RE: Crappy/Krappy Rant

From: Marie Wohadlo ^lt;[email protected]>
Date: 01/03/05-01:25:23 PM Z
Message-id: <5.2.1.1.2.20050103130910.01e31790@press.uchicago.edu>

WARNING!

Rant ahead!

To me, saying something is "about the process" is quite masturbatory. And
uninteresting except to other's who might want to try it, read about it
(subscribe to it, such as we) or purchase the darn
thing/piece/painting/photo/sculpture/print/whatever. The
true/original/self-proclaimed "avant garde" artists deemed it so. It's
still all about the gallery superstar and whatever he/she does in the
privacy of la studio?! Hmpf.

Regarding unintentional photo-aberrations: I think it's quite amusing that
we are still obsessed with losing and having control of our output.
Processes used immediately after Daguerreotypes were preferred by some for
the same reasons that Krappy Kamera followers admit today: the
quote-unquote artistic results such as blurriness. I really just began the
thread about cellular images because I really can't decide IF they ARE
crappy or not. Like someone said, the early phones will be cherished in
hindsight for their crudeness, so I guess my question was a procedural one
--- can cellular photos be entered, aye?

Who's the 60's dead musician/performer who began the idea of planned chaos
in art? That is not an exact paraphrasing --- he coined a two-word
descriptor, I believe --- one that many of us follow, often (and
appropriately so) unintentionally! :) <grin>
Received on Mon Jan 3 13:25:51 2005

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : 02/01/05-09:28:07 AM Z CST