Msg#: 8160 *FINE ART*
03-27-94 09:45:18
From: BARRY SCHWABSKY
  To: JORDAN CRANDALL (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 8141 (THE TWIST)
Yes, Jordan, like Jonathan Richman, "I'm still in love with the old world."


Msg#: 8161 *FINE ART*
03-27-94 12:38:23
From: BARRY SCHWABSKY
  To: JORDAN CRANDALL (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 8093 (THE TWIST)
Jordan, I really think you should check out how close your projections of
meta-authorship regarding The Thing, as articulated in your message #6908, are
to what was being said about the "Athenaum" almost 200 years ago!  It's hardly
an insult to point this out.


Msg#: 8176 *FINE ART*
03-27-94 07:27:24
From: MICHAEL BENNETT
  To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 8161 (THE TWIST)
You seem to be arguing for dose of "populism" to be tossed into the critical
brew.  Perhaps term-limits for critics--and artists--may be the answer.  I
think I'll give my senator a call.


Msg#: 8486 *FINE ART*
03-29-94 18:25:47
From: CAROL BROAD
  To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 8176 (THE TWIST)
I just adore German Romantics.  How can I learn more about this Schlegel and
his Atheneum?  What is it anyway?  Can I get his books at Rizzoli?  I am nearly
done reading Derrida...


Msg#:10900 *FINE ART*
04-16-94 19:32:00
From: JEREMY WHITEHURST
  To: JORDAN CRANDALL (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 8486 (THE TWIST)
The problem concerning conceptual practice and its ongoing legacy interms of
how, if at all, appaers to be the most interesting phenomena that is arising
within the cultural field. What I do find strange is how painting as a language
fits into the legacy that is regarded as conceptual art. of course the
development of painting was a conceptual project and as a language still has
that the posibilities of a conceptual project.

The problem is that goods do not seem to be adquately delivered to continue, or
validify the conceptual possibilitiers of this language. As we know the in
terms of the ever expanding fields of cultural practice then painting seems to
have its feet so haevily set in concrete that any shift that comes out of
appaers already to be rotten fruit.

Of course the whole problem of activating a visual field is not under the sole
ownership of painting. The level of competion arises out of every visual
formulation and this, or these confront the conceptual or theoretical problems
far more succictly than the evere decreasing possiblitie sof the language of
painting. The restriction to a given set of problems withih a language offers
endless possibilities but with painting the outcome is alraedy ........

........there are to many questions or discourses that are immediately left out
in the cold, to many processes that are removed.

Or maybe I'm just to young to find painting as an activity intresting. Next one
please........
I would rather see bad conceptual art than some daubed material anyday.
---
 * Origin: THE THING COLOGNE [0221-7392450(BOX) 723578 (TEL)] (42:1002/1)



Msg#:10917 *FINE ART*
04-16-94 14:41:37
From: JORDAN CRANDALL
  To: JEREMY WHITEHURST
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 10900 (THE TWIST)
Strange as it is to consider how painting could fit in conceptualism's legacy,
as you say, it is even more strange to consider how it could *not* fit in. In
this situation, the case for excluding painting, or any other cultural
phenomenon or mode of artistic practice, would be weak.


Msg#:11899 *FINE ART*
04-20-94 10:36:21
From: BARRY SCHWABSKY
  To: JORDAN CRANDALL (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 10917 (THE TWIST)

 > consider how it could *not* fit in. In this situation, the case for 
 > excluding painting, or any other cultural phenomenon or mode of 
 > artistic practice, would be weak.

It's true that the conceptual apparatus of conceptual art has a harder time
maintaining strict criteria of exclusion than the conceptual apparatus of
painting; that is, if painting is taken as paradigmatic, then it is easy to
exclude most conceptual work from consideration, whereas if conceptual art is
taken as paradigmatic, it isn't so easy to exclude painting, except by either
the importation of a progressivist historicism (a la Kosuth) which is hard to
credit these days--or else through the old bugaboo of TASTE, (as in, "I prefer
bad conceptual art to painting," or, to paraphrase my own earlier statement of
taste, "I prefer run-of-the-mill painting to bad conceptual art") which is
something that conceptual work rarely becomes self-conscious about.  Whereas
painting is always self-consciously amnd often critically dealing with notions
of taste.


Msg#:12119 *FINE ART*
04-21-94 14:42:14
From: MORGAN GARWOOD
  To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 11899 (THE TWIST)
are you saying that conceptual art is unable to come to terms with its own
badness, when it is bad? That the very standpoints needed to formulate the
perspective of badness are difficult to obtain in the conceptual sphere? As a
rule, I prefer good art to bad art, and tend to look at everything as more or
less conceptual...its a question of which concepts: painting struggles with the
concepts of depiction from an optical set of conceptual tools..."conceptual"
work, done right, like a properly glazed baked chicken, appeals directly to the
neocortex, as does nitrous oxide.


Msg#:12124 *FINE ART*
04-21-94 16:59:40
From: DAVID PLATZKER
  To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 12119 (THE TWIST)
Conceptual art's badness?  Don't you mean blandness?


Msg#:12250 *FINE ART*
04-22-94 17:03:24
From: BARRY SCHWABSKY
  To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 12119 (THE TWIST)
Most bad art is unable to account for its own badness.  Conceptual art, like
literature, appeals more to a virtual sensorium than an actual one, but it does
so by means of practices that touch on practices and traditions that derive
from painting and sculpture and the atmosphere of thought surrounding painting
and sculpture (I refer you to "The Ready-Made and the Tube of Paint" and other
critical writings by Thierry de Duve) rather than literature.  But for this
reason it is more of a problem for conceptual art than for literature that for
the most part it can account for very little of how it actually looks--it can
merely refer you to the history of graphic design.


