Msg#:11104 *TALKSHOW* 04-18-94 01:34:07 From: WOLFGANG STAEHLE To: DIKE BLAIR (Rcvd) Subj: NO COVER! NO MINIMUM! Dike: Thanks so much for the invitation to attend the opening for the GRAY GOO LOUNGE last Tursday. Needless to say I had a GRReaT time and...how did I end up at Max Fish? Tell us for how long have you been in the "Adult Entertainment" Business and will this partnership with Mr. Newburg evolve into a permanent establishment at 43 Greene Street? You also had a gig recently at the University of Las Vegas at which a faculty member accused you of - basically - being a sexist pig. How was teaching and working in Vegas? Did you get the idea there? Msg#:11106 *TALKSHOW* 04-18-94 02:55:14 From: DIKE BLAIR To: WOLFGANG STAEHLE (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 11104 (NO COVER! NO MINIMUM!) Well, Wolfgang, I'm glad you were entertained. You probably ended up at Max Fish's because you are a lush. I've always tried to entertain both myself and adults since I was a tike. Mr. Newburg is under serious pressure from un-named people and organizations to keep GGL as a permanent fixture but his dedication to artists and future programs prohibit him from such a commitment. Vegas was (and is) fabulous. The minor tempest within a very small tea pot there was reconciled. The invitation card provokes a response that is usually quieted when one experiences GGL. Finally, I began this work a couple years ago when I wanted to paint nudes. The combination of that, Las Vegas, a show in Paris about sexuality, and my desire to expand some personal perameters led to GGL. Msg#:11119 *TALKSHOW* 04-18-94 11:55:03 From: WOLFGANG STAEHLE To: DIKE BLAIR (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 11106 (NO COVER! NO MINIMUM!) Why Gray Goo? What does it mean? Msg#:11478 *TALKSHOW* 04-19-94 01:13:41 From: DIKE BLAIR To: WOLFGANG STAEHLE (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 11119 (NO COVER! NO MINIMUM!) In his book "Engines of Creation," Eric Drexler coined the term nanotechnology to mean the inexpensive and complete control over the structure of matter. He predicts the development of self-replicating assemblers, which are virus- sized, computer-controlled, man-made robots which would be capable of doing incredible things. The ability of these machines to reproduce themselves would be critical to the success of this technology. This brings up what has been called the Gray Goo problem. If virus-sized machines are able to reproduce themselves endlessly, there had better be a way of programming them to stop or, like the mops and pails in Disney's "The Sorcerer's Apprentice," they could convert all matter in the world into copies of themselves. Gray Goo might also be suggestive of semen (an organic self-replicator), the adolescent qualities of "Weird Science" and cyberspace, or a masturbatory middle-aged mind. Msg#:11480 *TALKSHOW* 04-19-94 01:44:25 From: WOLFGANG STAEHLE To: DIKE BLAIR (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 11478 (NO COVER! NO MINIMUM!) I really like the watercolors of the nudes in these rather lascivious poses. Is it true that you pick up your models in the Baby Doll Lounge? By the way, did you already hear from the PC Gendarmerie? I am sure Elizabeth's live strip performance didn't go unnoticed. No threats from the Guerilla Girls? Msg#:11948 *TALKSHOW* 04-20-94 16:57:41 From: DIKE BLAIR To: WOLFGANG STAEHLE (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 11480 (NO COVER! NO MINIMUM!) I'm glad you appreciate the paintings. Although "lascivious" is not the word I would apply to the poses perhaps it applies to the spirit of the works. Wolfgang, you're not only a lush but also a lech. After years of painting still-lives and landscapes, the challenge of painting nudes became compelling. I was looking for several things in deciding my subject--the figure had to be as attractive to me as the other subjects of my painting and I needed to experience that subject directly (my paintings are painted from my photos). I was also looking for a contemporary twist on a traditional genre. Given those objectives, what better place to look for a model than a strip club? I realize this could be bothersome to some people, and we all know the arguments both pro and con about this kind of objectification. I'll gladly give you my views but for now I'll address myself to your questions. I've