ARTBASE (1)
PORTFOLIO (1)
BIO
The McElroys are a husband and wife collaborative artist, technology, and business team who bring significant artistic, technology and community development skills to Corporate Performance Artists. Joseph, is a graduate of Computer Science from Duke University and a former team leader at IBM. He has been a CEO of several companies, and has been responsible for raising $2 million to fund a startup company called EveryDayPrint.com, which while part of the dot-com boom and bust, he managed to bring to profitability and which still survives to this day.
Donna was an operations manager and PR specialist in the firms they have started together. She has recently been credited by several business leaders in the Bronx as being "top spokesperson for the Bronx." She is active in many community development projects, such as participating on the Board of the Bruckner Arts and Antique District, and working to promote many Bronx activities through an online newsletter called Cupcake Kaleidoscope.
Joseph was the leader of the Open Source Sig for the New York Software Industry Association. And was track co-chair for Open Source at the 2001 New York Software Industry Summit. He was on the advisory board for PostgreSql, Inc - the leading Open Source Database and has had articles published by Lutris Technologies and Open Magazine on Open Source business models and technology solutions. He is a database expert with extensive Fortune 500 experience. Among other awards, he won an IBM Division Award for Technical Excellence.
From magazine "Open" issue September 2001 - "The McElroys kick open the doors of old business models and capitalize on what they believe." The McElroys have achieved re-known as Open Source visionaries with interviews by Interactive Week, Infoworld, Fortune Technology, Open magazine, and others. Joseph and Donna make no claims of divine insight, but in review by Lewis Lacock, it is said, "that this dynamic duo of art are the closest things we have to true shamans today". They are doing their best to pursue the knowledge to support such claims someday.
HIGHLIGHTS
* Achieved reputation as Open Source visionarys with interviews by Interactive Week, Infoworld, Fortune Technology, Open magazine among others.
* National Columnist on Money Matters for Gather.com.
* Judge for the Advanced Technical Categories of the Emmys.
* Successfully raised $2 million funding for startup.
* Successfully built and sold two technology businesses.
* First Entry into the Multimedia wing of the Museum of Computer Art.
* Artwork collected by the Library at Cornell University.
* Artwork in the collection of Rhizome.org.
* Developed first ever Exhibition Catalog completely on CD Rom. Done for Alternative Museum. Reviewed by New York Times.
* Selected to attend first ever Summer Institute for Performance Art at The Kitchen in NYC.
* IBM Division Award for Technical Excellence.
* Various academic, mathematic and scholarship awards. Attended Duke University on a full scholarship in mathematics.
* Poetry published in various journals. Art exhibited in museum shows.
* Certificate of Artistic Excellence from Congressman Jose Serrano.
* Recognized by Bronx Borough President Aldofo Carrion for contributions to the community.
Donna was an operations manager and PR specialist in the firms they have started together. She has recently been credited by several business leaders in the Bronx as being "top spokesperson for the Bronx." She is active in many community development projects, such as participating on the Board of the Bruckner Arts and Antique District, and working to promote many Bronx activities through an online newsletter called Cupcake Kaleidoscope.
Joseph was the leader of the Open Source Sig for the New York Software Industry Association. And was track co-chair for Open Source at the 2001 New York Software Industry Summit. He was on the advisory board for PostgreSql, Inc - the leading Open Source Database and has had articles published by Lutris Technologies and Open Magazine on Open Source business models and technology solutions. He is a database expert with extensive Fortune 500 experience. Among other awards, he won an IBM Division Award for Technical Excellence.
From magazine "Open" issue September 2001 - "The McElroys kick open the doors of old business models and capitalize on what they believe." The McElroys have achieved re-known as Open Source visionaries with interviews by Interactive Week, Infoworld, Fortune Technology, Open magazine, and others. Joseph and Donna make no claims of divine insight, but in review by Lewis Lacock, it is said, "that this dynamic duo of art are the closest things we have to true shamans today". They are doing their best to pursue the knowledge to support such claims someday.
HIGHLIGHTS
* Achieved reputation as Open Source visionarys with interviews by Interactive Week, Infoworld, Fortune Technology, Open magazine among others.
* National Columnist on Money Matters for Gather.com.
* Judge for the Advanced Technical Categories of the Emmys.
* Successfully raised $2 million funding for startup.
* Successfully built and sold two technology businesses.
* First Entry into the Multimedia wing of the Museum of Computer Art.
* Artwork collected by the Library at Cornell University.
* Artwork in the collection of Rhizome.org.
* Developed first ever Exhibition Catalog completely on CD Rom. Done for Alternative Museum. Reviewed by New York Times.
* Selected to attend first ever Summer Institute for Performance Art at The Kitchen in NYC.
* IBM Division Award for Technical Excellence.
* Various academic, mathematic and scholarship awards. Attended Duke University on a full scholarship in mathematics.
* Poetry published in various journals. Art exhibited in museum shows.
* Certificate of Artistic Excellence from Congressman Jose Serrano.
* Recognized by Bronx Borough President Aldofo Carrion for contributions to the community.
Re: Re: [thingist] Rub Linda the right way and she might show you wonderland
Quoting "marc.garrett" <marc.garrett@furtherfield.org>:
>
> Good - I'm glad, so you'll also understand that it ain't ethical to use
> people's dead bodies for something as disposable as a statement then?
I don't agree with such a blanket generalization. It entirely depends upon the
nature of the statement.
>
> I still believe that it could of been shown in a different way, not losing
> impact.
Perhaps, but you would have to show me.
>
>
> >Given that the Arab world is displaying their dead for a
> >similar purpose, I don't feel I have violated them at all.
>
> We are not isolated by distance
> But by greed and our racist history
> Just a wall's width away
> Still impossible to reach across
> This space in front of me
> It's we who write this history
> We who guard the money-tree
> We support the companies
> We stole the colonies
Every person I know believes that no one else can understand them. It is not
racism, its selfism. You can expand that identity to your race. It is not
such a binary issue. My ancestors were indentured servants, cherokee indians,
and rural appalachian farmers living in poverty. Donna is african american,
and though I write here in first person, the final decision on released art is
with the both of us. Donna firmly believes it was important for the photos of
lynched slaves and africans in NYC to be displayed as an artistic statement.
>
> This is not my beef - I feel that too many images of dead people have been
> mediated, almost like their souls are being re-invented for other
> functions - it's getting like a bloody 'Dirty Harry go-round otu there'.