Msg#:12300 *FINE ART*
04-23-94 13:02:47
From: MORGAN GARWOOD
  To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 12250 (THE TWIST)
this is an interesting point of view, however, I am wondering how art, good,
bad or mediocre, can account for itself. Wouldn't that be, on some level,
imputing a sentience, or spiritual presence, in an artwork? Or, perhaps,
"account for itself" has to be unpacked into a multidimensional discussion of
the problematics of self awareness. Does all conceptualism have to operate
within a retinal domain of referents? Who did that piece where a store,
preferably a small general store in the Southwest would be purchased, and
filled to the ceiling with cement, with everything in the store entonmbed
within? Pompeii on the mind, maybe. Walter DeMaria's Earth Room? Renaturalizing
the domesticated consciousness? A worthy tradition, but no more immune to
schlocky impulses that any other donkey towed to market? Where do we put
Christo in all of this? Manzoni? Beuys last but not least?


Msg#:12303 *FINE ART*
04-23-94 13:22:43
From: MORGAN GARWOOD
  To: DAVID PLATZKER (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 12124 (THE TWIST)
"This is the TRUE portrait of Iris Clert" Robert Rauschenburg here, being
channeled by Morgan Garwood. I am directing Morgan's keystrokes at this moment,
but this is the genuine Bob you all know and love transmitting these commands
from Captiva Island via a shamanistic artwork I made sitting out back behind
the studio, called Transmission/Emission MoonWalk (for Michael Jackson).
   You must believe me, this is really happening, and the original telegram I
sent to Iris Clert is now NOT ART, and, ex pos facto, not authored by me. I now
here irrevocably vest the artistic meaning of The Portrait into this
posting...I am throwing in the Erased DeKooning Drawing because I am such a
good guy...allright, I have to return to my compound now and refresh my drink;
my dogs are wagging their tails HI at all of you out there. Oh, and thank you
Morgan for letting me use your mind/body/Thing hook up. All you all out there
are really where it's at. O.K. Back to you Morgan, later guys!

whew!...this Cosmic vibration stuff is hard on the psychic nodule within...on
to the next topic...


Msg#:12333 *FINE ART*
04-23-94 18:41:04
From: BARRY SCHWABSKY
  To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 12300 (THE TWIST)
I use "conceptual art," perhaps unfairly, to mean basically text- or language-
based art.  So most of the things you mention, Morgan, I personally would not
be likely to call "conceptual," except to the extent that the description of
the act or event is what is primarily at stake.  In any case, the reference
would remain visual even when not strictly retinal--what I meant by referring
to a virtual sensorium.  I realize that this may be an unfairly restrictive
sense of what counts as conceptual art, but it's the only one I've found useful
and not impossibly vague--so many people seem to imagine that conceptual art is
anything made by someone who had something rather than nothing in mind!


Msg#:12403 *FINE ART*
04-24-94 09:22:05
From: JORDAN CRANDALL
  To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 12333 (THE TWIST)
Part of our difficulty here is that we're all trying to understand each other's
use of a term which has clearly run its course. 


Msg#:12419 *FINE ART*
04-24-94 14:14:29
From: BARRY SCHWABSKY
  To: JORDAN CRANDALL (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 12403 (THE TWIST)
The term has run its course but won't go away--if only because it still seems
to carry a certain prestige that people want to appropriate.  But not only for
that reason, I think.  There is still something yet to be assimilated in
whatever conceptual art was, which gives it a continuing interest.


Msg#:12683 *FINE ART*
04-24-94 20:54:35
From: MORGAN GARWOOD
  To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 12419 (THE TWIST)
could it be that conceptualism, the idea that the *idea* is what counts, and
everything else is carrier or medium, is as much with us as painting or
sculpture, and once the genii is out of the bottle, it has no intention of
going back in.
   If ideas, per se, can be graded with a qualitative taxonomy, and we conceive
that there can be such a thing as an aesthetic idea, as much as there can be a
mathematical idea, the possibility of conceptualism may have entered or
intellectual heritage. Perhaps erasing its presence would be, on a far lesser
scale, like trying to erase the concept of "rights". Although the concept of
conceptualism may be less pivotal to our common human project than the concept
of *natural law*, it is as of now with us as a domain of play.


Msg#:12893 *FINE ART*
04-24-94 22:26:12
From: BARRY SCHWABSKY
  To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 12683 (THE TWIST)
"Rights" are currently being erased almost everywhere, without anyone feeling
much need to erase their concept.  Likewise, there are attempts all the time to
erase all kinds of artistic practices from history.  Sometimes it seems to me
as if certain strata of the practitioners and supporters of what are called
"painting" and "conceptual art" are trying to efface the existence of the
other--why?



Msg#:13050 *FINE ART*
04-25-94 21:43:03
From: MORGAN GARWOOD
  To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 12893 (THE TWIST)
does any particular example, either of the loss of rights (one suspects you may
have privacy rights in mind, as they are the ones most effectively being
redistricted at the present juncture) or of artistic practice via erasure
strike you as particularly egregious, or telling about the larger state of
affairs, or is this a global observation about the nature of slippery slopes in
general?


Msg#:13077 *FINE ART*
04-26-94 22:23:00
From: JEREMY WHITEHURST
  To: JORDAN CRANDALL (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 13050 (THE TWIST)
The answer to what should be and should not be excluded is a topic for a
"debatte".  That we can do the next time, as now I'm pushed for time.
Till then, Jeremy  
 
---
 * Origin: THE THING COLOGNE (42:1002/1)



Msg#:13213 *FINE ART*
04-26-94 18:40:14
From: SECRETARY GENERAL
  To: ALL TWISTERS
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 13077 (THE TWIST)
The Twist twisted into the rey Zone.  Please continue the political debate
there, preferably under a new subject heading.  Makes message sorting and
retrieval a lot easier for all.  Thank You!  


Msg#:13219 *FINE ART*
04-26-94 19:49:14
From: SKIP SNOW
  To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 13213 (THE TWIST)
It is not so that an aethetic idea is like a mathamatical idea.  Aesthetics are
based upon the sensory devise.  That is to say that the aesthetic is a
conditioned, or unconditioned response to a set of sensual manifestations. See
Emanuel Kant Kritik der reinen Vernunft p 35 Meiner Philosophische Bibliothek,
in the section on transendental aesthetics.  On the other hand a mathamatical
idea is a logical construction.  we only experience mathamatical ideas in
relationship to the logical sets of defenitions we have been given.  

