ARTBASE (1)
BIO
Michael Szpakowski is an artist, composer, writer and educator.
CV:
http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/szpakowski_cv.pdf
Video work:
http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/vlog/ScenesOfProvincialLife.cgi
Stills:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/szpako
12 Remixes:
http://www.michaelszpakowski.org/mickiewicz/
CV:
http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/szpakowski_cv.pdf
Video work:
http://www.somedancersandmusicians.com/vlog/ScenesOfProvincialLife.cgi
Stills:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/szpako
12 Remixes:
http://www.michaelszpakowski.org/mickiewicz/
Re: Re: Burning Down The Art
T. Whid
There are still two naughty elisions in your argument.
You slide over the fact that
(1) nobody at any point ever *advocated* burning the
stuff down.
(2) neither did anyone advocate burning books
in doing this you link the quite reasonable expression
of schadenfreude ( and what an excellent and apposite
word that is Rob!) at the discomfiture of the dreadful
Saatchi to a kind of crypto nazism -is this actually
what you mean?
Lets assume that those elisions are valid ( which I
don't - they're classic smear tactics:".. this is a
bit like... you almost said....").
Let's address the question of burning books.
If the entirety of Barbara Cartland's oeuvre perished
tomorrow in a blaze ( sorry don't know a US equivalent
-dreadful UK romatic novelist) would it be disaster?
Actually yes -because something of interest culturally
( but artistically bankrupt) would be lost forever.
If however merely a substantial number, perhaps the
majority of copies were lost to the flames the
response of most people here I think would be to
laugh. A lot.
How does this resemble the burning of books or
artworks as a matter of political policy because the
author/artist is a Jew or a Communist or seen as in
some sense oppositional? Not at all.
In fact as Rob has pointed out Hirst , Emin et al are
the official court artists of New Labour, the
warmongers and privatizers -New Labour love 'em
because they bring the naked cynical values of the
market unapologetically to the centre of art -they are
in the words beloved of New Labour local government
hacks everywhere representatives of "the cultural
industries".
And I*M*HO they are piss poor apologies for artists.
But, coming full circle, nobody ever said their works
should be burned, just spoke of them in slightly less
than reverential tones.
Actually as the scale of the thing unfolds it begins
to look very unfunny -if it were just Hirst, Emin and
Chapman I wouldn't lost any sleep but I agree that
Ofili is a very fine artist and of a completely
different order to the majority of the Brit art pack
and I find the loss of work by Heron and Caulfield
distressing.
regards
michael
--- "t.whid" <twhid@twhid.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> We've probably all devoted way to much time to this
> so I'll attempt to
> make this brief.
>
> My POV is this: The destruction of important art is
> nothing to be cheer
> on. But, one may say, I don't see it as important,
> it's just crap, so
> no loss (this has it's own complications in that so
> much work was
> destroyed I don't see how anyone could think it was
> *all* crap,
> especially Chris Ofili*). I find this POV (if it's
> crap; no loss) very
> similar to the POV of book-burners, censors, and
> other enemies of free
> expression.
>
> Of course it's a bit milder, I *hope* most on this
> list wouldn't
> actively conspire to physically harm or destroy art
> work (my own
> rhetoric aside), but taking glee in it's destruction
> is uncomfortably
> close IMO.
>
>
>
> *ok, um, Ofili literally uses crap -- but his
> paintings are also
> completely gorgeous ;)
>
>
> On May 27, 2004, at 9:22 AM, curt cloninger wrote:
>
> > Hi Tim,
> >
> > To liken religious book burnings to apathy/glee
> over the saatchi fire
> > seems a stretch. Even if some critics here find
> the works in
> > saatchi's collection lame, morality and aesthetics
> are two different
> > things. Relativists miss this. Just because I
> dare say some art is
> > aesthetically "better" than some other art, that
> has nothing to do
> > with an imposition of morality or political
> totalitarianism.
> > Actually, your underlying assumption that everyone
> "ought to" revere
> > anything that presumes to call itself "art,"
> regardless of its
> > aesthetic appeal to them personally -- that smacks
> a bit of
> > totalitarianism (or at least political
> correctness) to me. "Everyone
> > is free to believe whatever they like, as long we
> all agree to believe
> > in relativism."
> >
> > I agree with Rob. A champion of chivalry is not
> obliged to defend
> > every street walking tranvestite who calls himself
> a woman. In fact,
> > he's obliged not to, lest chivalry become a
> diluted sham. Likewise,
> > as an "art" lover, I'm not obliged to defend the
> artistic sanctity of
> > Tracy Emin's work. Not simply because her work is
> "bad," but because
> > of the specific way in which it's "bad." It's
> anti-art that laughs at
> > craft and questions the practice of assigning
> aesthetic value to
> > artwork in the first place. But she has no
> problem assigning monetary
> > value to her work, and then bemoaning the loss of
> that monetary value.