>
> What do we know of their history, their real lives? Nothing...
> What do we know about them now - they are dead.
I think you are shuddering to think of yourself, dead and lost in an ignoble
death. I shudder to think of such for myself. However, if a picture of my body
in death could be used to a good purpose, I would wish it so.
>
> No Joseph - you compiled it, placed the images there. Then I was invited to
> shoot your visual prisoners unkowingly - then I shot them. It's like being
> stopped by a cop & one of them plants some crack on me then says 'you're
> nicked for possessing drugs'. I was framed.
>
I explained to Ruth, perhaps my indicator was not strong enough. Regardless,
even curiosity bears responsibility. Though I do not like to condemn for such.
>
> 'It ain't unusual to be wrong every now & then, dah, dah dah dooo'.
as with me.
joseph
>
> Good - I'm glad, so you'll also understand that it ain't ethical to use
> people's dead bodies for something as disposable as a statement then?
I don't agree with such a blanket generalization. It entirely depends upon the
nature of the statement.
>
> I still believe that it could of been shown in a different way, not losing
> impact.
Perhaps, but you would have to show me.
>
>
> >Given that the Arab world is displaying their dead for a
> >similar purpose, I don't feel I have violated them at all.
>
> We are not isolated by distance
> But by greed and our racist history
> Just a wall's width away
> Still impossible to reach across
> This space in front of me
> It's we who write this history
> We who guard the money-tree
> We support the companies
> We stole the colonies
Every person I know believes that no one else can understand them. It is not
racism, its selfism. You can expand that identity to your race. It is not
such a binary issue. My ancestors were indentured servants, cherokee indians,
and rural appalachian farmers living in poverty. Donna is african american,
and though I write here in first person, the final decision on released art is
with the both of us. Donna firmly believes it was important for the photos of
lynched slaves and africans in NYC to be displayed as an artistic statement.
>
> This is not my beef - I feel that too many images of dead people have been
> mediated, almost like their souls are being re-invented for other
> functions - it's getting like a bloody 'Dirty Harry go-round otu there'.
>
> What do we know of their history, their real lives? Nothing...
> What do we know about them now - they are dead.
I think you are shuddering to think of yourself, dead and lost in an ignoble
death. I shudder to think of such for myself. However, if a picture of my body
in death could be used to a good purpose, I would wish it so.
>
> No Joseph - you compiled it, placed the images there. Then I was invited to
> shoot your visual prisoners unkowingly - then I shot them. It's like being
> stopped by a cop & one of them plants some crack on me then says 'you're
> nicked for possessing drugs'. I was framed.
>
I explained to Ruth, perhaps my indicator was not strong enough. Regardless,
even curiosity bears responsibility. Though I do not like to condemn for such.
>
> 'It ain't unusual to be wrong every now & then, dah, dah dah dooo'.
as with me.
joseph
Re: Rub Linda the right way and she might show you wonderland
> However, 'Jimmy has a hard time shooting flowers' works on the idea that if
> you click your mouse on a piece of netart to see what happens, and Jimmy
> shoots his gun, that you are guilty of murder just for having the capacity to
> pull the trigger. The guilt by association is incapacitating, distracting and
> confusing. This guilt is a virus to many an otherwise informed liberal bold
> spirited activist. It gets us guilty about the wrong thing. We should not
> feel guilty for being able to click our mice.....
No, it is not the fact of clicking based upon curiosity, it is based upon
fallin prey to the come-on. Blackhawk on Thing correctly pointed out to me that
the whole piece depends upon you not mistaking the statement "Jimmy..." or "Rub
Linda.." as a title, but instead recognize it as an indicator of the lure you
are willinging going to have to accept (and thus becoming guilty). Some
people who are very poetically in sync with me have gotten this, others do
not. I am thinking about the ways I can improve the indicator... or someway
to inform you after the fact of what you have done (oblivious to the lure that
snares you - after all, curiosity is a search for gain).
joseph & donna
www.electrichands.com
joseph franklyn mcelroy
corporate performance artist www.corporatepa.com
go shopping -> http://www.electrichands.com/shopindex.htm
call me 646 279 2309
SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER CUPCAKEKALEIDOSCOPE - send email to
CupcakeKleidoscope-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Quoting ruth catlow <ruth.catlow@furtherfield.org>:
> Re 'Jimmy has a hard time shooting flowers'
>
> > Where I do think they score is the way they implicate the viewer in the
> action of "shooting" or of "touching".
> > When I posted that "it chills the blood" is was to this I was referring -
> even for those of us who are both horrified by and actively organising
> against the war sometimes a kind of numbness over the casualties can set in
> -it's something difficult to keep in the front of one's brain.
>
> Yeah I understand what you're saying Michael. I really liked an earlier piece
> of Joseph and Donna's
> http://www.electrichands.com/sketches/cult/ ... in which, after I'd shot down
> a duck by clicking on it, I purged my violent instincts in an absurdly
> absorbing ritual with my nose pressed against the screen of my PC monitor. It
> was my first, and thought provoking, brush with cybershamanism.
>
> However, 'Jimmy has a hard time shooting flowers' works on the idea that if
> you click your mouse on a piece of netart to see what happens, and Jimmy
> shoots his gun, that you are guilty of murder just for having the capacity to
> pull the trigger. The guilt by association is incapacitating, distracting and
> confusing. This guilt is a virus to many an otherwise informed liberal bold
> spirited activist. It gets us guilty about the wrong thing. We should not
> feel guilty for being able to click our mice.....
>
> Joseph wrote:-
> >But I think that each individual should also be held responsible for
> >falling prey to their own inner weaknesses.
> >It would be that sense of individual responsibility that would
> >make people think twice before following the propaganda of idiotic leaders.
>
> We should of course 'think twice before following the propaganda of idiotic
> leaders'- this might make some difference.
> But I don't see how getting guilty for Jimmy's actions contributes to this
> process.
>
> cheers
> Ruth
>
> http://www.furtherfield.org
>
> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> you click your mouse on a piece of netart to see what happens, and Jimmy
> shoots his gun, that you are guilty of murder just for having the capacity to
> pull the trigger. The guilt by association is incapacitating, distracting and
> confusing. This guilt is a virus to many an otherwise informed liberal bold
> spirited activist. It gets us guilty about the wrong thing. We should not
> feel guilty for being able to click our mice.....