An ilustration of this difference is the relationship between pi and a diameter
of a circle.  This relationshiip only has an absoute value in the realm of
logic.  as soon as the aesthetic ability to quantify, and code the relationship
to some sort of absoute, non ideal relationship of names and defenitions comes
into play the mathamatical idea is a calculation rather than a reprentation of
a theoretically perfect relationship.  The mathamatical idea, perhaps more than
nearly any type of idea can have an ideal relationship to the mind.  The
aesthetic ideal is always determened outside of logic and inside the realm of
experience.  The aesthetic ideals are always confounded by the human condition.
A while ago in a thread I did not reply to one person gave the example that
rotten food had a universally repugnent quality to it and this was an
indication of a universal aesthetic. this is a good example of how there is no
universal aesthetic.  For when one is northern china the food, smells to the
western trained nose rotten.  Yet the chinese describe it as appealing.  

If there is some universal aesthetic, then I believe it is somehow based upon
mathamatical ideals derived from experience.  For example it might be possible
that the arabesque is universally appealing, if this is so then it seems to me
that this appeal is derived not from some objective beauty of an arabesque but
rather on the fact that the anotomical structure of human beings contains an
abundance of arabesques.  When these arabesques are "in proportion" within the
male or female body we are atracted to those proportions.  In other words this
aesthetic is based upon the human condition.

On the other hand the circle's relationship to pi, granted an ideal logical
construction, is not dependent upon human perception, but rather the nature of
the ideal circle and a line through its centre.


Msg#:13639 *FINE ART*
04-29-94 23:09:08
From: MORGAN GARWOOD
  To: SKIP SNOW (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 13219 (THE TWIST)
nice argument, but I don't think it washes. Can you say that math and beauty
are any more or less of the mind? Once I was in a real investigative phase, and
went around to museums with a tape measure and calculated all kinds of
proportions off the paintings. I discovered that, more frequently than not (by
a wide margin) that paintings with good math looked more beautiful, even if you
were entirely naive about the underpinnings of the composition. The eye, I
discovered, and I am positive beyond any reasonable doubt, so did good visual
crafstpersons from as far back as the Old Kingdom of Egypt, is EXQUISITELY
sensitive to integer proportions. Most of Picasso, it turned out, was based of
proportions of fourths and thirds. The mind has an unwitting affinity for math!
The two, our capacity for mathematical abstraction, and our sense of beauty
(also a title of a book by George Santayana that I hope to read someday, i.e.
The Sense Of Beauty) stem from a common neurological structure that has yet to
be fully elucidated, but would be a hot topic for a researcher like Gerald
Edelman (Edelman has an arch-enemy here in NYC, somebody named Kandel, who
might vociferously dispute his hypotheses), a neo-Kantian who sees
consciousness as the interplay of distinct "maps" (he asserts that vision, or
the visual experience as "played" into consciousness, is the work of about 30
distint dynamic mapping processes; maybe so, maybe not). So, vee shall see, one
day, perhaps, pending a quantum leap in neural mapping technique. Stay tuned,
you may be in for quite a surprise!


Msg#:14043 *FINE ART*
05-04-94 10:40:53
From: RAINER GANAHL
  To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 13639 (THE TWIST)
what does "good math" means... something tht looks "good" on a metric ruler
most the times doesn't make sense on a "inch" based one, and one can even
propose a unit that makes the "strangest" proportions look like relational


Msg#:14346 *FINE ART*
05-05-94 20:36:18
From: MORGAN GARWOOD
  To: RAINER GANAHL (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 14043 (THE TWIST)
1:1,2:1,2:3,2:5, 1.6:1, etc. the secret is in the ratio, not the unit of
measure, works as well with barleycorns (the source for our wretched inch) or
cubits. P.S. you really must taste durian fruit, hard to find in the states,
the sort of flavor one imagines bats lusting after, they fly them in frozen to
chinatown, but Balinese tree ripened ones beat all. Smell like holy hell, makes
great iced cream and flavored drinks.


Msg#:14534 *FINE ART*
05-06-94 17:30:29
From: RAINER GANAHL
  To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 14346 (THE TWIST)
thanks for your assistence: I was thinking of the ration but just couldn't
figure it out (so I am going to try your syrup if this helps)


Msg#: 5853 *FINE ART*
03-13-94 00:18:49
From: WOLFGANG STAEHLE
  To: RAINER GANAHL (Rcvd)
Subj: TWIST AND SHOUT

 >                                                     ... isn't it 
 > also buchloh who somehow blamed, in a longer article on conceptual 
 > art, the emergence of wilde kunst of the early 80s to the failure 
 > (how he names it) of the conceptual enterprise. 

   Don't tell me Mr. Buchloh is privy to information as to what would
constitute a "success" of the "conceptual enterprise."  Total nonsense.




Msg#: 5860 *FINE ART*
03-13-94 02:19:00
From: BARRY SCHWABSKY
  To: WOLFGANG STAEHLE (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 5853 (TWIST AND SHOUT)
What would a "successful enterprise" be in such a case?  Aren't all significant
cultural enterprises "failed", "tragic", etc.?


Msg#: 5865 *FINE ART*
03-13-94 12:01:04
From: WOLFGANG STAEHLE
  To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 5860 (TWIST AND SHOUT)
      Exactly what I mean.  If it can't be a success, then how could it be a
failure?  The perception that the emergence of neo-expressionism (or Wilde
Kunst) in the early Eighties was the result of the "failure" of Conceptual Art
(and I believe such a category is still in use in today's language) is
revealing to the extend that it takes as its exclusive yardstick only the
_commercial success_ of a given genre.  That a Schnabel would fetch more than a
Kosuth in the decade of the Milkens and Trumps is not the least bit surprising
to me.


