Re: FLUXLIST: Re: FLUXLIST candidate
jason pierce wrote:
{insert spit take}
what's a spit take?
20,000$ for a "sarkin"? there should be some kind of
artistic code
of ehtics in place that says no one can sell ANY piece of art work for more
than say 1000$,
Why?
and no one can buy or sell art work by people that are no longer living.
throwing
that much money around for art just corrupts and trivializes everything
about it.
the whole thing just reeks of arbitrary hierarcy. i mean suggesting that 1
artists life
or work is monetarily more signifigant than other artists' life?.ok this
is starting
to sound like some kind of marxist aesthetic rant and i apologize but
still...
the whole thing is just comical at best. it would be more interesting if
sarkin never
had a stroke and the whole context was fraudulent. i would like to suugest
that
artists should now only move about (fraudulently) in wheel chairs and wear
aluminum
foil on our heads in order to extract "the big bucks" from a sentimentally
confused
society.
Apparently, you are not a big fan of Chuck Close.
Best,
PK
jason pierce
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
RE: FLUXLIST: Re: FLUXLIST candidate
A spit take is when a comic responds to a surprise by spraying water, soup,
whatever's in his mouth, all over the place. Jerry Lewis was particualry
good at this.
-Original Message-
From: Patricia [SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2001 7:27 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: FLUXLIST: Re: FLUXLIST candidate
jason pierce wrote:
{insert spit take}
what's a spit take?
20,000$ for a "sarkin"? there should be some kind of
artistic code
of ehtics in place that says no one can sell ANY piece of art work for
more
than say 1000$,
Why?
and no one can buy or sell art work by people that are no longer living.
throwing
that much money around for art just corrupts and trivializes everything
about it.
the whole thing just reeks of arbitrary hierarcy. i mean suggesting that
1
artists life
or work is monetarily more signifigant than other artists' life?.ok
this
is starting
to sound like some kind of marxist aesthetic rant and i apologize but
still...
the whole thing is just comical at best. it would be more interesting if
sarkin never
had a stroke and the whole context was fraudulent. i would like to
suugest
that
artists should now only move about (fraudulently) in wheel chairs and
wear
aluminum
foil on our heads in order to extract "the big bucks" from a
sentimentally
confused
society.
Apparently, you are not a big fan of Chuck Close.
Best,
PK
jason pierce
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
FLUXLIST: Re: FLUXLIST candidate
{insert spit take} 20,000$ for a "sarkin"? there should be some kind of
artistic code
of ehtics in place that says no one can sell ANY piece of art work for more
than say 1000$,
and no one can buy or sell art work by people that are no longer living.
throwing
that much money around for art just corrupts and trivializes everything
about it.
the whole thing just reeks of arbitrary hierarcy. i mean suggesting that 1
artists life
or work is monetarily more signifigant than other artists' life?.ok this
is starting
to sound like some kind of marxist aesthetic rant and i apologize but
still...
the whole thing is just comical at best. it would be more interesting if
sarkin never
had a stroke and the whole context was fraudulent. i would like to suugest
that
artists should now only move about (fraudulently) in wheel chairs and wear
aluminum
foil on our heads in order to extract "the big bucks" from a sentimentally
confused
society.
jason pierce
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