No, it is not the fact of clicking based upon curiosity, it is based upon
fallin prey to the come-on. Blackhawk on Thing correctly pointed out to me that
the whole piece depends upon you not mistaking the statement "Jimmy..." or "Rub
Linda.." as a title, but instead recognize it as an indicator of the lure you
are willinging going to have to accept (and thus becoming guilty). Some
people who are very poetically in sync with me have gotten this, others do
not. I am thinking about the ways I can improve the indicator... or someway
to inform you after the fact of what you have done (oblivious to the lure that
snares you - after all, curiosity is a search for gain).
joseph & donna
www.electrichands.com
joseph franklyn mcelroy
corporate performance artist www.corporatepa.com
go shopping -> http://www.electrichands.com/shopindex.htm
call me 646 279 2309
SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER CUPCAKEKALEIDOSCOPE - send email to
CupcakeKleidoscope-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Quoting ruth catlow <ruth.catlow@furtherfield.org>:
> Re 'Jimmy has a hard time shooting flowers'
>
> > Where I do think they score is the way they implicate the viewer in the
> action of "shooting" or of "touching".
> > When I posted that "it chills the blood" is was to this I was referring -
> even for those of us who are both horrified by and actively organising
> against the war sometimes a kind of numbness over the casualties can set in
> -it's something difficult to keep in the front of one's brain.
>
> Yeah I understand what you're saying Michael. I really liked an earlier piece
> of Joseph and Donna's
> http://www.electrichands.com/sketches/cult/ ... in which, after I'd shot down
> a duck by clicking on it, I purged my violent instincts in an absurdly
> absorbing ritual with my nose pressed against the screen of my PC monitor. It
> was my first, and thought provoking, brush with cybershamanism.
>
> However, 'Jimmy has a hard time shooting flowers' works on the idea that if
> you click your mouse on a piece of netart to see what happens, and Jimmy
> shoots his gun, that you are guilty of murder just for having the capacity to
> pull the trigger. The guilt by association is incapacitating, distracting and
> confusing. This guilt is a virus to many an otherwise informed liberal bold
> spirited activist. It gets us guilty about the wrong thing. We should not
> feel guilty for being able to click our mice.....
>
> Joseph wrote:-
> >But I think that each individual should also be held responsible for
> >falling prey to their own inner weaknesses.
> >It would be that sense of individual responsibility that would
> >make people think twice before following the propaganda of idiotic leaders.
>
> We should of course 'think twice before following the propaganda of idiotic
> leaders'- this might make some difference.
> But I don't see how getting guilty for Jimmy's actions contributes to this
> process.
>
> cheers
> Ruth
>
> http://www.furtherfield.org
>
> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
Re: Re: [thingist] Rub Linda the right way and she might show you wonderland
Quoting "marc.garrett" <marc.garrett@furtherfield.org>:
> Hi Joseph,
>
> In relation to this, I thought that Jim Andrews had a strong point...
>
> >I thought of Joseph's piece and the debate here as to its morality. And the
> articles I read
> >earlier in the evening by Robert Fisk, among others, describing the
> slaughter of more civilians
> >in Iraq.
>
> Earlier this week on the Radio I heard the House of Commons, spluttering
> away their ransid (isolationist) bile, complaining about Robert Fisk, like
> many American corporate companies & hawk bunnies complain about Chomsky.
>
> There is nothing more sensationlist than death. Whether one sees &
> experiences it in real life (like I have & possibly others on this have to)
> or when one dies one's self. If one of my (dead) close friends had been
> photographed and used as art in such a way - I would not feel comfortable
> with it.
>
> You gotta understand what I mean by this - surely?
marc, I understand there is a level of sensitivity that regards the use of
images of the dead with a horror based upon their own inner understanding of
what their response would be if such happened to a loved one of theirs. I have
the ability to empathize with this sensitivity. On the other hand, I am able
to understand the desire on the part of an impotent poplulation to express the
horror of what is happening to them by displaying their maimed dead for the
world to see. I want war to stop in Iraq, I don't want the taste for blood to
continue expanding. Given that the Arab world is displaying their dead for a
similar purpose, I don't feel I have violated them at all. Maybe I am
exploitive in the sense that Lewis described, where the choice of any subject
exploits it. But it is not for the intended purpose of personal fame or
fortune.
>
> It does not matter if one is doing it for a career or not.
>
> > I did not disturb their peace. You did. You fell prey to the same
> seductions
> > that marketing and propoganda uses to seduce the public. Your action
> revealed
> > the horrific pictures. Not mine.
>
> Don't treat me like you do 'Karei' - he hates you - I don't...
>
> my questions are as valid as your art, treat them with a similar respect.
>
> I am open he is closed, big difference.
Marc, my answer was not disrespectful. It was exactly what happened. I issued a
marketing document with a seductive come-on. You (and others) responded to the
marketing and went to the product. You succombed to the come-on (shoot and
destroy, rub and fuck) to click on the associated image (defenseless flower,
unsuspecting woman's body) to reveal not the wonders offered, but instead, as
you said, the disturbed peace of the dead. I am culpable to the extent that I
placed the opportunity within your reach, but I didn't make the guilty decision
to indulge in the sinful act. Isn't this what the government does? Tie in basic
impulses into their agendas via propoganda that people just follow, thinking it
is easy and as guilt free as clicking on the screen? In the US, I think that
the prevailing opinion is that all the blame lies with the entity placing the
opportunity within the reach of the person. For example, cigarette mfr getting
sued, theives getting large settlements, etc. But I think that each individual
should also be held responsible for falling prey to their own inner weaknesses.
It would be that sense of individual responsibility that would make people
think twice before following the propoganda of idiotic leaders.
joseph
> Hi Joseph,
>
> In relation to this, I thought that Jim Andrews had a strong point...
>
> >I thought of Joseph's piece and the debate here as to its morality. And the
> articles I read
> >earlier in the evening by Robert Fisk, among others, describing the
> slaughter of more civilians
> >in Iraq.
>
> Earlier this week on the Radio I heard the House of Commons, spluttering
> away their ransid (isolationist) bile, complaining about Robert Fisk, like
> many American corporate companies & hawk bunnies complain about Chomsky.
>
> There is nothing more sensationlist than death. Whether one sees &
> experiences it in real life (like I have & possibly others on this have to)
> or when one dies one's self. If one of my (dead) close friends had been
> photographed and used as art in such a way - I would not feel comfortable
> with it.