Msg#: 5868 *FINE ART*
03-13-94 14:06:00
From: MORGAN GARWOOD
  To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 5860 (TWIST AND SHOUT)
the most significant *cultural* enterprises are extremely successful, it is
simply that cultural academia cannot stomach the conflation of Spielberg or
Lucas, or Joe the Camel for that matter, with pursuits that are self
consciously *higher plane* jobs. *Tragic* and *Failure* are self indulgent
sentimentalities, the notion of *seeing through* to the domain of the Angels in
a perfervid consumptive apprehension. 
   Therein lies the sheer flatulence, the gross bad faith of Art qua Art in an
environment so intermediated and constructed, directed to spectacular (yet
pious) ends, instrumental gesticulations of stillborn profundification.
  The plain truth is that *culture* that counts, that defines us through and
through, x rays our pitiful innerds, is everywhere and in everything, it covers
every square inch, it has saturated the air with its electromagnetic emissions,
it is *Stamped* upon us, it is us, we are bereft of existence without it. It
has not the slightest interest with the pathos of Failure, the melancholy of
*Tragedy*; look around, the modes du jour are comedy and irony.
  Good God (whoever that is anymore) potato chips have a thousand times the
impact of any contemporary *artist* even at their apogee of coverage in a
bought and paid for media campaign. Warhol knew that...he wanted to become a
machine for that very reason.
  Art is dead, burned to a cinder, it is Hiroshima the morning after, there is
nothing left to be said...a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
signifying nothing. Zero, zilch. Its over...wake up...move on...new day


Msg#: 5869 *FINE ART*
03-13-94 14:08:51
From: BARRY SCHWABSKY
  To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 5868 (TWIST AND SHOUT)
Well, Morgan, I guess that outpouring proves that you are an expert in
sefl-indulgence.


Msg#: 5870 *FINE ART*
03-13-94 14:10:47
From: MORGAN GARWOOD
  To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 5869 (TWIST AND SHOUT)
so Fuck You and the horse you rode in on you precious dink jackass company boy


Msg#: 5871 *FINE ART*
03-13-94 14:15:37
From: BARRY SCHWABSKY
  To: WOLFGANG STAEHLE (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 5865 (TWIST AND SHOUT)
But with all due respect, I have to wonder why the work of a Schnabel should be
any more or less suitable to the Age of Milken than a Kosuth or anything else.
Actually, it seems to me that a good deal of what their work represents runs
surprisingly parallel in the '80s.  Although one may define the ego as
emotional and the other as intellectual, there are similarities in the way each
contrived to successfully package his own sense of self as decor for other
people's lives.


Msg#: 5925 *FINE ART*
03-13-94 20:49:50
From: BARRY SCHWABSKY
  To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 5870 (TWIST AND SHOUT)
I hope you're proud of yourself, Morgan.


Msg#: 5998 *FINE ART*
03-14-94 11:17:32
From: JORDAN CRANDALL
  To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 5868 (TWIST AND SHOUT)

 >   Art is dead, burned to a cinder, it is Hiroshima the morning 
 > after, there is nothing left to be said...a tale told by an idiot, 
 > full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. Zero, zilch. Its 
 > over...wake up...move on...new day

Does this mean that you're not going to publish that book of your own artworks?


Msg#: 5999 *FINE ART*
03-14-94 11:27:02
From: SYSOP
  To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 5870 (TWIST AND SHOUT)
Yellow card.

*Enclosed File: Yellow.gif


Msg#: 6002 *FINE ART*
03-14-94 11:44:03
From: SYSOP
  To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 5871 (TWIST AND SHOUT)

 > But with all due respect, I have to wonder why the work of a 
 > Schnabel should be any more or less suitable to the Age of Milken 
 > than a Kosuth or anything else.  

   Well I wonder too.  Fact remains Schnabel beats Kosuth at auction 10:1! 
Guess it tells you something about our collecting class.  Smear on a bagel is
still considered the better investment.  All I wanted to point out is that the
Eighties painting fad was largely an effect of the bubble economy and not the
result of any perceived or alleged failure of Conceptual Art. 
   Still curious to learn more about the "new condition."  I am happy to hear
the patient is still alive.


Msg#: 6006 *FINE ART*
03-14-94 13:31:35
From: MICHAEL BENNETT
  To: SYSOP (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 6002 (TWIST AND SHOUT)
I think it is fatal to consider any artwork as totally an aesthetic object--
something to dilate over with the right emotion.  It is a given that art as an
object in the world performs many functions--as an object of aesthetic delight,
as an investment, and oftentimes as interior decoration.  No doubt a Schnabel
is far superior to a Kossuth as interior decoration, certaintly far superior as
an investment, though lately his work and that of some of his peers seems to be
in financial free fall, and as as an aesthetic object, well, the jury is still
out.


Msg#: 6007 *FINE ART*
03-14-94 13:34:47
From: MORGAN GARWOOD
  To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 5925 (TWIST AND SHOUT)
no, actually I am ashamed of myself for losing my temper with you, however I am
also glad that I lost my temper with you. I am ashamed because I feel that I
disrespected your humanity, which is a terrible mistake on my part, and I am
glad bacause there was a glimmer of hope that the inauthenticity of your
identity construct, as well as the inauthenticity of mine, may have been
exposed to sufficient fissile energy to allow some core ontic energy to escape.
  Far, far too much stuff between people is weak and trivial, no doubt because
we inhabit a society that has a fear of real emotion. We cling, consequently to
the banal, or make every effort to reduce what goes on aound us to the banal,
the *consumable*. The passions fly in the face of all this, as well they
should; they may be our only antidote to the equivocal and mealymouthed, our
lives of quiet desperation and all that.
  So, yes, I am proud of myself, as you have hoped.
  But, you must understand that I value your humanity too much to be taken in
by your pose of *injury*, your *offence*, your *indignation*. You are
infinitely larger than that.


Msg#: 6008 *FINE ART*
03-14-94 13:40:01
From: MORGAN GARWOOD
  To: JORDAN CRANDALL (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 5998 (TWIST AND SHOUT)
yes, I am going to publish it, in a limited run, and you are welcome to a copy
or two when they come out. I just don't consider it *art*. It is nothing more
than a diary, a record of my passing. I may need it to refer to to have an
inkling of who I was at a certain point in time, a mirror into my psychological
narrative. But, *Art* ?, no, it cannot be believed in, place it in its
sarcophagus where it will rest for the ages.


