to JMC:
> Rose, this relationship may not
>be immediate to your usual experience, but do you not make this relationship
>between black-and-white and color when asked to consider the question
>historically--when forced to answer within a historical frame of reference?
You are the most pitifully pompous sonofabitch I've had the misfortune to
enconture in quite some time. Please get back on you medication and give
the world a break.
>2) Rose, I'm more of a phenomenologist than a Lockean.
More of a moron would be more like it.
> realism,
>authenticity, originality -
ouch....
>4) Have you considered the work of Chuck Close when you say, "Conventions are
>dependent
>on the technologies that constitute them (but by no means limited to
>physical/material aspects of this), but they are not reducible to that
>technology.
Chuck Close would gleefully kick your ass in a New York minute (it's got
nothing to do with me, really, it'd be a simple instinctual response- I'd
stay out of it. I'd even probably call 911 for you when he was
finished....)
>
>Good morning
>What if proof is the natural enemy of art, as well as a false home for
>philosophy?
I have no particular fondness for the writer, but this line of is more
interesting then anything in your pages of nonsense.
>Mark, if only you could be as simple as you claim to be: "I was only suggesting
>that ALL images are equally suspect when looked to as representations of any
>kind of reality. No agenda behind the thought." Now prove that you don't have
>an
>agenda. (The truth may be that your agenda is as simple (or complex) as your
>ego.) Now prove that all images are equally suspect in all situations. You're
>on
>a film philosophy list after all.
Prove that I don't have an agenda? What could it possibly be? I have
nothing to gain or prove in any of this. That's for you, apparrently. As
for the idea that all images are suspect, the fact that any image requires
a point of view is proof enough in this case. As I said earlier, quite
simple. As for my ego, well, that's no concern of yours.
Mark O'Connell
[log in to unmask]
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|