for those that are curious but couldn't make it.

found this in my referrers:

http://www.akairways.com/mouchette.shtml

--
<twhid>
http://www.mteww.com
</twhid>

forwarded by permission

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Peter von Brandenburg <blackhawk@thing.net>
> Date: Fri May 2, 2003 9:15:34 PM America/New_York
> To: Thingist <thingist@bbs.thing.net>
> Subject: [thingist] the River Kwai Paradox
> Reply-To: thingist@bbs.thing.net
>
> All: What is the construct of the System in re to the work done in it?
> I find myself asking this Q lately. What is the value of a pursuit of
> excellence, rigor, beauty, or any of the other traditional targets of a
> life lived meaningfully when these are done in the context of a
> corrupt,
> unjust, &/or evil system? Is the "flowers in the dustbin" model
> applicable? Perhaps Becker's notion of "tactical realities" offers
> some
> hope. Must we make an a priori decision to engage or disengage in re
> this larger political context? Gestures are not enuf (not for me). I
> refuse to consider my work in the context of a concrete empire ruled by
> avaricious religious fanatics who flout the rule of law, grant rights
> to
> corporations yet not individuals, & value us only according to the
> capital we possess or our ability to generate it. Am I prepared to see
> my vote count for nothing, to watch the most vital of all Democracies
> fail? Am I prepared to work in the context of a state of "never-ending
> war"? Am I prepared to allow what was the symbol of our solidarity be
> transmuted into a rampage of military adventurism? Am I prepared to
> watch helplessly as what was a semi-autonomous cultural entity is
> sucked
> up & assimilated by the amoeba of Media/America? If any of you have
> not
> seen "Bridge on the Rive Kwai", rent it. You'll see why I picked it as
> a homily. The plot reduces to the following; prisoners of war are
> asked
> to build a bridge for their captors. Have those of us who author
> culture been functionally transformed into POWs? Do we "whistle while
> we work", just on the principle of the thing? Do we give lip-service
> to
> resistance, gesture emptily & go about our biz? If *effective*
> resistance is possible, to what extent does it warp or even defeat our
> work itself? Do evil times require good thought, or evil thought? Or
> can one bypass the issue entirely?

--
<t.whid>
www.mteww.com
</t.whid>

Yes, I have my own prejudices to address. But (here comes the bigot's
justification) some of my best friends are white southerners, like Cary
Peppermint, a native Georgian.

And I understood when I was writing this post that I was flaunting
these prejudices and taking part, in a way, in the same behavior I'm
criticizing.

I'd rather err on the side of calling a bigot a bigot when I see one.
Of course not everyone in the south is an ignorant, racist redneck, but
there are many and the culture in the south lets them carry on without
feeling their ignorance ('we treat our black folks good'). In the north
there are many ignorant, racist rednecks too (as I know very well) but
generally one knows if they feel this way it's best to keep it hidden
as the over-riding culture doesn't support it. But in the north it
seems to be more an issue of economics, not race. In the south it's
still all about race.

The people in Georgia should be appalled at what's happening in one of
their counties, the state politicians should be holding press
conferences condemning the actions of these bigoted students. are they?
I haven't heard, perhaps it's only an issue in the state. Where's Al
Sharpton when you need him ;-)

Thanks for your post. I shouldn't condemn all white southerners, what I
mean to condemn is the culture of racial division that continues in the
south USA which doesn't exist (as blatantly) in the north USA. My
argument is that ALL southerners are complicit in this culture of
racial division with the bulk of the blame going to the dominant white
culture with it's history of racial oppression.

On Saturday, May 3, 2003, at 12:36 AM, D. Jean Hester wrote:

> t.whid--
> And t.whid, why, oh why, do you make this statement -- "Anyway, rural,
> conservative midwesterners are my family, yet I still remember as a
> child my step-mother proudly pointing out a large house in her small
> town which was a way-station on the underground railroad. I'm sure one
> would have a hard time finding a white person in the south USA with
> the same sort of pride." -- Your statement paints every southern white
> person with a stereotype that does not speak well of you. I have read
> many of your posts, and have found much of what you say well thought
> out, intelligent, and fair. So why do you not place that same level
> of fairness in your statements about white people in the south?
> Because the south has an appalling history of racial inequality it is
> therefore ok to stereotype white southerners? I don't think so.
--
<t.whid>
www.mteww.com
</t.whid>

On Friday, May 2, 2003, at 03:27 PM, Patrick Lichty wrote:

>
>> > http://www.salon.com/mwt/wire/2003/05/01/georgia/index.html
>> > Georgians plan whites-only prom party
>> > What sort of bizarro world is the south?
>
> Not surprising at all, actually.

That's what scares me.

> I mean, I live in Baton Rouge, LA - I'd say tied for 2nd most
> progressive town in the state with Shreveport.