Msg#: 6009 *FINE ART*
03-14-94 13:52:20
From: MORGAN GARWOOD
  To: SYSOP (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 5999 (TWIST AND SHOUT)
HAHAHA! very good! 


Msg#: 6075 *FINE ART*
03-14-94 16:41:56
From: BARRY SCHWABSKY
  To: SYSOP (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 6002 (TWIST AND SHOUT)
My point was that the bubble economy, by its very nature, could have accepted
almost anything as material for massive speculation.  (Remember that Renoir
outsells Cezanne at auction too.)  Why neo-expressionist painting--and then
neo-geo/commodity art--happened to come along at the right time to benefit (if
that's the right word), though, probably does have a lot to do with a dialectic
internal to art.  Keeping in mind was Jordan has contributed to this
discussion, I could argue that neo-expressionism was in its own way an attempt
to crack open the hermetic space of the gallery.


Msg#: 6076 *FINE ART*
03-14-94 16:57:10
From: BARRY SCHWABSKY
  To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 6007 (TWIST AND SHOUT)
Actually, my pose was supposed to be one of superiority, not injury.  Guess I'd
better work on my pose projection.  But I'm still puzzling over how that
exchange took the form it eventually did, because your resentment and
frustration seemed to be venting themselves on something that is irrelevant to
their cause, whatever that is, which is why I accused you of self-indulgence.
If you don't mind my saying so, though, your present expression of humility and
humanism seems as coercive in its way as the macho wailing I detected before,
because in both cases there is an attempt to whip up an emotional atmosphere
that commands pre-reflective consent.


Msg#: 6077 *FINE ART*
03-14-94 17:02:48
From: BARRY SCHWABSKY
  To: MICHAEL BENNETT (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 6006 (TWIST AND SHOUT)

 > art as an object in the world performs many functions--as 
 > an object of aesthetic delight, as an investment, and oftentimes as 
 > interior decoration. 

Of the three functions you mention, do you consider one more important?  Or is
there some other function that you would maintain is more fundamental to the
artwork? 




Msg#: 6078 *FINE ART*
03-14-94 17:31:24
From: JORDAN CRANDALL
  To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 6008 (TWIST AND SHOUT)
Yes I would certainly like a copy, thank you! But why do you do a print run if
it's just a diary? And who is going to by this record of your passing, this
mirror into your psychological states, if it's just that? Since on more than
one occasion you've called the stuff you make "art," does this mean that you
will simply employ the term as needed? 


Msg#: 6092 *FINE ART*
03-14-94 22:45:11
From: CHRIS KRAMER
  To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 6076 (TWIST AND SHOUT)
 > you seem to be seduced by the drive of your dialectical twist
 > - which I somehow
 > think I can follow: but I find this point also very 
 > interesting and want you to
 > say more on this threshold


 > I like the idea of art that can work subliminally.
......................... ... ...-....


Msg#: 6094 *FINE ART*
03-14-94 22:54:23
From: WOLFGANG STAEHLE
  To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 6075 (TWIST AND SHOUT)


 > discussion, I could argue that neo-expressionism was in its own way 
 > an attempt to crack open the hermetic space of the gallery.

How so if you don't mind me asking?



Msg#: 6098 *FINE ART*
03-14-94 23:11:13
From: BARRY SCHWABSKY
  To: WOLFGANG STAEHLE (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 6094 (TWIST AND SHOUT)
Part of the self-knowledge that was lacking in conceptual art and much of what
came in its wake was its refusal to recognize itself as a form of taste (which
is why the problem of the appearance of such art always tends to fall back on
the stereotypes of graphic design).  Neo-expressionist brought back the
question of taste with a vengeance by embodying the worst taste--and therefore
a whole world of experiences and images that had been ruled out on behalf of a
taste that refused to acknowledge itself as such.  One can say of this art what
Adorno said of the Sturm und Drang: that it represents "a revolt of the subject
and its deluded hope of breathing into the work of art the meaningfulness it
had forfeited with the irrevocable loss of ontology; and of doing so through
the pure display of its original force."  As jejeune as it was,
neo-expressionism was a protest on behalf of something that won't disappear
just because it's called regressive.  It reminds us that everything regressive
still needs to be encompassed by art as well through its self-questioning. 


Msg#: 6100 *FINE ART*
03-14-94 23:26:12
From: MORGAN GARWOOD
  To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 6076 (TWIST AND SHOUT)
oh, its very self consciously coercive! I have no problem with that. Personally
(as if anybody gives a shit), mach wailing is a very healthy thing to to and I
highly reccommend it. As for my *humanism*, it is altogether bogus, you may
rest assured.
   But, this is TT, where anything not prohibited is mandatory, to steal
someone elses line (I'll just pretend that I made it up)...but heck, its a
coercive, manipulative culture, so, like, party dude. By the way, this is Art.
  Speaking of Art...a morsel from February 21 New Republic (article by Axel
Heard)..."Last fall the state of Illinois filed suit against convicted serial
killer John Wayne Gacy, alleging that the torturer and murderer of thirty-three
young men and boys is "reasonably able to pay" for his jail costs because he's
been making money through sales of his primitive renderings of clowns and
Disney characters (mainly from mail order sales managed by outside companies,
but he's also had agents and gallery showings)"
  Now that, Barry ol' buddy, is my idea of culture. Not that it automatically
has to be yours, you know. Cripes, where is Blackhawk when we need him? this is
just his kind of tarpit!