>
> You gotta understand what I mean by this - surely?
marc, I understand there is a level of sensitivity that regards the use of
images of the dead with a horror based upon their own inner understanding of
what their response would be if such happened to a loved one of theirs. I have
the ability to empathize with this sensitivity. On the other hand, I am able
to understand the desire on the part of an impotent poplulation to express the
horror of what is happening to them by displaying their maimed dead for the
world to see. I want war to stop in Iraq, I don't want the taste for blood to
continue expanding. Given that the Arab world is displaying their dead for a
similar purpose, I don't feel I have violated them at all. Maybe I am
exploitive in the sense that Lewis described, where the choice of any subject
exploits it. But it is not for the intended purpose of personal fame or
fortune.
>
> It does not matter if one is doing it for a career or not.
>
> > I did not disturb their peace. You did. You fell prey to the same
> seductions
> > that marketing and propoganda uses to seduce the public. Your action
> revealed
> > the horrific pictures. Not mine.
>
> Don't treat me like you do 'Karei' - he hates you - I don't...
>
> my questions are as valid as your art, treat them with a similar respect.
>
> I am open he is closed, big difference.
Marc, my answer was not disrespectful. It was exactly what happened. I issued a
marketing document with a seductive come-on. You (and others) responded to the
marketing and went to the product. You succombed to the come-on (shoot and
destroy, rub and fuck) to click on the associated image (defenseless flower,
unsuspecting woman's body) to reveal not the wonders offered, but instead, as
you said, the disturbed peace of the dead. I am culpable to the extent that I
placed the opportunity within your reach, but I didn't make the guilty decision
to indulge in the sinful act. Isn't this what the government does? Tie in basic
impulses into their agendas via propoganda that people just follow, thinking it
is easy and as guilt free as clicking on the screen? In the US, I think that
the prevailing opinion is that all the blame lies with the entity placing the
opportunity within the reach of the person. For example, cigarette mfr getting
sued, theives getting large settlements, etc. But I think that each individual
should also be held responsible for falling prey to their own inner weaknesses.
It would be that sense of individual responsibility that would make people
think twice before following the propoganda of idiotic leaders.
joseph
Re: Re: [thingist] Rub Linda the right way and she might show you wonderland
Quoting "marc.garrett" <marc.garrett@furtherfield.org>:
> I have a problem with this work -using dead/wounded people who have been
> exploited by 'White corporate Neo-liberalism fascists; then turned into Art.
> It seems like a sensationalist parody.
It would perhaps be sensationalist if I had career objectives in mind, however
I do not have a career as an artist nor do I benefit my business pursuits with
scandal. I started doing flower paintings, then set down to do some flowers
online and was motivated by a constant news barrage on NPR and the different
treatment of victims in American and Arab media. This resulted in an evolution
of the flowers.
>
> Why use these 'ripped up' people?
>
Artist like Delacroix (Shipwreck of Don Juan) and Goya (Disasters of War) have
used starkly realistic presentations of the victims of war and catastrophy to
present the horror of it. My intention was no different.
> I believe that I understand Joseph's reasons (I think). With the
> hopelessness
> that he may feel in a world falling apart & run by 'backward' nihilists.
These are not hopeless peices - I am still a idealist and a believer, and aim
these peices for reasons.
>
> Yet to use people whom have been killed/maimed by the Alliance's military is
> not emotionally stable or reflective/reevaluative.
Nor are they intended as such. I am a non-violent warrior. I fight and aim
weapons that do not cause death or physical harm. I fight only in defense, but
am ruthless when I do. I view the current adminstration and attitude of the
American public as the path to destruction, so I am fighting for myself and
progeny. I will use art or business or education, whatever is the best tool at
my disposal.
>
> Their souls have been stolen by Saddam, by Bush & Blair for their own
> 'faustian' Gains - why continue to dig their pain up, drag it up even more
> for an audience to muse upon like CCN orgazm...
>
> I'm sorry Joesph -
>
> Let them rest in peace...
>
I did not disturb their peace. You did. You fell prey to the same seductions
that marketing and propoganda uses to seduce the public. Your action revealed
the horrific pictures. Not mine.
joseph & donna
www.electrichands.com
joseph franklyn mcelroy
corporate performance artist www.corporatepa.com
go shopping -> http://www.electrichands.com/shopindex.htm
call me 646 279 2309
SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER CUPCAKEKALEIDOSCOPE - send email to
CupcakeKleidoscope-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Quoting "marc.garrett" <marc.garrett@furtherfield.org>:
> Hi Michael,
>
> I've been watching this debate & various things cropping up on here.
>
> The most useful suggestion was from Karei - regarding copying the list. I
> think that The rhizome database deserves the same treatment as hell.com; now
> that it is only in-house, ignoring everyday people - isolating them from
> viewing Net Art, pretty disgusting really.
>
> I won't dwell too long - I've been ill the last few days, so will comment
> briefly regarding Joseph's War piece.
>
>
> I have a problem with this work -using dead/wounded people who have been
> exploited by 'White corporate Neo-liberalism fascists; then turned into Art.
> It seems like a sensationalist parody.
>
> Why use these 'ripped up' people?
>
> I believe that I understand Joseph's reasons (I think). With the
> hopelessness
> that he may feel in a world falling apart & run by 'backward' nihilists.
>
> Yet to use people whom have been killed/maimed by the Alliance's military is
> not emotionally stable or reflective/reevaluative.
>
> Their souls have been stolen by Saddam, by Bush & Blair for their own
> 'faustian' Gains - why continue to dig their pain up, drag it up even more
> for an audience to muse upon like CCN orgazm...
>
> I'm sorry Joesph -
>
> Let them rest in peace...
>
> marc
>
>
>
>
> > Eryk
> > I must admit I'm slightly mystified by your virulent
> > reaction to Joseph's two recent pieces ( and you know
> > that I'm not of the 'if it says it's art its
> > brave/new/ and above criticism' brigade - I share for
> > example some of your eloquently expressed concerns
> > about the Mouchette pieces discussed on Rhizome last
> > week ).
> > Possibly we could argue about the execution of
> > Joseph's pieces but I think their intent is in a
> > pretty honourable line of Hogarth, Swift and more
> > recently Grosz and John Heartfield.
> > Do you think we should reject for example a "A Modest
> > Proposal" (Swift's satirical essay in which he
> > proposed that the starving Irish should eat their
> > children) on grounds of taste? Or on the grounds that
> > the Irish peasants would not understand/ be offended
> > by the piece?