received very little negative criticism (face-to-face or hearsay) about either the paintings or GGL. Some people have surprised me (and themselves) by their acceptance of my imagery. I have noticed, in all three places where GGL has shown, that people experience it as interesting and relatively harmless. My biggest fear in using this imagery was that it would be perceived as anti-feminist. For me, the work is not about politics but about pleasure, and seemingly the audience has perceived this. Again, I have a lot to say about this, but only if you or others are interested. Msg#:12999 *TALKSHOW* 04-25-94 13:51:47 From: BARRY SCHWABSKY To: DIKE BLAIR (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 11948 (NO COVER! NO MINIMUM!) > anti-feminist. For me, the work is not about politics but about > pleasure, and seemingly the audience has perceived this. Again, I I was a little surprised to see politics and pleasure so cleanly dichotomized. Is that something you really want to stick to? Msg#:13065 *TALKSHOW* 04-25-94 23:12:00 From: DIKE BLAIR To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 12999 (NO COVER! NO MINIMUM!) To some, everything is political. I don't really subscribe to that broad a definition; so, yes I will stick to that statement given that parameter. I suppose the ax I am grinding is the sensuality we are mostly presented with in the galleries must have a political/puritanical excuse. I'm being a bit simple but you get the gist. Msg#:13068 *TALKSHOW* 04-26-94 01:27:22 From: WOLFGANG STAEHLE To: DIKE BLAIR (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 13065 (NO COVER! NO MINIMUM!) You once wrote: > People who would > be quite comfortable with accepting an artist presenting a trash > can, for example, as art are resistant to a stripper and a drink. I > think these are equally legitimate forms of behavior and information > for artistic interpretation and manipulation. Perhaps the problem > lies in pleasure and beauty. For the most part, so-called new art > is supposed to violate bourgeois values, but I would suggest that > this is a conservative and tired strategy. We are so used to "new" > art being "difficult" that we automatically dismiss that which > employs prettiness and pleasure--because these things aren't > difficult doesn't mean they are less interesting. It seems more > compelling to me to make intelligent work around values which are > ignored by the intelligentsia. I agree that the "epatez le bourgeoisie" strategy has run its course, but one shouldn't underestimate the masochistic desire of a fucked up, tired clientele. These strategies still work, just look at the trashcan (now somewhat deodorized) show at Paula Cooper. And ultimately, aren't you employing the same strategies? You say it's all about pleasure and beauty, but you cannot seriously deny the titillating and slightly sensational aspect of presenting an, uh, "exotic dancer" in the gallery. Isn't that supposed to violate exactly these "bourgeois expectations," the bourgeoisie likes to have violated? I wouldn't worry too much about the values of the intelligentsia! The climate has changed, they are ready! I was at a "serious" symposium about masculinity a few days ago, at which a Jewish gay male n-t-lectual (can't resist adopting Morgan's inflection) was extolling the pleasures of swallowing the cum of nun-Jews to an enchanted audience of more n-t-lectuals. Times change. Msg#:13085 *TALKSHOW* 04-26-94 09:12:21 From: BARRY SCHWABSKY To: DIKE BLAIR (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 13065 (NO COVER! NO MINIMUM!) > that parameter. I suppose the ax I am grinding is the sensuality we > are mostly presented with in the galleries must have a > political/puritanical excuse. I'm being a bit simple but you get Yes, that moralistic alibi is incredibly hypocritical. But I have this utopian hope for a politics that would be pleasurable, and sometimes art manages to touch on that. Msg#:13240 *TALKSHOW* 04-26-94 23:12:00 From: DIKE BLAIR To: WOLFGANG STAEHLE (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 13068 (NO COVER! NO MINIMUM!) What you say seems true. Yes, I am guilty of being attracted to the wrong move. Keep in mind that passage you quoted was a plea to serve alcohol in a space where the powers that were, forbade it. I will also confess that as firmly as I defend what I'm doing, it's not always so