Msg#: 6101 *FINE ART*
03-14-94 23:40:22
From: MORGAN GARWOOD
  To: JORDAN CRANDALL (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 6078 (TWIST AND SHOUT)
well, "macho wailing" aside (give the man his due, its a neat summary!), I am
leaning toward a semantic diet, on my way through a transition phase where some
usages are more accentuated or intensified and others fall away. I am making
just enough to cover the bases of people I know, some for keepers, a few for
family, teachers, etc. What could I call it? Places My Head Was At, perhaps.
It's just that it describes certain, but not all, of essentialities that are
both extremely difficult to package in language, and maybe at the base or
origin of some more abstract positions I have taken, or experimented with.
Already, looking back at some doings, I can see trains of thought followed up
on, fleshed out, others sitting dormant, maybe others set aside as not
pertinent or useful or not an enticing life path. Maybe that sounds like the
"A" word, but I gag on it mentally. Being-doings maybe I can live with, and
that's clumsy ans smells like philosophers, so, go figure...


Msg#: 6208 *FINE ART*
03-15-94 22:15:16
From: DAVID PLATZKER
  To: SYSOP (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 6002 (TWIST AND SHOUT)
I like Kosuth's work quite a bit, but your claim about auction prices I think
are just wrong.  Julian, has, contrary to popular fiction is doing just fine.
(Don't get me wrong I AM NOT a fan of his work, however, I do keep notes on
these things a-la baseball scores.)  Sure Joseph may out last Julian in the
textbooks, but you will NEVER see a Kosuth in a hotel, where I saw one very
terrible portfolio in an hotel in Atlanta this past weekend.  In the long run I
think that people will still endure Julian and collect him at prices greater
thank Kosuth, in part that Julian's with Pace and who knows what will happen to
Joseph after Castelli dies.


Msg#:12923 *FINE ART*
04-25-94 12:59:00
From: JOHN DUNN
  To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd)
Subj: RE: THE TWIST:RECEPTION AND FUNCTIO

Painters prefer an hermetic exhibition to instill a dialectic whereas
concepties prefer the all over and unrestricted relational reception.
Painting----reflective 
concept ----functional

I don't really want to level all differences but I will anyway 'cause I'm
too stupid to do otherwise.  A painter must be careful(but usually isn't) 
about how many, adjacency, size, where, light, and space.  A concepty
(but usually isn't)-general impression, coherence,
details, and aesthetics.  They could definetly learn from each other but
are not at all interested in this, more in how to get distance and 
anhilate. Both want to install their stuff so everyone can see it and make 
sure there's enough alcohol at the reception.  

Pardon me but what the hell is progressive historisicm(a la Kosuth)?
Just so noone thinks I'm too stupid I'll guess.  I read a text from
Kosuth last Nov. titled Hungarians(a knee slapper but I'm not exactly
sure what he was getting at).  So pro-history has something to do with 
pomo.  The pro-historian has read and seen everything and 
can now be cynical while still believeing in the evolution of art or,
at least,  some of it's classical forms.  The form is eternal the 
interpretation is evolutionary.  So it is something like putting on
the brakes.  Maybe it was just a typo and should have read prodressive
historicism.  Then I'd say it's the historians that like to wear dresses.
Monty Python could have some influence in this school.  Here I can
imagine taste plays a big role especially at the openings, conferences, etc.
It'd be a social gauntlet run.  A scandal to be absolutely out with a
cute pink candy-striped half dress with a gigantic red waist bow.
For the ladies the arguments center around whether or not it is correct
to even wear one, and if yes does a gunny sack count(with or without
product labels?)?


--- Blue Wave/RA v2.12 [NR]
 * Origin: ARTS / THE THING DUESSELDORF (42:1002/2.0)



Msg#:12996 *FINE ART*
04-25-94 13:34:03
From: BARRY SCHWABSKY
  To: JOHN DUNN
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 12923 (RE: THE TWIST:RECEPTION AND FUNCTIO)

 > sure what he was getting at).  So pro-history has something to do 
 > with 
 > pomo.  

No! All wrong!  Progressivist (not "progressive") historicism, a label I think
I made up, has to do with thinking that history has a telos, that there is such
a thing as progress, and above all that you are it (the telos, progress). I
keep hearing that pomo was supposed to get past that, and while I remain
dubious of this, I think if you're going to use the term you have to stick to
the standard usage unless you can say why not.


Msg#:13049 *FINE ART*
04-25-94 21:40:24
From: JEFFREY SCHULZ
  To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 12996 (RE: THE TWIST:RECEPTION AND FU)
  
I'm confused a bit by the way you use "telos" and "progress" somewhat
interchangeably. Telos has much to do with theology, whereas progress has much
to do with industrialism. There was a significant strain of pomo that tried to
get past both of these, but I think we had to wait until hypertextual
environments to really find a model for breaking down teleological paradigms. 
As for getting past industrialism . . .
  


Msg#:13083 *FINE ART*
04-26-94 09:06:41
From: BARRY SCHWABSKY
  To: JEFFREY SCHULZ (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 13049 (RE: THE TWIST:RECEPTION AND FU)

 > I'm confused a bit by the way you use "telos" and "progress" 
 > somewhat interchangeably. Telos has much to do with theology, 
 > whereas progress has much to do with industrialism. There was a 

Ideologies of art have been anaclitic to those of religion and the, more
recently, commerce, so it's not surprising that in art's realm elements of both
become a sort of stew.


Msg#:13644 *FINE ART*
04-29-94 23:25:21
From: MORGAN GARWOOD
  To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 13083 (RE: THE TWIST:RECEPTION AND FU)
anaclitic,,,cool word,,,has Freud's fingerprints all over it,,,anaclitic
ideologies gettin' all sexed up on each other, you say? Everybody in bed with
each other for all us simple folks,,,aw' shukkins...


Msg#:13655 *FINE ART*
05-01-94 03:14:00
From: JOHN DUNN
  To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd)
Subj: RE: THE TWIST: SELF AWARENESS

Isn't the anthropoligizing of an art work(something like a day in the life 
of an artwork) difficult to get around when speaking of an "account for
itself"?  I slip almost instantly into the role of the interpreting
observer and see DeMaria's Earth Room, for example, as an obstacle, or 
a storage room, a space ship, an underground space, an elevator, an ancient
cult alter, or whatever comes to mind(your interpretation is probably the
nearest to the artist's though).  The truth of it is that the thing
in front of one lays or stands there like the opaque obelisque in 2001.
It is- the other(I am so ashamed. I forgot the name of our Lacan expert 
but she could surely write something about this.  Like you wrote:  the
multi-dimensional discussion of self awareness).  So I can either 
academically eat it or be awed.  Wait, there is also the third possibility 
of using it somehow, like this E-mail network.  So it is not the- imputing 
a sentience, or spiritual presence, in an artwork; rather in the observer.  
Anything a human encounters takes on his/her consciousness-of-the-world.
no such thing as good, bad, or mediocre art; it is the observer that counts.