> > Now maybe you know something about Joseph that I don't
> > - I would certainly have some philosophical diferences
> > with him, especially about the merits of a business
> > oriented approach to things - but in my few dealings
> > with him I've found him courteous, helpful and
> > straightforward.
> > So personally until something comes along to change
> > my mind I'll accept the pieces on face value as
> > shocking (yes) but nevertheless perfectly legitimate
> > pieces of anti war art in a long satirical tradition.
> > best
> > michael
> > --- Eryk Salvaggio <eryk@maine.rr.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > From Freud, "Civilization and its Discontents:"
> > >
> > > "He must be very strongly impressed by the fact that
> > > some sources of
> > > excitation, which he will later recognize as his own
> > > bodily organs, can
> > > provide him with sensation at any moment, whereas
> > > other sources evade him
> > > from time to time- among them what he desires most
> > > of all, his mothers
> > > breast- and only reappears as a result of his
> > > screaming for help."
> > >
> > > Or as Joseph spake: "Yes, I was getting immune to
> > > photos, so I created a
> > > setting to make them shock me."
> > >
> > > Trivialization of mass murder and human suffering so
> > > that Joseph McElroy can
> > > have the experience of being "shocked" out of his
> > > own apathy at the expense
> > > of others- much in line with his "flower" piece, but
> > > now he's added a
> > > caricature of sexuality into the mix- but no,
> > > really, it's all about making
> > > "art" with a "message."
> > >
> > > I wonder if you would like to show this piece to
> > > some
> > > Iraqi/Afghan/Palestinians who are feeling personally
> > > affected by thier own
> > > lives, and you can explain to them how no, really,
> > > you're not just trying to
> > > get a higher jolt of electricity off of the
> > > "entertaining" "shock value" of
> > > thier dead bodies, no really, it's art, guys, it's
> > > cool, it's cool, it's
> > > art. Why aren't you getting a jolt of electricity
> > > out of your own death? Why
> > > do you have to get it from pissing on a pile of dead
> > > bodies thousands of
> > > miles away? But I have to say I really don't care to
> > > hear an answer,
> > > unfortunately I am not really willing to "go there"
> > > with you.
> > >
> > > I'll admit, I have realized that a lot of my problem
> > > with you is actually a
> > > problem with me- that I don't trust other peoples
> > > capacities, and I worry
> > > that someone might mistake the spewings of your
> > > nature for insight, and you
> > > might send people "astray." But this is not really
> > > my responsibility, and I
> > > don't know why I mistook it for one. I don't know
> > > why I listen to the hard
> > > christian radio stations talk about the war in Iraq
> > > when I know it will
> > > infuriate me and distract me from driving. I don't
> > > know why I give up on my
> > > resolve and go on looking at your art. Its all like
> > > insisting on burning my
> > > hands to see if the stove is hot when its obviously
> > > burning bright red. It's
> > > not really anything philosophically gratifying, its
> > > seriously just sadism,
> > > and my misguided desire to "save people from
> > > themselves."
> > >
> > > Emails like this are one more bullshit delivery
> > > device for my I attempts to
> > > "save the world"- the same impulse that makes me
> > > leap to stop a rape in
> > > progress is what makes me write an email to "warn
> > > people" about your "art".
> > > I am not going to do that anymore- the emails-
> > > because after these pieces I
> > > think it stands pretty blatantly clear, and nothing
> > > I could say would prove
> > > your retardation more than these pieces have
> > > already. It's not my job to
> > > protect people from you- it's yours.
> > >
> > > Works like this make me wonder why it is that I ever
> > > worried people would
> > > mistake you for having understanding or insight,
> > > when in fact you prey on
> > > the weak and the dead in order to get your own
> > > kicks. I totally realize what
> > > K meant when he called you a brute murderous ape-
> > > maybe these pieces of
> > > yours are you realizing that and surrendering to it,
> > > I don't know. I don't
> > > know what you have to do to get out of your zombie
> > > trance of power and
> > > aggression, but I feel like I should say that
> > > "shocking yourself" out of
> > > "apathy" isn't going to do it. Maybe it will, I
> > > guess you would know better
> > > than me, but its none of my buisiness.
> > >
> > > -e.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "joseph (yes=no & yes<>no) "
> > > <joseph@electrichands.com>
> > > To: <list@rhizome.org>
> > > Cc: <FLUXLIST@scribble.com>;
> > > <thingist@bbs.thing.net>;
> > > <integer@www.god-emil.dk>
> > > Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2003 12:56 AM
> > > Subject: [thingist] Rub Linda the right way and she
> > > might show you
> > > wonderland
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Rub Linda the right way and she might show you
> > > wonderland
> > > >
> > > > http://www.electrichands.com/flowers/linda
> > > >
> > > > only for high bandwidth ...
> > > >
> > > > joseph & donna
> > > > www.electrichands.com
> > > > joseph franklyn mcelroy
> > > > corporate performance artist www.corporatepa.com
> > > >
> > > > SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER CUPCAKEKALEIDOSCOPE -
> > > send email to
> > > > CupcakeKleidoscope-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > > >
> > >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > t h i n g i s t
> > > > message by "joseph (yes=no & yes<>no) "
> > > <joseph@electrichands.com>
> > > > archive at http://bbs.thing.net
> > > > info: send email to majordomo@bbs.thing.net
> > > > and write "info thingist" in the message body
> > > >
> > >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >
> > >
> > > + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> > > -> post: list@rhizome.org
> > > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> > > -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> > > http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> > > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> > > +
> > > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set
> > > out in the
> > > Membership Agreement available online at
> > http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> >
> >
> > =====
> > *DISCLAIMER:This email any advice it contains is for the use is that of
> the sender and does not bind the precautions to minimise authority in any
> way. If you copy or distribute this by software viruses email. We have taken
> the risk of transmitting software viruses, but we advise that you carry out
> your own virus attachment to this message. Internet email that you observe
> this lack is not a secure communication medium, and we advise of security
> when emailing us. District Postmaster.
> http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/ *
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
> > http://tax.yahoo.com
> > + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> > -> post: list@rhizome.org
> > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> > +
> > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> >
>
>
>
> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> I have a problem with this work -using dead/wounded people who have been
> exploited by 'White corporate Neo-liberalism fascists; then turned into Art.
> It seems like a sensationalist parody.