clear to me. I have learned a lot in presenting GGL. Msg#:13243 *TALKSHOW* 04-26-94 23:16:05 From: DIKE BLAIR To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 13085 (NO COVER! NO MINIMUM!) Perhaps you're right. My particular taste runs towards things being good art first and possibly put forth a political agenda secondly. I'd be curious about the art that you think touches pleasurable politics? Msg#:13254 *TALKSHOW* 04-26-94 23:47:01 From: BARRY SCHWABSKY To: DIKE BLAIR (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 13243 (NO COVER! NO MINIMUM!) > I'd be curious about the art that you think touches pleasurable > politics? [B The Clash! also R.W. Fassbinder...but really everything that I'm passionate about. Maybe I can't say what the politics of a Mary Heilmann painting are but I know they're there and that they are pleasurable...(hope that doesn't sound too ignorant). Msg#:13281 *TALKSHOW* 04-27-94 06:37:21 From: BARRY SCHWABSKY To: DIKE BLAIR (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 13243 (NO COVER! NO MINIMUM!) I should possibly add that when I first began hearing the phrase "politically correct," which would be about the time I went to grad school in 1979, in the circles I was in it seemed to refer specifically to a kind of pleasure--as in, "Yeah, not only ccan you dance to the Gang of Four but they're also politically correct!" That's still the sense in which I try to use the phrase. Msg#:13408 *TALKSHOW* 04-28-94 00:22:26 From: DIKE BLAIR To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 13254 (NO COVER! NO MINIMUM!) Mary Heilmann is great. I'd be hard put to locate the politics although I'm sure some could be applied. My point was made in terms of the plastic arts and the argument goes that other media art much more effective a tool for political statement. Your other two examples bear this out. On a lighter note, I just finished reading "Interface" by Stephen Bury. It is a near future political thriller that read like a blend of Ludlum, Hiassen, and Stephanson. Great satire, fun cyber, and definitely political. Msg#:13410 *TALKSHOW* 04-28-94 00:27:16 From: DIKE BLAIR To: BARRY SCHWABSKY (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 13281 (NO COVER! NO MINIMUM!) I understand that. It probably has gotten more difficult to find that kind of marriage with age? But, again, I was referring to the plastic arts which do seem to have some built in restrictions. Msg#:14870 *TALKSHOW* 05-09-94 23:16:27 From: MICHAEL BENNETT To: DIKE BLAIR (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 11948 (NO COVER! NO MINIMUM!) Wolfgang and I were shoulder to shoulder enjoying the pleasure of viewing the body of Elizabeth. To suggest that this carnal pleasure had an art world twist is surely to distort the reality of the experience. The experience was not "about pleasure" but was pleasurable--and that is where you might get into trouble with those who may view it the same way. There are limits to which experience can ripen into art. Msg#:15039 *TALKSHOW* 05-13-94 00:11:34 From: DIKE BLAIR To: MICHAEL BENNETT (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 14870 (NO COVER! NO MINIMUM!) You certainly have a point, but bear in mind that from the creators point of view, the immediacy ripened long before your experience of it. I am not "only" presenting something pleasurable--though it is that--I am also creating a relationship between subject, object, and audience. Thus "about" still functions--I think. I also think that complex viewing habits are not restricted to any "world." Msg#:15479 *TALKSHOW* 05-17-94 20:18:28 From: MICHAEL BENNETT To: DIKE BLAIR (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 15039 (NO COVER! NO MINIMUM!) Heard that a real live donkey is now occupying the space in the gallery where Elizabeth performed. How quickly things change. Anyhow, I thought that your watercolors were superb, especially the table top still lifes. Catch the Demuth on the cover of the Gallery Guide of May. He was surely a great artist. Msg#:15645 *TALKSHOW* 05-19-94 00:14:09 From: DIKE BLAIR To: MICHAEL BENNETT (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 15479 (NO COVER! NO MINIMUM!) (Michael-I don't know if this is going out...NCNM is technically over) Unfortunately, I didn't get to see Maurizio Catalan's donkey and light show. The gallery is in flux and having landlord