.


No, I understood what you wrote. You didn't understand my response -
the problem is at your end.

No problem at my end.

I have already explained your problem to you.

And I have already dismissed it.



I'm still making a good living despite your opinions.

I wasn't talking about your income - it's wholly irrelevant to this
discussion, and besides that, far from an indicator of artist
integrity. So why did you mention it?

There are reasons that some people make a living at it and some don't. Some of
those reasons are relevant to our discussion.


It's great excuse for not working at it.

Tell that to Robert Rauschenberg.

Why?

I don't explain riddles that are this easy to solve :-)

Suit yourself.

Too busy to teach you basic art history, and it's implication in what
I wrote. Look the guys name up on google.. work it out for yourself.

I did. I see no reason to believe he would support your position. You want to
speak for him? Fine. It's bull**** though.

I can say the same thing to you and name any number of great artists whose
works are greatly dependent on excellence in craft and are built on a working
knowledge of objective standards in art. Wouldn't prove anything to you though
would it?
Believe what you want to believe. It's not a problem for me that you don't
agree with me.