It would perhaps be sensationalist if I had career objectives in mind, however
I do not have a career as an artist nor do I benefit my business pursuits with
scandal. I started doing flower paintings, then set down to do some flowers
online and was motivated by a constant news barrage on NPR and the different
treatment of victims in American and Arab media. This resulted in an evolution
of the flowers.
>
> Why use these 'ripped up' people?
>
Artist like Delacroix (Shipwreck of Don Juan) and Goya (Disasters of War) have
used starkly realistic presentations of the victims of war and catastrophy to
present the horror of it. My intention was no different.
> I believe that I understand Joseph's reasons (I think). With the
> hopelessness
> that he may feel in a world falling apart & run by 'backward' nihilists.
These are not hopeless peices - I am still a idealist and a believer, and aim
these peices for reasons.
>
> Yet to use people whom have been killed/maimed by the Alliance's military is
> not emotionally stable or reflective/reevaluative.
Nor are they intended as such. I am a non-violent warrior. I fight and aim
weapons that do not cause death or physical harm. I fight only in defense, but
am ruthless when I do. I view the current adminstration and attitude of the
American public as the path to destruction, so I am fighting for myself and
progeny. I will use art or business or education, whatever is the best tool at
my disposal.
>
> Their souls have been stolen by Saddam, by Bush & Blair for their own
> 'faustian' Gains - why continue to dig their pain up, drag it up even more
> for an audience to muse upon like CCN orgazm...
>
> I'm sorry Joesph -
>
> Let them rest in peace...
>
I did not disturb their peace. You did. You fell prey to the same seductions
that marketing and propoganda uses to seduce the public. Your action revealed
the horrific pictures. Not mine.
joseph & donna
www.electrichands.com
joseph franklyn mcelroy
corporate performance artist www.corporatepa.com
go shopping -> http://www.electrichands.com/shopindex.htm
call me 646 279 2309
SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER CUPCAKEKALEIDOSCOPE - send email to
CupcakeKleidoscope-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
Quoting "marc.garrett" <marc.garrett@furtherfield.org>:
> Hi Michael,
>
> I've been watching this debate & various things cropping up on here.
>
> The most useful suggestion was from Karei - regarding copying the list. I
> think that The rhizome database deserves the same treatment as hell.com; now
> that it is only in-house, ignoring everyday people - isolating them from
> viewing Net Art, pretty disgusting really.
>
> I won't dwell too long - I've been ill the last few days, so will comment
> briefly regarding Joseph's War piece.
>
>
> I have a problem with this work -using dead/wounded people who have been
> exploited by 'White corporate Neo-liberalism fascists; then turned into Art.
> It seems like a sensationalist parody.
>
> Why use these 'ripped up' people?
>
> I believe that I understand Joseph's reasons (I think). With the
> hopelessness
> that he may feel in a world falling apart & run by 'backward' nihilists.
>
> Yet to use people whom have been killed/maimed by the Alliance's military is
> not emotionally stable or reflective/reevaluative.
>
> Their souls have been stolen by Saddam, by Bush & Blair for their own
> 'faustian' Gains - why continue to dig their pain up, drag it up even more
> for an audience to muse upon like CCN orgazm...
>
> I'm sorry Joesph -
>
> Let them rest in peace...
>
> marc
>
>
>
>
> > Eryk
> > I must admit I'm slightly mystified by your virulent
> > reaction to Joseph's two recent pieces ( and you know
> > that I'm not of the 'if it says it's art its
> > brave/new/ and above criticism' brigade - I share for
> > example some of your eloquently expressed concerns
> > about the Mouchette pieces discussed on Rhizome last
> > week ).
> > Possibly we could argue about the execution of
> > Joseph's pieces but I think their intent is in a
> > pretty honourable line of Hogarth, Swift and more
> > recently Grosz and John Heartfield.
> > Do you think we should reject for example a "A Modest
> > Proposal" (Swift's satirical essay in which he
> > proposed that the starving Irish should eat their
> > children) on grounds of taste? Or on the grounds that
> > the Irish peasants would not understand/ be offended
> > by the piece?
> > Now maybe you know something about Joseph that I don't
> > - I would certainly have some philosophical diferences
> > with him, especially about the merits of a business
> > oriented approach to things - but in my few dealings
> > with him I've found him courteous, helpful and
> > straightforward.
> > So personally until something comes along to change
> > my mind I'll accept the pieces on face value as
> > shocking (yes) but nevertheless perfectly legitimate
> > pieces of anti war art in a long satirical tradition.
> > best
> > michael
> > --- Eryk Salvaggio <eryk@maine.rr.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > From Freud, "Civilization and its Discontents:"
> > >
> > > "He must be very strongly impressed by the fact that
> > > some sources of
> > > excitation, which he will later recognize as his own
> > > bodily organs, can
> > > provide him with sensation at any moment, whereas
> > > other sources evade him
> > > from time to time- among them what he desires most
> > > of all, his mothers
> > > breast- and only reappears as a result of his
> > > screaming for help."
> > >
> > > Or as Joseph spake: "Yes, I was getting immune to
> > > photos, so I created a
> > > setting to make them shock me."
> > >
> > > Trivialization of mass murder and human suffering so
> > > that Joseph McElroy can
> > > have the experience of being "shocked" out of his
> > > own apathy at the expense
> > > of others- much in line with his "flower" piece, but
> > > now he's added a
> > > caricature of sexuality into the mix- but no,
> > > really, it's all about making
> > > "art" with a "message."
> > >
> > > I wonder if you would like to show this piece to
> > > some
> > > Iraqi/Afghan/Palestinians who are feeling personally
> > > affected by thier own
> > > lives, and you can explain to them how no, really,
> > > you're not just trying to
> > > get a higher jolt of electricity off of the
> > > "entertaining" "shock value" of
> > > thier dead bodies, no really, it's art, guys, it's
> > > cool, it's cool, it's
> > > art. Why aren't you getting a jolt of electricity
> > > out of your own death? Why
> > > do you have to get it from pissing on a pile of dead
> > > bodies thousands of
> > > miles away? But I have to say I really don't care to
> > > hear an answer,
> > > unfortunately I am not really willing to "go there"
> > > with you.
