Today's postings

  1. [Baren 26796] strange emails? (Bette Norcross Wappner)
  2. [Baren 26797] Re: strange emails? (Daniel Dew)
  3. [Baren 26798] Re: strange emails? (Bette Norcross Wappner)
  4. [Baren 26799] Re: small horn toot (L Cass)
Member image

Message 1
From: Bette Norcross Wappner
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 11:24:26 -0500
Subject: [Baren 26796] strange emails?
Send Message: To this poster

Is anyone else on this list receiving strange emails?

Bette Wappner
northern Kentucky
Member image

Message 2
From: Daniel Dew
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 11:38:55 -0500
Subject: [Baren 26797] Re: strange emails?
Send Message: To this poster


Daniel L. Dew
Member image

Message 3
From: Bette Norcross Wappner
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 11:58:58 -0500
Subject: [Baren 26798] Re: strange emails?
Send Message: To this poster

Our dear Wanda has set me at ease. It sounds like they are random
emails that programs send out and have no virus.

Thank you, Wanda :)

Member image

Message 4
From: L Cass
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 11:42:13 -0500
Subject: [Baren 26799] Re: small horn toot
Send Message: To this poster

GOOD GOING CHARLES! How about putting up pics of your prints?? The shows
at the Wilding Museum do look attractive - so many interesting museums all
over America -

While writing I must add a trifle to the discussion a while back re
Birdsall and his 'adaptation' or whatever of other artists' work. It has
been and still is done so much that one can only really have opinions re
the results- his work doesn't appear to be mind boggling (as it appears on
the net - obviously one would have to view the real thing to decide) but I
suppose it's okay as is much art out there - perhaps if he'd combined it
with video or some kind of installation he'd be a 'super star' There is,
indeed, 'nothing new under the sun' as someone pointed out and all art
today can be divided into those trying to prove that false and those who
stick to 'hoeing their own gardens.' It has certainly come to be quite
legitimate to appropriate from anything in the world - look at Warhol's
soup cans and the whole pop art movement. Further back Manet's 'Dejeuner
sur l'herbe' was used by all kinds of artists- sculpture etc. there's also
a huge output of art based on Munch's 'Scream' to say nothing of
Leonardo's 'Mona Lisa' and Michelangelo's 'David', etc - one could go on
indefinitely citing popular 'masterpieces' that have been used in this way
and I can't see that using anonymous mag. or newspaper pics is any
different - they're just harder to spot. It would appear to be the
resulting piece of art that matters - whether it is judged to be ' good' or
not and apart from trendy curators or critics deciding who's the current
favourite, the rest of the world can just please themselves as to what they
consider good or legit - there's so very much out there one often feels the
futility of adding to it but that's another topic. Forgery, of course, is
also quite another subject but forgers have, indeed, become famous for
their skill and audacity.

One more comment for Graham Scholes re 'cultural appropriation' and totem
poles- it seems that no one objected to Emily Carr's paintings of totem
poles e.g in the past - would she have been ostrasized or at the least
rebuked if doing this today??

Meanwhile Happy 2005 and may we all continue to enjoy what we're doing!
Louise Cass