Oh, Mark, you protest too much! One way or other, "let the Lady have her
day" - I suspect no major damage done. For two weeks she was a good,
provocative date. The pleasure's been had - and apparently a hangover, too!
- and the carnival has moved willy-nelly on to another site.
I have also taken the saran wrap off the WCW's plums in the fridge. A bit
smudged, but glowing on the kitchen table.
Stephen V
> At 12:35 PM 3/3/2005, you wrote:
>> I have two short thoughts:
>>
>> 1. "The Gates" - in whatever magic they cast over Central Park have provoked
>> a major case of "pleasure anxiety." Wherein many - instead of reveling for a
>> moment in the experience of participating in and enjoying public space - are
>> driven to badmouth all of its derivative side effects (commerce, egos, etc.)
>> It's like being totally smitten with a lover's perfume and then parting the
>> scene to go kill the perfume seller - the "betrayed virgin" syndrome. (I am
>> not being righteous here - it's happened to me more than once).
>
>
> Of course, the same could be said for the Nuremberg rally, to cite an
> extreme example. The point being that public art addresses the civic by its
> very existence, which means the experience is different in kind from the
> appreciation of even so political work as Ensor's Christ Entering Brussels.
> And it's exceedingly easy to create objects that produce in their consumers
> this or that emotion, which in no way testifies to the integrity of the maker.
>
> Are you implying that a failure to simply enjoy in a state of innocence is
> somehow to miss the point and the boat? Or that it's a simple case of
> Schadenfreude?
>
> If you're referring to my comments, I think you got it wrong. You seem to
> be saying that the work of art in question doesn't include its full
> context--all that messy stuff. What I thought I was saying is that only by
> an act of extreme willfulness could one focus on the aesthetic or ludic
> alone, and that in so doing one would in fact be misrepresenting,
> misunderstanding the object. All of the Christos' carefully-crafted public
> image making, the gigantism, the politics, and all of the impacts, intended
> and unintended, on the environment, are I think a part of the art work, not
> a barrier to the appreciation thereof.
>
> Which begins to sound like your justification through notoriety, tho I
> obviously don't intend it as such:
>
>
>
>> 2. Like "The Gates" or not, it's provoking lots of analysis of what may be
>> better to wrap, better to draw attention to, Fallujeh, etc. This is no small
>> accomplishment - akin to poets who have written seminal works that have
>> stirred generations of writing, as say, Charles Olson, Robert Creeley, the
>> New York School. Of course, different than the Christo project, it seems,
>> instead of in opposition to what was Wrapped, the acolyte poets, if not
>> imitating Olson, etc., the work by others could be seen as an extension or
>
>
> What doesn't excite comment? The war in Iraq excites a discussion of the
> nature of war. Is that in any way a justification? Again, way over the top.
> But the inconsistency in logic stands.
>
> As to all those poets, I think you're talking about a far more adventurous
> crew. The leaps that say Olson accomplishes are a bit more extreme than the
> movement from Running Fence to The Gates or the Pont Neuf to the Reichstag.
> But maybe Olson could be so adventurous because his commodities didn't sell
> quite as well as Christo's.
>
> Mark
>
>> expansion of the work of the progenitors.
>>
>> Sorry, maybe these thoughts were not so short!
>>
>> Stephen V
>> Blog: http://stephenvincent.durationpress.com
>>
>>
>>
>>> Of course, it wouldn't get the 'press,' but just the drawings, etc.,
>>> the plans, without the actual work, would maybe be good. And I do like
>>> the idea of going somewhere to enhance what really needs it, Mark. I
>>> mean, it would be something to see them draping Fallujah....
>>>
>>> Doug
>>> On 1-Mar-05, at 3:30 PM, Mark Weiss wrote:
>>>
>>>> May you be a model of humility. I think they wouldn't get it.
>>>>
>>>> Mark
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> At 05:19 PM 3/1/2005, you wrote:
>>>>>> How about not "enhancing"--or piggybacking--on the allure of the
>>>>> already
>>>>>> wondrous and instead draping a landfill, or a favela, so as to
>>>>> create
>>>>>> beauty, and economic advantage, where few see either? Would that be
>>>>> too big
>>>>>> an imaginative leap for the happy pair, or would they be in danger
>>>>> of not
>>>>>> making as much money or as many headlines? How about draping an oil
>>>>> field?
>>>>>> Or a lifeless river? Or a battlefield? There are plenty to choose
>>>>> from.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Mark
>>>>> en·hance (e—n-ha—ns')
>>>>> tr.v., -hanced, -hanc·ing, -hanc·es.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1. To make greater, as in value, beauty, or effectiveness; augment.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am sorry Mark but I must shy from evening consider the largeness of
>>>>> your
>>>>> vision of potential globally enhanced works - I am afraid I am back
>>>>> into the
>>>>> beauty of small things. WCW's plums in the fridge are so worn out from
>>>>> appearing in standard American Literature Anthologies, I have wrapped
>>>>> them
>>>>> over their white saucer in a slightly foggy Saran wrap - just enough
>>>>> to let
>>>>> the eye know they are still plums. People who come to my fridge
>>>>> compare this
>>>>> enviormental act of bringing a great poem back down to size as
>>>>> comparable to
>>>>> German trade shops who sold Indigo to Napoleon's soldiers with which
>>>>> to dye
>>>>> their white uniforms. The use of the dark dye helped reduce the sight
>>>>> of
>>>>> demoralizing blood stains from battles in which their comrades had
>>>>> been
>>>>> lost.
>>>>>
>>>>> I and my plums have yet to receive a visit from the lawyers of the WCW
>>>>> estate.
>>>>>
>>>>> Stephen V
>>>>> Blog: http://stephenvincent.durationpress.com
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Douglas Barbour
>>> Department of English
>>> University of Alberta
>>> Edmonton Alberta T6G 2E5 Canada
>>> (780) 436 3320
>>> http://www.ualberta.ca/~dbarbour/dbhome.htm
>>>
>>> care to be more
>>> precise about whatever
>>> it is you are
>>> saying, I said
>>>
>>> Bill Manhire
|