> > >
> > > I'll admit, I have realized that a lot of my problem
> > > with you is actually a
> > > problem with me- that I don't trust other peoples
> > > capacities, and I worry
> > > that someone might mistake the spewings of your
> > > nature for insight, and you
> > > might send people "astray." But this is not really
> > > my responsibility, and I
> > > don't know why I mistook it for one. I don't know
> > > why I listen to the hard
> > > christian radio stations talk about the war in Iraq
> > > when I know it will
> > > infuriate me and distract me from driving. I don't
> > > know why I give up on my
> > > resolve and go on looking at your art. Its all like
> > > insisting on burning my
> > > hands to see if the stove is hot when its obviously
> > > burning bright red. It's
> > > not really anything philosophically gratifying, its
> > > seriously just sadism,
> > > and my misguided desire to "save people from
> > > themselves."
> > >
> > > Emails like this are one more bullshit delivery
> > > device for my I attempts to
> > > "save the world"- the same impulse that makes me
> > > leap to stop a rape in
> > > progress is what makes me write an email to "warn
> > > people" about your "art".
> > > I am not going to do that anymore- the emails-
> > > because after these pieces I
> > > think it stands pretty blatantly clear, and nothing
> > > I could say would prove
> > > your retardation more than these pieces have
> > > already. It's not my job to
> > > protect people from you- it's yours.
> > >
> > > Works like this make me wonder why it is that I ever
> > > worried people would
> > > mistake you for having understanding or insight,
> > > when in fact you prey on
> > > the weak and the dead in order to get your own
> > > kicks. I totally realize what
> > > K meant when he called you a brute murderous ape-
> > > maybe these pieces of
> > > yours are you realizing that and surrendering to it,
> > > I don't know. I don't
> > > know what you have to do to get out of your zombie
> > > trance of power and
> > > aggression, but I feel like I should say that
> > > "shocking yourself" out of
> > > "apathy" isn't going to do it. Maybe it will, I
> > > guess you would know better
> > > than me, but its none of my buisiness.
> > >
> > > -e.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ----- Original Message -----
> > > From: "joseph (yes=no & yes<>no) "
> > > <joseph@electrichands.com>
> > > To: <list@rhizome.org>
> > > Cc: <FLUXLIST@scribble.com>;
> > > <thingist@bbs.thing.net>;
> > > <integer@www.god-emil.dk>
> > > Sent: Saturday, April 05, 2003 12:56 AM
> > > Subject: [thingist] Rub Linda the right way and she
> > > might show you
> > > wonderland
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Rub Linda the right way and she might show you
> > > wonderland
> > > >
> > > > http://www.electrichands.com/flowers/linda
> > > >
> > > > only for high bandwidth ...
> > > >
> > > > joseph & donna
> > > > www.electrichands.com
> > > > joseph franklyn mcelroy
> > > > corporate performance artist www.corporatepa.com
> > > >
> > > > SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER CUPCAKEKALEIDOSCOPE -
> > > send email to
> > > > CupcakeKleidoscope-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
> > > >
> > >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > t h i n g i s t
> > > > message by "joseph (yes=no & yes<>no) "
> > > <joseph@electrichands.com>
> > > > archive at http://bbs.thing.net
> > > > info: send email to majordomo@bbs.thing.net
> > > > and write "info thingist" in the message body
> > > >
> > >
> > --------------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >
> > >
> > > + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> > > -> post: list@rhizome.org
> > > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> > > -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> > > http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> > > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> > > +
> > > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set
> > > out in the
> > > Membership Agreement available online at
> > http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> >
> >
> > =====
> > *DISCLAIMER:This email any advice it contains is for the use is that of
> the sender and does not bind the precautions to minimise authority in any
> way. If you copy or distribute this by software viruses email. We have taken
> the risk of transmitting software viruses, but we advise that you carry out
> your own virus attachment to this message. Internet email that you observe
> this lack is not a secure communication medium, and we advise of security
> when emailing us. District Postmaster.
> http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/ *
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Tax Center - File online, calculators, forms, and more
> > http://tax.yahoo.com
> > + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> > -> post: list@rhizome.org
> > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> > +
> > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> >
>
>
>
> + ti esrever dna ti pilf nwod gniht ym tup
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
Re: Re: [thingist] Rub Linda the right way and she might show you wonderland
Quoting Eryk Salvaggio <eryk@maine.rr.com>:
> Here we see the structure of the McElroy Language Brain:
>
> 1. Declare any calls on his "fallibility" as attacks re: "respect" [ie, "you
> don't like my art, you are not showing me the proper respect"] - this is
> related ultimately to his ideals of "being in control" and "having power"
> which are impossible to actual obtain- what they call the fragility of the
> masculine myth.
Cheap analysis from your textbooks has nothing to do with reality. If you re-
read her post, she said absoluting nothing other than she didn't like it and
that was her opinion. And she gave no evidence to support her opinions. So it
was exactly like my description of a poodle who attacks a big dog engaged in a
fight with other dogs. Not only that, the email is addressed to me, yet she
refers to me in the third person. It was an insulting email with no purpose,
other than a purpose with a detrimental effect to me. Since she jumped into
issue with such purpose, I feel no obligation to treat her with high regard.
Oh, and if you look at the two sentences in question:
"And it is not "ironic" sweetheart. It is "satiric" and there is a difference."
The first could be considered ironic, the second makes it satiric (not a
particularly subtle form)
ms poodle wrote:
>The problem with the work has nothing to do with the content or even
> the intention. Make work about what ever you want, with what ever
> intentions you want; but at least try to make work that is effective
> in someway. Joseph's pieces were unoriginal and just plain weak, to
> the point that I felt almost nothing about them other than a slight
> chagrin (and this may have had more to do with their "ironic" nature
> or the ensuing discussion). War as subject matter in my opinion is
> deserving of much more. And then again my dislike for the work does
> not necessarily have anything to do with the subject matter (subject
> matter is in a way a bonus or adjunct to what can happen in art). If
> the pieces transcended the subject matter we wouldn't be having this
> lame discussion. Good (for lack of a more precise word) art is
> something that you know when you see it, and I did not see any in
> those two links.
> 2. React to critiques and comments which are unfavorable to him with
> personal insults- ["sweetheart", "your religion is toilet paper."]
My dear boy, if you were trully giving critique instead of cheap pschoanalysis,
I might respond differently. And might I point out that in your very first
response you said such things as "nothing I could say would prove your
retardation more than these pieces have already" and "totally realize what
K meant when he called you a brute murderous ape" and "your zombie trance of
power". You are not analysing the art, you are trying to analyse me. This is
a stupid excercise to do without knowing me other than via online activities.
