Comments on: SCHADENFREUDE a wunderkammer of voyeurism curated by Daniel Newman

By: Nita Davidson

Nita Davidson — Sun, 02 Dec 2012 00:50:02 +0000

Is your Jan Galliardt one and same artist who did a lithograph of Edouard Manet & another famous artist portrait?

By: Richard Haden

Richard Haden — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 18:31:41 +0000

In conclusion: There is a difference between the verbose text that hides the lack of content and the verbose that makes one struggle to open the content’s intent and meaning…the traditional one-way art text as instruction manual leaves the reader in the usual passive, bleating state of consumption…a better strategy is to activate or engage the reader; prying them off of the usual easy chair of zombie brainwashing consumption.

…vivaciously rascallian Mr Bataille

By: Quagmire Bataille

Quagmire Bataille — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 16:39:30 +0000

the whole “fancy language or not” argument is about as interesting as the “what is and is not art” one to me. I say just drop it. People who are full of shit will appear as such, fancy words or not. Likewise an interesting piece of text will use language appropriate to the complexity of its subject.

By: domingo

domingo — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 15:38:34 +0000

but was it good?

By: david Rohn

david Rohn — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 14:35:58 +0000

Seems like busy , complex and contradictory art, responded to by similarly complex language.
Of course short simple sentences are , like brown rice and beans, the simple staples we all count on… but sometimes it s just not so simple-and thank god for that-or we d be bored out of our minds.
I think the writer liked the show, and esp some of the work, that comes thru loud and clear.
If some of the writing isn t clear and simple it is still responding to the art…and it seems as if we ve all been invited to rise to the (art) occaision).
After all it s not the cheesey’artspeak’ that finally seems to have gone out of fashiion in most quarters-that was never meant to enjoin or clarify, just to mystify and probably to elevate the writer.
Artlurker has shown a commitment to the values of art as an evolutionary and spiritual force, and hasn t identified itself served as a vehicle of the elitist, money based elements that have (perhaps unintentionally but nonetheless…) tried to hijack and subvert it s fundamental purpose-and if we re in the kinds of transitions we appear to be in now,we re going to need vehicles like Artlurker to find our way.
So give the guy a break, try to muddle thru, take a stab at what he s getting at, just as he s taking a stab at defining/ elucidating the art.
An artist or writer who takes us somewhere we haven t been is inviting us to indulge our creativity too.
After that if you still think it doesn t work you may be right (at least for you)

By: swampthing

swampthing — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 13:58:04 +0000

Got one big word for dear sara, dictionary.
a word bible, I quietly refer to it all the time.
To find the meaning of schandenfreude, look no further than the Marx Brothers.
But irony has outlived it’s usefulness, it’s now more disconcerting than ever to see someone derive pleasure from someone else’s pain. Inside jokes are not so funny either.

Newman is a fine mind-smith.
Lurker is a fine word-smith.

By: Richard Haden

Richard Haden — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 06:49:36 +0000

Oh dear Sara

If one only gets a single thing from reading the radical theories of politics, social and cultural theory, art theory and so on–it is that these subjects have us look critically at the status quo– how stagnant and pungent life’s decomposition really is…radical solutions to these problems issue forth from experimentation and creative situations. As is, we must always revisit / renew the way our social and cultural climate effects our lives and the world. If we are to be alive and not suffering in lack as Mausoleum dwellers, we must not maintain the posture of amorphous solid situated as best we can on the edge of the bleating flock.

writing about the world whether it be art or describing the benefits of bloodletting leeches is worth the effort if you are not going to maintain the status quo of me the author and you the consuming reader…that is so, usually why, we all end up being the fundamentalist ridiculous “Religulous” prop…Sara my advice to you would be to change your expectations. For from my gaze I detect the same status quo consuming agent who does not understand the difference between being inside language and out side of it–when you are inside language you understand the outside quite well…not in reverse. So instead of consuming a text as you would a martini try understanding how a text can engage a reader instead of satisfying him or her.

Words, paragraphs, text are as alive as physical works of art. And as I noticed the author of the above text made reference to Adorno, you would find him or a jaunt through the “Situationist” archives as good a place as any to see how enriching difficult word salad can be. For this review or others above are not press release as a review should be critically alive in spirit (full of honesty, spit and vile and flem if necessary) Sara, excuse me for assuming so much about you but it seems that it was you who seems to find intellectualism a difficult state to be conscious in…and it is not fair of you to blame Miami for you brains meager mindedness. Are these simple enough sentences for you?

Work at it for Miami needs not the wit of bacillum Cause that face and image turns me irascibly Mercurial.

AsBestUs

Richard

By: Richard Haden

Richard Haden — Thu, 23 Oct 2008 05:16:09 +0000

Sara,

So should art conform to you simple Miami mind as well as words. I don’t have the time, at the moment, but you can bet that I’ll be back in this box later with a comment for Sara “Palin” and her bourgeoisie or should I say plebeian preferences for the easy, consumable, word compost for the flautist, run way wanton WASP—write it my way please, easy, i don’t like looking up words…my tiara hurts when I think to much.

AsBestUs

Richard Haden

By: Sara

Sara — Wed, 22 Oct 2008 19:37:49 +0000

“Out of these concupiscible and irascible powers arose mixed affections and passions of anger, which is a desire of revenge…”
I don’t mean to be an anti-intellectual or anything but my little Miami brain sometimes has a hard time with your wordiness. Clear, simple sentences please. Otherwise, keep up the great coverage!