I am, however, not sure which self awareness you are refering to.

--- Blue Wave/RA v2.12 [NR]
nnnnnnnnn: ARTS / THE THING DUESSELDORF (42:1002/2.0)



Msg#:13683 *FINE ART*
04-30-94 13:27:27
From: MORGAN GARWOOD
  To: JOHN DUNN
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 13655 (RE: THE TWIST: SELF AWARENESS)
that makes two of us. When I went to the Earth Room I saw a room full of dirt.
When I first read about it when it opened, it struck me in a bizarre amazing
way, but I was much younger then and everything was newer to me. One of the
sublime pleasures of getting older and fatter is the discernment of patterns
and relationships in between. The thing in itself is still there, but its
shifts in importance, becomes perceived a part of a larger system. This idea of
"duration", incredibly long spans of time becomes compelling. Arid remnant
places like Rajahstan in western India, ferociously colorful, psychedelic,
worshipping rats as deities, balls of opiated hashish smouldering on the edge
of history, a disinterest in causality, gritty red dirt everywhere. The triumph
of meaning over reason. 


Msg#:13656 *FINE ART*
05-01-94 03:15:00
From: JOHN DUNN
  To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd)
Subj: RE: THE TWIST:PROGRESSING

So pomo is also post historical and thus also progress(as defined by 
the modernists-Le Corbusier for example)sceptical.  I have the Charles
Jenks book "The Post Modern" but I only looked at the pictures and 
diagramms- it's not good for much else is it?  

Further your term Progressivist historicism seems to be a bit different
from the Modernists in that the individual is "it" not the society or
universe.  Most people do believe in cause and effect leading to the 
new.  The twist is that now progress seems to be able to be directed.
I guess that implies a certain amount of atheism.  We have the choice 
which direction we want to go and there is no turning back.  It is
possible to look back but with every step or, rather, every new time
the view of history changes and in turn the shape of the future and
future possibilities.   Kinda Scary.  Maybe things can't be changed
anymore to avoid a catastrophy: the chain reaction can't be neutralized.
Ground control to major Tom your circuits dead there's something wrong
can you here am i sitting in my tin can, far above the world.  Planet
Earth is blue but(and???) there's nothing I can do.  But it is also 
incredible and something sci-fi freaks can't get enough of.

--- Blue Wave/RA v2.12 [NR]
 * Origin: ARTS / THE THING DUESSELDORF (42:1002/2.0)



Msg#:14818 *FINE ART*
05-09-94 02:40:00
From: JOHN DUNN
  To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd)
Subj: RE: THE TWIST:CONCEPTUALISM AS ENVIR
 
 MG> could it be that conceptualism, the idea that the *idea* is what
 MG> counts, and everything else is carrier or medium, is as much with us
 Duchamp was the mother of this movement.  Like you said it is then 
 the genie out of the bottle or I prefer Parkinson's Law.  The gaseous
 metaphor is also not that bad though because as Mr. Crandall pointed out
 conceptualism has run it's course which can in the metaphor be seen
 as diffusion.  Ideas are subject to the laws of entropy.
 I think conceptualism was a move away from the aesthetics of representation 
 towards one of being.  Maybe also Warhol's blatant mirror-of-society 
 graphics is the best example of the relativity in conceptualism.  Picking 
 up what one finds, cutting it out, and exhibiting it.  
 The classical dualism of observer and object has changed.  There is
 now less distance between the two or a hell of a lot more.

 MG> the concept of conceptualism may be less pivotal to our common human
 MG> project than the concept of *natural law*, it is as of now with us as
The concept of natural law is hard to pivot around because it is the
term for "everything".  Psychosocial dynamics don't stand outside of this
debatte.  

--- Blue Wave/RA v2.12 [NR]
 * Origin: ARTS / THE THING DUESSELDORF (42:1002/2.0)



Msg#:14895 *FINE ART*
05-10-94 10:55:07
From: MORGAN GARWOOD
  To: JOHN DUNN
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 14818 (RE: THE TWIST:CONCEPTUALISM AS ENVIR)
conceptualism, like all kinds of prefabricated -isms, are "handles"
manufactured by the consecration industry (i.e. "art writing"). There are two
planes of the mysterious at work (at least as far as the uninformed public is
concerned, who do not spend much time looking behind the stage sets to see what
is holding them up). First is the mystery of making, a feeling that an
alchemical wonder has taken place when an abstract idea is downshifted into the
plan of the concrete, and second, the mystery of consecration. Consecration, or
blessing, is the activation of the mysterious spiritual forces that are blended
with the artists materials. These mysterious ingredients are very rare and hard
to explain, but they impart a subtle energy to the masterpiece that illuminates
and ennobles the viewer. With the exchange of the Spirit Of The World (i.e.
money) the owner is even more ennobled, but only as far as the priest caste is
willing to bless the work (sacred vessel or uterus of the wonderous and
mysterious). Conceptualism, it obviously follows, is purity of blessing made
spirit through its descent into the "fixated universe of concrete/abitrary
meaning" and rebirth on the third day and ascent into heaven to sit at the
right hand of God. iF YOU LAUGH AT THIS YOU ARE DAMNED AND WILL GO DIRECTLY TO
HELL. Be a darling and peel me a grape,will you?