In fact, this might present a compelling case for arguing that you have some
sort of control and power issues going on. Imagining that you have the power to
analyse a person via email. Sort of silly I think.
> 3. Avoid Responsibility for those comments and his own work through
> rationalization, rationalization, rationalization. [this entire post down
> below- where instead of apologizing for sexist remarks, he insists that
> because he made sexist remarks, he is not sexist, and that sexism would be
> to not make sexist remarks.]
>
Sexism would be to not insult a woman when I would insult a man for the same
activity. Sexism would be to expect superior treatment based upon gender.
> At the heart of this is something being covered up in step one. And I would
> pose the question to Joseph: When you run the above program in your head-
> which you do often- what is the fundamental underlying problem you are
> trying to avoid seeing in yourself? It seems to me to stem from the idea of
> control/power impulses. Perhaps you should look at how you relate to
> control/power impulses and attempt to surrender this goal or at least avoid
> succombing to them which usually results in your looking like an ass to
> people on mailing lists. Then you will save tremendous amounts of energy by
> the sheer fact that you will no longer have to lie and think up excuses in
> order to avoid dealing with it. Odds are you'll feel less angry. [though I
> think you pretend that you don't feel angry all the time, too, right? But
> that is at the heart of your overcompensation with regards to negative
> emotions- you get hurt, you not only "hurt back" but you "hurt back" "more".
> Unfortunately this just makes you look like a mindless barbarian.] You'll
> also be more at peace, lighter and more focused. Take it head on. You'll
> feel better about yourself afterward.
>
Mr Museum of the Living Dead, it has been obvious to all that from the very
beginning of my entree onto this mailing list that you bear an unreasonable
dislike for me. This was evidenced recently by your response to Michael and
his request for participation in the Renga. You responded only with a diatribe
against me, slandered me, and then refused to participate if I did. You were
the one looking like an Ass.
It is my reasonable conclusion that you only have my worst interests in mind,
and that any critique is meant to humilate and discredit me. I do no know the
source of your rage, but it is obvious to most everyone. So expect my
responses to be hostile to your sophmoric attempts at critique.
joseph
> Here we see the structure of the McElroy Language Brain:
>
> 1. Declare any calls on his "fallibility" as attacks re: "respect" [ie, "you
> don't like my art, you are not showing me the proper respect"] - this is
> related ultimately to his ideals of "being in control" and "having power"
> which are impossible to actual obtain- what they call the fragility of the
> masculine myth.
Cheap analysis from your textbooks has nothing to do with reality. If you re-
read her post, she said absoluting nothing other than she didn't like it and
that was her opinion. And she gave no evidence to support her opinions. So it
was exactly like my description of a poodle who attacks a big dog engaged in a
fight with other dogs. Not only that, the email is addressed to me, yet she
refers to me in the third person. It was an insulting email with no purpose,
other than a purpose with a detrimental effect to me. Since she jumped into
issue with such purpose, I feel no obligation to treat her with high regard.
Oh, and if you look at the two sentences in question:
"And it is not "ironic" sweetheart. It is "satiric" and there is a difference."
The first could be considered ironic, the second makes it satiric (not a
particularly subtle form)
ms poodle wrote:
>The problem with the work has nothing to do with the content or even
> the intention. Make work about what ever you want, with what ever
> intentions you want; but at least try to make work that is effective
> in someway. Joseph's pieces were unoriginal and just plain weak, to
> the point that I felt almost nothing about them other than a slight
> chagrin (and this may have had more to do with their "ironic" nature
> or the ensuing discussion). War as subject matter in my opinion is
> deserving of much more. And then again my dislike for the work does
> not necessarily have anything to do with the subject matter (subject
> matter is in a way a bonus or adjunct to what can happen in art). If
> the pieces transcended the subject matter we wouldn't be having this
> lame discussion. Good (for lack of a more precise word) art is
> something that you know when you see it, and I did not see any in
> those two links.
> 2. React to critiques and comments which are unfavorable to him with
> personal insults- ["sweetheart", "your religion is toilet paper."]
My dear boy, if you were trully giving critique instead of cheap pschoanalysis,
I might respond differently. And might I point out that in your very first
response you said such things as "nothing I could say would prove your
retardation more than these pieces have already" and "totally realize what
K meant when he called you a brute murderous ape" and "your zombie trance of
power". You are not analysing the art, you are trying to analyse me. This is
a stupid excercise to do without knowing me other than via online activities.
In fact, this might present a compelling case for arguing that you have some
sort of control and power issues going on. Imagining that you have the power to
analyse a person via email. Sort of silly I think.
> 3. Avoid Responsibility for those comments and his own work through
> rationalization, rationalization, rationalization. [this entire post down
> below- where instead of apologizing for sexist remarks, he insists that
> because he made sexist remarks, he is not sexist, and that sexism would be
> to not make sexist remarks.]
>
Sexism would be to not insult a woman when I would insult a man for the same
activity. Sexism would be to expect superior treatment based upon gender.
> At the heart of this is something being covered up in step one. And I would
> pose the question to Joseph: When you run the above program in your head-
> which you do often- what is the fundamental underlying problem you are
> trying to avoid seeing in yourself? It seems to me to stem from the idea of
> control/power impulses. Perhaps you should look at how you relate to
> control/power impulses and attempt to surrender this goal or at least avoid
> succombing to them which usually results in your looking like an ass to
> people on mailing lists. Then you will save tremendous amounts of energy by
> the sheer fact that you will no longer have to lie and think up excuses in
> order to avoid dealing with it. Odds are you'll feel less angry. [though I
> think you pretend that you don't feel angry all the time, too, right? But
> that is at the heart of your overcompensation with regards to negative
> emotions- you get hurt, you not only "hurt back" but you "hurt back" "more".
> Unfortunately this just makes you look like a mindless barbarian.] You'll
> also be more at peace, lighter and more focused. Take it head on. You'll
> feel better about yourself afterward.
>
Mr Museum of the Living Dead, it has been obvious to all that from the very
beginning of my entree onto this mailing list that you bear an unreasonable
dislike for me. This was evidenced recently by your response to Michael and
his request for participation in the Renga. You responded only with a diatribe
against me, slandered me, and then refused to participate if I did. You were
the one looking like an Ass.
It is my reasonable conclusion that you only have my worst interests in mind,
and that any critique is meant to humilate and discredit me. I do no know the
source of your rage, but it is obvious to most everyone. So expect my
responses to be hostile to your sophmoric attempts at critique.
joseph