MFA?

Gregory Blank wrote:

In article , Tom Phillips
wrote:

From someone who apparently has neither photographs or
photograms worth showing. Stop yaking about art and
put up or shut up. All you do is trash other people
continually. So, let's see your work, see if your
art matches your mouth...

I seriously doubt the brother of Michael Scarpetti has any talent
what so ever.

Oh, but I want to find out! Steve Simmons must see
a lot of good work come across his publishing desk.
So I propose we send Nebezahl's work there for a real
critique.

Come on, Steve will fair despite Davy being his
nsg nemesis and harasser. We could have a juried nsg
show, see who is a real photographer vs who's just a
troll


--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

jjs wrote:
I will guess that you are referring to the idea that western
art is defined by an elite to serve themselves,

I was not referring to that idea.

In article ,
Tom Phillips wrote:

Oh, but I want to find out! Steve Simmons must see
a lot of good work come across his publishing desk.
So I propose we send Nebezahl's work there for a real
critique.

Come on, Steve will fair despite Davy being his
nsg nemesis and harasser. We could have a juried nsg
show, see who is a real photographer vs who's just a
troll

I think its a good, idea. I can think of less involved parties in this;
respected judges though. Why do do you think people like "them
harassers" have the attitude they do, publishing is very difficult even
for people like you and I who actually have talent ;-)

Must be a bitter pill to be completely devoid of imagination.

--
LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

Gregory Blank wrote:

In article ,
Tom Phillips wrote:

Oh, but I want to find out! Steve Simmons must see
a lot of good work come across his publishing desk.
So I propose we send Nebezahl's work there for a real
critique.

Come on, Steve will fair despite Davy being his
nsg nemesis and harasser. We could have a juried nsg
show, see who is a real photographer vs who's just a
troll

I think its a good, idea. I can think of less involved parties in this;
respected judges though. Why do do you think people like "them
harassers" have the attitude they do, publishing is very difficult even
for people like you and I who actually have talent ;-)

Must be a bitter pill to be completely devoid of imagination.


Well, I can't toot my own talent, in all humility

Rick Rosen suggested in largeformat the nsg posters
have a show. I suggested this also (if only to weed
out the photogs from the trolls.) I'd contribute 3-4,
5 prints. I'd like to see some work by long time posters.
Maybe Simmons would help organize.


LF Website @ http://members.verizon.net/~gregoryblank

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong,
is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable
to the American public."--Theodore Roosevelt, May 7, 1918

On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 06:57:40 -0700, Tom Phillips
wrote:



Gregory Blank wrote:

In article ,
Tom Phillips wrote:

Oh, but I want to find out! Steve Simmons must see
a lot of good work come across his publishing desk.
So I propose we send Nebezahl's work there for a real
critique.

Come on, Steve will fair despite Davy being his
nsg nemesis and harasser. We could have a juried nsg
show, see who is a real photographer vs who's just a
troll

I think its a good, idea. I can think of less involved parties in this;
respected judges though. Why do do you think people like "them
harassers" have the attitude they do, publishing is very difficult even
for people like you and I who actually have talent ;-)

Must be a bitter pill to be completely devoid of imagination.


Well, I can't toot my own talent, in all humility

Rick Rosen suggested in largeformat the nsg posters
have a show. I suggested this also (if only to weed
out the photogs from the trolls.) I'd contribute 3-4,
5 prints. I'd like to see some work by long time posters.
Maybe Simmons would help organize.

AMazing!

After all these posts and flamewars, you guys actually cmae up with a
good idea.

Congrats,

Robert Vervoordt, MFA

"Jörgen Persson" wrote in message
...
jjs wrote:
I will guess that you are referring to the idea that western
art is defined by an elite to serve themselves,

I was not referring to that idea.

Well, if you are only going to elude the discussion, why did you even get
into it? It is up to you to be specific. This is not a guessing game.

jjs wrote:
Well, if you are only going to elude the discussion, why did
you even get into it? It is up to you to be specific. This is
not a guessing game.

