and those who are impressed
Trying to read this, it becomes obvious to even the marginally experienced that no objective conversation is possible with this "being".
Wed, 4 May 2005 09:09:22 -0400 (EDT)
(about the art section, again) Look, everything anyyone says in subjective. I hope we agree on that. So saying that what you know and belive because you read it in a book is objective lacks any kind of sense. Someone told you to get some lessons at a museum, or something. I'm giving you another advice: go seek somebody who you recognize to be smarter than you are, but doesn't share your opinions, and have a talk with him. Try to persuede him that you are right and he should do the same thing. Ok, this is my second and last messege, as a discussion that is not a dialogue is doomed from the start. I am a nice person, i care about others. That's why i'm sincerely sorry for you. And, by the way, Tapies is the new critics' pet (which happens to be a very good painter).
A Tapies from 1981 (this guy is in his 80s if he's still breathing ... born 1923). Here the "artist" has torn a hole in some printed material and made some symbols. The above "hate-mailer" is sorry for me because I can't appreciate this artwork. But ... I do ...
Another Tapies "Chairs".
Observe the stability of structure amidst the imbalance of conflicting elements, the utter, ineffable fullness of being ... the airiness ... burgeoning through the mists of linear constriction ... and ... dare we say, trepidation, perhaps even fear, before the serpent of crass commercialism crawling beneath ... hiding ... waiting to strike those who would rest in this beckoning garden of monochromatic delight.
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, yada, yada, yada.
Do I hear $50.000 ... I have 50 ... going once ... going twice ...