Making it the 12,125th most progressive town in the USA ;-)

> But here, they got the schools to finally desegreget after 34 years in
> the courts, SOuthern University is still going strong (but they just
> elected a white class president), and the town is largely segregated,
> although the races are on very good terms here.

what a relief... (er, ugh huh)

>
> However, although segregation is not legal, you can go on fo rhours
> about institutional segregation/racism here. Most of it is
> educational/economic.

> THis is a very complex subject, and I'll go into it if anyone wants me
> to.
>
> HOwever, if you get into cajun country, pockets of the 'old ways'
> still exist...
>
> For example, in Plaquemine Parish courthouse (we have Parishes
> instead of counties, as we still operate under Napoleonic code), there
> is still a segregated water fountain.

states rights at work, yep.

>
> The biggest rift here is really cultural, more than anything. For
> this reason, the blacks and whites largely self-segregate. I find
> this happening at the movie lines (saw it last week), and my wife did
> a poetry slam, and the sides of the audience divided very neatly.
> It's just weird.

sounds incredibly bizarre.

I know that Patrick is from Ohio (as am i). And for all it's
conservatism, segregation, and prejudice the north USA is simply
centuries ahead of the south when it comes to racial relations. My
father and his wife are hillbillies, straight-up hillbillies without
exaggeration. (Actually, my father married into the hillbillies, my
step-mother's family is from West Virginia and as an adolescent we
visited the family in West Virginia. They lived in the hills with no
plumbing on 'roads' that you needed a 4x4 to safely traverse.)

Anyway, rural, conservative midwesterners are my family, yet I still
remember as a child my step-mother proudly pointing out a large house
in her small town which was a way-station on the underground railroad.
I'm sure one would have a hard time finding a white person in the south
USA with the same sort of pride.

--
<t.whid>
www.mteww.com
</t.whid>

At 13:26 -0400 5/2/03, Eryk Salvaggio wrote:
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "t.whid" <twhid@mteww.com>
>
>
>> Seriously?
>>
>> If an artist starts out to be 'profound' the artist is on the road to
>> failure. Most artists who stick with it for a few years figure this
>> out.

the self-consciousness of being 'meaningful' or 'profound' usually
leads to crap. (there are many roads to crap) That's not to say that
it can't lead to something interesting. I doubt Beuys thought to
himself, "I'm being profound and meaningful, ain't it great!," and
Warhol obviously didn't, though his work has had a profound and
meaningful effect on contemporary art over the last 40 years.

If one is interested in what the world might define as 'profound' or
'meaningful' subjects, than perhaps one's work will be 'profound' or
'meaningful'. If one is not interested but takes these subjects
anyway, one will probably churn out self-conscious badart (i'm going
to use that as one word from now on, badart).

But seriously, these terms are so vague... the color red could be
'profound' and 'meaningful' to someone and it could be a paint chip
to someone else.

It has nothing to do with post-modernism IMO, a modernist, a
symbolist, a romanticist, (probably not a neo-classicist) could all
follow the same advice which is simply the old cliche, "follow your
passion," which said another way could be, "do what YOU find profound
and meaningful to YOU."

So, we are in agreement.. I think.

I personally don't attempt to do any work which is 'profound' or
'meaningful'. Those thought patterns simply don't go thru my head
when I'm thinking about new work.

ta,

twhid

>
>Any artist who does *not* attempt to create anything moving or insightful
>will have a *far greater chance* at success, because creating work that is
>moving and insightful requires something far more "multidisciplinary" than
>art school can provide. So, we have a lot of very "succesful artists"
>running around saying "nothing" because it provides them with the easiest
>stepping stone to "creating something" even if they are only running around
>creating "nothing."
>
>But, you can't evaluate failure by this mechanism. If an artist creates
>something meaningful, is that because he did not "start out" trying to make
>something profound? If the piece is meaningful, because the artist has a
>mastery of his abilities, does that mean that they failed because he "set
>out" to make what they made?
>
>Did Beuys start out by rejecting the idea of making his work communicate
>something meaningful?
>How about poets, did Rilke or TS Eliot set out to make "entertainment" as a
>first priority and then "stumbled" onto meaning? How about in cinema, we
>have Wim Wenders, or even Woody Allen, but certainly a long tradition of
>films that have succesfully "moved" thier audience and created "insights."
>Who are the cinematic "artistes" who reject the profound outright in thier
>"art"? Maybe Barry Sonnenfeld?
>
>The rejection of this comes solely out of the prison of
>hyper-self-consciousness that originated out of the ass end of post
>modernism. "Meaning is passe. And so Fascistic!" If you reject being moved-
>if it makes you feel like the artist is "embarrassing himself" by creating
>work that tries to *transcend* these little hampster wheels we call lives,
>then that is a problem with the viewer, not the artist. An artist should
>have no consideration for whether what he/she does is "embarrassing" or not,
>particularly if that embarrassment comes from the attempt to communicate
>something the artist finds meaningful.
>
>-e.