Msg#:15022 *FINE ART*
05-12-94 17:36:03
From: ED GRANT
  To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 14895 (RE: THE TWIST:CONCEPTUALISM AS ENVIR)
Bullshit.  There is very little mystery in the act of making.  Your idea of
"downshifting" is horribly archaic, wheter it being the mind/body dualism or
the earth/sky (heaven) split.  However, it brings me much sadness to agree with
you, in that most of the participants in the holy church of culture believe
your scenario.  Case in point, ArtHistorians.  They have a tendancy to
romanticize the act of making to an almaost laughable height.  And, yes,
exchange of "The Spirit of the World" does appear to be the only way that the
participants can justify their existance.  Well, I guess I'll be seeing you in
Hell, but you can peel your own damn grapes.


Msg#:15024 *FINE ART*
05-12-94 19:31:13
From: MORGAN GARWOOD
  To: ED GRANT (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 15022 (RE: THE TWIST:CONCEPTUALISM AS ENVIR)
you don't exist on high enough of a spiritual plane to perceive the auric
energy that masterpieces emanate. This is because your chakras are plugged up
with unbeautifulness and negativity and protons and things like that. If you
would just reject male/phallocentric linear left brane logic and get in touch
with your inner woman you would know immediately what I am talking about. But
NO! all you theory albatrossed pontificators of smegma have scales over your
eyes to GET, i mean in the REAL sense of GET, in the Werner Erhard sense of
GET, (!!!!!) the primal earth mother actuality of the blessed compost you might
have half a chance of locating your magnetic north pole and finding$w
lovelyness and kittens and Sun Ra and eggplants and the golden sunny rays of
the hereafter, but NO (!!!!) you persist in your chinked up konstipated
insistence on Bush-ite republican pseudo truths and half realities, and buddy,
i hate to tell you what a shitload of trouble you are in if you cant get this
sorted out right this very minute and that goes for all of you other creeps who
are reading this. i, for one, happen to knopw what each and every one of you
are doing at this minute, and whare you live, and hat you eat, so don't mess
with the inner plutonium or all kinds of hell is going to break loose.  your
friend, Saddam


Msg#:15040 *FINE ART*
05-13-94 00:13:39
From: ED GRANT
  To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 15024 (RE: THE TWIST:CONCEPTUALISM AS ENVIR)
Kittens and blessed compost.  Thank you for showing that there is good in this
horrid world.  I truly wish I could tell you that there was a snake loose in
the Garden, but, it just ain so.  We are just to lame.  And, as I told that
Dunn guy in Germany, I have seen BLISS on earth.  Her name is Malo, and she's a
small furry dog (I hate cats, they suck).  I may be damned, but I have DOG.
Now its time to make my studio a crucible for the MANifistation of genius.


Msg#:15072 *FINE ART*
05-13-94 11:21:44
From: MORGAN GARWOOD
  To: ED GRANT (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 15040 (RE: THE TWIST:CONCEPTUALISM AS ENVIR)
i wish i could answer you right now but i am currently hanging by my penis as
punishment for ever having read dead white european males. it is important to
hang by ones penis. then i am making shamanic/subtle energy vessels to extract
spiritual essence to mix with my worldly materials to transform the vibratory
planes of my unenlightened fellow geniuses. (ignore them, i am the only true
genius, they are flunkies but i lie to them and tell them they are geniuses so
they will say nice things about me in return. if they only knew what i really
thought)


Msg#:15167 *FINE ART*
05-15-94 02:11:37
From: ED GRANT
  To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 15072 (RE: THE TWIST:CONCEPTUALISM AS ENVIR)
But, if ones life is constructed with lies, are they then not the truth?


Msg#:15182 *FINE ART*
05-15-94 13:46:51
From: MORGAN GARWOOD
  To: ED GRANT (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 15167 (RE: THE TWIST:CONCEPTUALISM AS ENVIR)
no, not. Of course, this depends on how solid you like your Truth. Are we going
for the spin job, burnish you up for public consumption? That'll run you in the
vacinity of $20,000 per placement in on of the second tier magazines; to do it
"right" will cost you some heavier coin. Wouldn't you love to be a fly on the
wall in the public relations firms that handle the personality accounts (say,
as opposed to corporate or product placement accounts). What plastic surgery
does for the career retarding odd facial feature, or overly conspicuous
evidence of coke'n'booze therapy in the Admiral's Lounge, an identity nip and
tuck job can do for the public face. You might call this one Truth Lite, the
outlines are there, but the modelling has a more sculpted quality to it.
   Or perhaps the grottily candid, a la Jimmy Swaggart, the bare all public
confessional, "yes, boo hoo, o God, I wiggled my dick at the secretary, o
forgive me I truly repent, O by the way, now that I am redeemed, keep them
donations coming so I can continue doing the Lord's work".
   However, you could select the Big Lie from the McReality Menu, and join the
ranks of the Flat Earth Society and unrepentant Maoists and zillions of others
for whom truth is what you want it to be.
   Simple, unadorned Truth is around, it just doesn't draw much attention to
itself, but when it does, in the public arena, at least, it hits us as an
anomolous surprise. One CEO of an Brit jewelery/knick knack chain (on the verge
of bankrupcy) was asked during a stockholders meeting how he could sell a
particular wine decanter set for so little. He blurted out; "because its
absolute crap". A videotape of this was shown around the world on various news
programs because it was a sterling example of a "discrepant performance", and a
rarity at that, the simple act of telling it like it is. 


Msg#:15482 *FINE ART*
05-17-94 21:47:34
From: ED GRANT
  To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 15182 (RE: THE TWIST:CONCEPTUALISM AS ENVIR)
Yet, people will still stand by all the crap.  Hunger and pain, the closest
things to non-mediated truth around.  Is it me and my head or me and my
intestine?


Msg#:15586 *FINE ART*
05-18-94 19:27:25
From: MORGAN GARWOOD
  To: ED GRANT (Rcvd)
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 15482 (RE: THE TWIST:CONCEPTUALISM AS ENVIR)
life as pain avoidance


Msg#:15631 *FINE ART*
05-18-94 22:46:27
From: ED GRANT
  To: MORGAN GARWOOD
Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 15586 (RE: THE TWIST:CONCEPTUALISM AS ENVIR)
Damn straight, suffering sucks.  I want stuff, and I want it now.  If I don't
get it, I'll whine my way into a market share.  So, you had better just whatch
it, buddy.