You have stated your view. MS/UC has stated his. I have tried to
state a simplified postmodern view.

Yes... simplified; not specified. This is /not/ an art group and
I don't think there is a need to be more specific to answer the
question whatever photographs are art or not.

A dialog about different views would be nice but I don't feel as
if the current atmosphere allows it. What more is there to do?
To persuade each other? To prove that one view is better than
the other? To discredit other views as you did in your previous
post? Sorry but I don't think there is a right or wrong in this
question and I don't have time to play games.

On 12/8/2004 8:11 AM Jörgen Persson spake thus:

jjs wrote:

Well, if you are only going to elude the discussion, why did
you even get into it? It is up to you to be specific. This is
not a guessing game.

You have stated your view. MS/UC has stated his. I have tried to
state a simplified postmodern view.

Yes... simplified; not specified. This is /not/ an art group and
I don't think there is a need to be more specific to answer the
question whatever photographs are art or not.

A dialog about different views would be nice but I don't feel as
if the current atmosphere allows it. What more is there to do?
To persuade each other? To prove that one view is better than
the other? To discredit other views as you did in your previous
post? Sorry but I don't think there is a right or wrong in this
question and I don't have time to play games.

Fair enough.

I do have some interest in one assertion here (MS's) concerning what is art
and what is not. After cogitating on that assertion a bit, it makes sense to
me--that it's only art if it meets the criteria he stated (that it be manmade,
have "subject matter" and not be causally linked to anything else). Those seem
like reasonable criteria.

HOWEVER--and this is a big caveat--I wonder just who, besides MS, actually
subscribes to this thesis? If it's his and his alone, then, well, we can
pretty well just reject it out of hand.

I honestly am not well read enough about art to know the answers to this.
Maybe it's time to pick up a copy of Berger or someone and read up.


--
Don't blame Ralph Nader: blame Gavin Newsom.

Jörgen Persson wrote:

jjs wrote:
Well, if you are only going to elude the discussion, why did
you even get into it? It is up to you to be specific. This is
not a guessing game.

You have stated your view. MS/UC has stated his. I have tried to
state a simplified postmodern view.

Yes... simplified; not specified. This is /not/ an art group and
I don't think there is a need to be more specific to answer the
question whatever photographs are art or not.

Of course not. Because they are and that was decided long
before any of us were born. Witness Stieglitz...

A dialog about different views would be nice but I don't feel as
if the current atmosphere allows it. What more is there to do?
To persuade each other? To prove that one view is better than
the other? To discredit other views as you did in your previous
post? Sorry but I don't think there is a right or wrong in this
question and I don't have time to play games.

ah, but John S. loves games...

David Nebenzahl wrote:

On 12/8/2004 8:11 AM Jörgen Persson spake thus:

jjs wrote:

Well, if you are only going to elude the discussion, why did
you even get into it? It is up to you to be specific. This is
not a guessing game.

You have stated your view. MS/UC has stated his. I have tried to
state a simplified postmodern view.

Yes... simplified; not specified. This is /not/ an art group and
I don't think there is a need to be more specific to answer the
question whatever photographs are art or not.

A dialog about different views would be nice but I don't feel as
if the current atmosphere allows it. What more is there to do?
To persuade each other? To prove that one view is better than
the other? To discredit other views as you did in your previous
post? Sorry but I don't think there is a right or wrong in this
question and I don't have time to play games.

Fair enough.

I do have some interest in one assertion here (MS's) concerning what is art
and what is not. After cogitating on that assertion a bit, it makes sense to
me--that it's only art if it meets the criteria he stated (that it be manmade,
have "subject matter" and not be causally linked to anything else). Those seem
like reasonable criteria.

Nonsense.

HOWEVER--and this is a big caveat--I wonder just who, besides MS, actually
subscribes to this thesis? If it's his and his alone, then, well, we can
pretty well just reject it out of hand.

I honestly am not well read enough about art to know the answers to this.
Maybe it's time to pick up a copy of Berger or someone and read up.

HANS Berger? give me a break...

try taking a few art history classes.