> > Forgive me if I'm not touched.
> >
> > _
> >
> > t.whid wrote:
> >
> >> Hiya Curt,
> >>
> >> It all comes down to book-burning IMO...
> >>
> >> If this was fundamentalist christians/muslims
> burning Burrows/Rushdie
> >> we wouldn't have so many self-identified artists
> on this list
> >> gleefully
> >> dancing around the fire. Of course (i'll assume)
> this was an
> >> accidental
> >> fire, but it seems many on this list would have
> willingly tossed the
> >> match.
> >>
> >> the NYTimes fills us in on what was destroyed,
> which includes
> >> paintings
> >> -- gasp! yes -- paintings, one-of-a-kind
> paintings, and even --
> >> yikes!
> >> -- sculptures.. but who cares? they suck and
> their old media anyway..
> >> the artists will just make more, right?
> >>
> >> And again I ask myself, why do so many artists
> seem to hate art?
> >>
> >>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/27/arts/27FIRE.html
> ===
> <twhid>http://www.mteww.com</twhid>
> ===
>
>
> +
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is
> open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set
> out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at
http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
There are still two naughty elisions in your argument.
You slide over the fact that
(1) nobody at any point ever *advocated* burning the
stuff down.
(2) neither did anyone advocate burning books
in doing this you link the quite reasonable expression
of schadenfreude ( and what an excellent and apposite
word that is Rob!) at the discomfiture of the dreadful
Saatchi to a kind of crypto nazism -is this actually
what you mean?
Lets assume that those elisions are valid ( which I
don't - they're classic smear tactics:".. this is a
bit like... you almost said....").
Let's address the question of burning books.
If the entirety of Barbara Cartland's oeuvre perished
tomorrow in a blaze ( sorry don't know a US equivalent
-dreadful UK romatic novelist) would it be disaster?
Actually yes -because something of interest culturally
( but artistically bankrupt) would be lost forever.
If however merely a substantial number, perhaps the
majority of copies were lost to the flames the
response of most people here I think would be to
laugh. A lot.
How does this resemble the burning of books or
artworks as a matter of political policy because the
author/artist is a Jew or a Communist or seen as in
some sense oppositional? Not at all.
In fact as Rob has pointed out Hirst , Emin et al are
the official court artists of New Labour, the
warmongers and privatizers -New Labour love 'em
because they bring the naked cynical values of the
market unapologetically to the centre of art -they are
in the words beloved of New Labour local government
hacks everywhere representatives of "the cultural
industries".
And I*M*HO they are piss poor apologies for artists.
But, coming full circle, nobody ever said their works
should be burned, just spoke of them in slightly less
than reverential tones.
Actually as the scale of the thing unfolds it begins
to look very unfunny -if it were just Hirst, Emin and
Chapman I wouldn't lost any sleep but I agree that
Ofili is a very fine artist and of a completely
different order to the majority of the Brit art pack
and I find the loss of work by Heron and Caulfield
distressing.
regards
michael
--- "t.whid" <twhid@twhid.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> We've probably all devoted way to much time to this
> so I'll attempt to
> make this brief.
>
> My POV is this: The destruction of important art is
> nothing to be cheer
> on. But, one may say, I don't see it as important,
> it's just crap, so
> no loss (this has it's own complications in that so
> much work was
> destroyed I don't see how anyone could think it was
> *all* crap,
> especially Chris Ofili*). I find this POV (if it's
> crap; no loss) very
> similar to the POV of book-burners, censors, and
> other enemies of free
> expression.
>
> Of course it's a bit milder, I *hope* most on this
> list wouldn't
> actively conspire to physically harm or destroy art
> work (my own
> rhetoric aside), but taking glee in it's destruction
> is uncomfortably
> close IMO.
>
>
>
> *ok, um, Ofili literally uses crap -- but his
> paintings are also
> completely gorgeous ;)
>
>
> On May 27, 2004, at 9:22 AM, curt cloninger wrote:
>
> > Hi Tim,
> >
> > To liken religious book burnings to apathy/glee
> over the saatchi fire
> > seems a stretch. Even if some critics here find
> the works in
> > saatchi's collection lame, morality and aesthetics
> are two different
> > things. Relativists miss this. Just because I
> dare say some art is
> > aesthetically "better" than some other art, that
> has nothing to do
> > with an imposition of morality or political
> totalitarianism.
> > Actually, your underlying assumption that everyone
> "ought to" revere
> > anything that presumes to call itself "art,"
> regardless of its
> > aesthetic appeal to them personally -- that smacks
> a bit of
> > totalitarianism (or at least political
> correctness) to me. "Everyone
> > is free to believe whatever they like, as long we
> all agree to believe
> > in relativism."
> >
> > I agree with Rob. A champion of chivalry is not
> obliged to defend
> > every street walking tranvestite who calls himself
> a woman. In fact,
> > he's obliged not to, lest chivalry become a
> diluted sham. Likewise,
> > as an "art" lover, I'm not obliged to defend the
> artistic sanctity of
> > Tracy Emin's work. Not simply because her work is
> "bad," but because
> > of the specific way in which it's "bad." It's
> anti-art that laughs at
> > craft and questions the practice of assigning
> aesthetic value to
> > artwork in the first place. But she has no
> problem assigning monetary
> > value to her work, and then bemoaning the loss of
> that monetary value.
> > Forgive me if I'm not touched.
> >
> > _
> >
> > t.whid wrote:
> >
> >> Hiya Curt,
> >>
> >> It all comes down to book-burning IMO...
> >>
> >> If this was fundamentalist christians/muslims
> burning Burrows/Rushdie
> >> we wouldn't have so many self-identified artists
> on this list
> >> gleefully
> >> dancing around the fire. Of course (i'll assume)
> this was an
> >> accidental
> >> fire, but it seems many on this list would have
> willingly tossed the
> >> match.
> >>
> >> the NYTimes fills us in on what was destroyed,
> which includes
> >> paintings
> >> -- gasp! yes -- paintings, one-of-a-kind
> paintings, and even --
> >> yikes!
> >> -- sculptures.. but who cares? they suck and
> their old media anyway..
> >> the artists will just make more, right?
> >>
> >> And again I ask myself, why do so many artists
> seem to hate art?
> >>
> >>
> http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/27/arts/27FIRE.html
> ===
> <twhid>http://www.mteww.com</twhid>
> ===
>
>
> +
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is
> open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set
> out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at
http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
Re: Re: Re: Burning Down The House
Hi Tim
<degenerate>
your word not mine -not a word I would *ever* use or
imply as I thought you would know (and of course its
an extraordinaarily *loaded* word!) but don't let the
facts get in the way of good polemic , especially if
you can imply someone's views tend towards those of
the Nazis!
My problem with it is that in my view its commerce ,
not art, and commerce of the most cynical kind -the
news tonight on the Beeb is all about how many million
of quid have gone up in smoke.
Neither of us knows in the long term whether the
Saatchi stable will have any staying power, my guess
would be no, yours clearly otherwise.
Though I can't pretend I'm sitting here shedding tears
over the loss of a few Hirsts of course I don't
advocate the destruction of art works ( well - objects
that may or may not prove to be so- we'll see, in
time).
Its strange how the mischievous sense of humour that
delights us so often on this list comes over a wee bit
po faced in this instance!
regards
michael
--- "t.whid" <twhid@twhid.com> wrote:
> HAHA, destruction of art -- really funny!
>
> Good thing it was the degenerate art which got
> destroyed and not the good stuff.
>
>
> > On Wednesday, May 26, 2004, at 10:07AM, Michael
> Szpakowski
> > <szpako@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > >The best thing about it was on last night's ten
> > >o'clock news when the arts correspondent ( & I
> *know*
> > >we should be grateful we *have* an arts
> correspondent
> > >on the main nightly news) said something like
> "when
> > >the history of art in our time comes to be
> written
> > >this will be seen as a grievous and significant
> blow".
> >
> > That's just silly of them. No Rolf Harris
> paintings were lost, our
> > legacy is safe. :-)
> +
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is
> open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set
> out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at
http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
<degenerate>
your word not mine -not a word I would *ever* use or
imply as I thought you would know (and of course its
an extraordinaarily *loaded* word!) but don't let the
facts get in the way of good polemic , especially if
you can imply someone's views tend towards those of
the Nazis!
My problem with it is that in my view its commerce ,
not art, and commerce of the most cynical kind -the
news tonight on the Beeb is all about how many million
of quid have gone up in smoke.
Neither of us knows in the long term whether the
Saatchi stable will have any staying power, my guess
would be no, yours clearly otherwise.
Though I can't pretend I'm sitting here shedding tears
over the loss of a few Hirsts of course I don't
advocate the destruction of art works ( well - objects
that may or may not prove to be so- we'll see, in
time).
Its strange how the mischievous sense of humour that
delights us so often on this list comes over a wee bit
po faced in this instance!
regards
michael
--- "t.whid" <twhid@twhid.com> wrote:
> HAHA, destruction of art -- really funny!
>
> Good thing it was the degenerate art which got
> destroyed and not the good stuff.
>
>
> > On Wednesday, May 26, 2004, at 10:07AM, Michael
> Szpakowski
> > <szpako@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > >The best thing about it was on last night's ten
> > >o'clock news when the arts correspondent ( & I
> *know*
> > >we should be grateful we *have* an arts
> correspondent
> > >on the main nightly news) said something like
> "when
> > >the history of art in our time comes to be
> written
> > >this will be seen as a grievous and significant
> blow".
> >
> > That's just silly of them. No Rolf Harris
> paintings were lost, our
> > legacy is safe. :-)
> +
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is
> open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set
> out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at
http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
Re: Re: new work: gloriousninth flaming
Actually, Rob, I agree with the methodology proposed
in your reply -I try to make it my watchword -"as
complex as is necessary to do justice to the topic but
no more so"
- I felt those bounds were signally overstepped in the
extract concerned but I agree (& I did try to say
this) there is something interesting being said there.
best
michael
--- Rob Myers <robmyers@mac.com> wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, May 26, 2004, at 07:25AM, Rob Myers
> <robmyers@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >On 26 May 2004, at 00:42, Michael Szpakowski wrote:
> >
> >> What the fuck does wit(h)nessing mean?
> >
> >Have you tried f***ing thinking about it?
>
> It was early. I was rude. I apologise. I meant to
> protest at your choice of words, not be an unfunny
> git.
>
> Sorry.
>
> - Rob.
> +
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is
> open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set
> out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at
http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
in your reply -I try to make it my watchword -"as
complex as is necessary to do justice to the topic but
no more so"
- I felt those bounds were signally overstepped in the
extract concerned but I agree (& I did try to say
this) there is something interesting being said there.
best
michael
--- Rob Myers <robmyers@mac.com> wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, May 26, 2004, at 07:25AM, Rob Myers
> <robmyers@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >On 26 May 2004, at 00:42, Michael Szpakowski wrote:
> >
> >> What the fuck does wit(h)nessing mean?
> >
> >Have you tried f***ing thinking about it?
>
> It was early. I was rude. I apologise. I meant to
> protest at your choice of words, not be an unfunny
> git.
>
> Sorry.
>
> - Rob.
> +
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is
> open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set
> out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at
http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
Re: Burning Down The House
The best thing about it was on last night's ten
o'clock news when the arts correspondent ( & I *know*
we should be grateful we *have* an arts correspondent
on the main nightly news) said something like "when
the history of art in our time comes to be written
this will be seen as a grievous and significant blow".
I might be wrong but she also seemed to be under the
impression that Edward Hopper was perhaps a drinking
companion of "bad boy of British art" (sic) Damien
Hirst and "bad girl of British art , Tracey Emin"
michael
--- Rob Myers <robmyers@mac.com> wrote:
> Chapmans' "Hell" goes up in flames, Emin's tent sees
> some hot action,etc.:
>
>
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3748179.stm
>
http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/video/40197000/rm/_40197241_saatchi07_barnes_vi.ram
>
> I'm desperately trying to avoid schadenfreude, but
> I'm not doing very well. :-)
>
> Maybe Ruscha can do a painting of this to go with
> "Los Angeles County Museum on Fire"?
>
> It's definitely art...
>
> - Rob.
> +
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is
> open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set
> out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at
http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
o'clock news when the arts correspondent ( & I *know*
we should be grateful we *have* an arts correspondent
on the main nightly news) said something like "when
the history of art in our time comes to be written
this will be seen as a grievous and significant blow".
I might be wrong but she also seemed to be under the
impression that Edward Hopper was perhaps a drinking
companion of "bad boy of British art" (sic) Damien
Hirst and "bad girl of British art , Tracey Emin"
michael
--- Rob Myers <robmyers@mac.com> wrote:
> Chapmans' "Hell" goes up in flames, Emin's tent sees
> some hot action,etc.:
>
>
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3748179.stm
>
http://news.bbc.co.uk/media/video/40197000/rm/_40197241_saatchi07_barnes_vi.ram
>
> I'm desperately trying to avoid schadenfreude, but
> I'm not doing very well. :-)
>
> Maybe Ruscha can do a painting of this to go with
> "Los Angeles County Museum on Fire"?
>
> It's definitely art...
>
> - Rob.
> +
> -> post: list@rhizome.org
> -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
> http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> -> visit: on Fridays the Rhizome.org web site is
> open to non-members
> +
> Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set
> out in the
> Membership Agreement available online at
http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
Re: Re: new work: gloriousninth flaming
--- Rob Myers <robmyers@mac.com> wrote:
> On 26 May 2004, at 00:42, Michael Szpakowski wrote:
>
> > What the fuck does wit(h)nessing mean?
>
> Have you tried f***ing thinking about it?
yes
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/
> On 26 May 2004, at 00:42, Michael Szpakowski wrote:
>
> > What the fuck does wit(h)nessing mean?
>
> Have you tried f***ing thinking about it?
yes
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Friends. Fun. Try the all-new Yahoo! Messenger.
http://messenger.yahoo.com/