problems, so the donkey had to go--I empathize. Msg#:15754 *TALKSHOW* 05-19-94 18:21:28 From: MICHAEL BENNETT To: DIKE BLAIR Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 15645 (NO COVER! NO MINIMUM!) Dike--yes, you did get through. but this is my last on the Talkshow. Hope to read you on the Fine Arts bb (currently in therapy) where your perceptions would be welcome. Msg#:12004 *TALKSHOW* 04-21-94 02:52:26 From: RAINER GANAHL To: DIKE BLAIR (Rcvd) Subj: NO COVER, NO MINIMUM wolfgang and you talked about watercolours or paintings - but in the back, in the GGlounch - and sorry I missed the gogo-show - the little "pixels" that make up the icon of a woman, (or one could even say a sex worker) looks to me like little photographs. are they now photographs or drawings/paintings? have you been inspired for this by a too closed eye contact with the video screen at night? Msg#:12151 *TALKSHOW* 04-22-94 00:13:53 From: DIKE BLAIR To: RAINER GANAHL (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 12004 (NO COVER, NO MINIMUM) These are computer scans of my photos printed on typing paper and assembled into the larger Gray Goo images. A more detailed explanation is posted in the Lounge. There is a performance at 5pm on Saturdays if you would like to see it--be prompt. Msg#:12367 *TALKSHOW* 04-24-94 00:48:30 From: RAINER GANAHL To: DIKE BLAIR (Rcvd) Subj: NO COVER, NO MINIMUM why is ther no cover, no minimum? does this means art has to sell sex for free? otherwise, nobody would come? Msg#:12904 *TALKSHOW* 04-24-94 23:08:39 From: DIKE BLAIR To: RAINER GANAHL (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 12367 (NO COVER, NO MINIMUM) No cover, no minimum is a fairly standard advertising come-on for places that want your money. Galleries, for the most part, are an amazing bargain for the spectator. I used the phrase to mean exactly what it says. I am confident, however, that art lovers (such as yourself) will wish to make a small purchase--if only the video tape ($20). Msg#:12918 *TALKSHOW* 04-25-94 01:09:42 From: RAINER GANAHL To: DIKE BLAIR (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 12904 (NO COVER, NO MINIMUM) as a non smoker I wouldn't mind owing some ashtray watercolours but we better negotiate this in e-mail (is your dealer on line as well?) Msg#:13063 *TALKSHOW* 04-25-94 23:03:25 From: DIKE BLAIR To: RAINER GANAHL (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 12918 (NO COVER, NO MINIMUM) You don't owe me anything. However, I am flattered by your interest. My dealer (Mr. Proprietor Staehle's former one) is probably banned or unwilling to pay the dues to this lovely forum. None-the-less, we are bound to an agreement that dissallows any e-mail deals. Msg#:13222 *TALKSHOW* 04-26-94 19:58:04 From: DANIEL NEWBURG To: RAINER GANAHL (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 12918 (NO COVER, NO MINIMUM) Rainer, you may purchase a gouache directly from the gallery any time tuesday through saturday, 10 to 6. I have to warn you though, there is limited availability. Msg#:13269 *TALKSHOW* 04-27-94 01:39:29 From: RAINER GANAHL To: DIKE BLAIR (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 13063 (NO COVER, NO MINIMUM) I understand Msg#:13409 *TALKSHOW* 04-28-94 00:23:21 From: DIKE BLAIR To: RAINER GANAHL (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 13269 (NO COVER, NO MINIMUM) That makes one of us. Msg#:13411 *TALKSHOW* 04-28-94 00:39:50 From: DIKE BLAIR To: DANIEL NEWBURG (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 13222 (NO COVER, NO MINIMUM) Glad I didn't make any indecent proposals. Is the supply really dwindling? Msg#:13621 *TALKSHOW* 04-29-94 14:46:39 From: DANIEL NEWBURG To: DIKE BLAIR (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 13411 (NO COVER, NO MINIMUM) Yes, but maybe we can discuss the details more privately. In the meantime please get back to painting! Msg#:13622 *TALKSHOW* 04-29-94 15:12:39 From: DANIEL NEWBURG To: DANIEL NEWBURG (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 13621 (NO COVER, NO MINIMUM) By the way guys, I have no objection to making e-mail deals. Maybe someday I won't have to hang out in the gallery on Saturday afte afternoons. Msg#:13690 *TALKSHOW* 04-30-94 16:12:23 From: DIKE BLAIR To: DANIEL NEWBURG (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 13621 (NO COVER, NO MINIMUM) You're begging for it. Msg#:13691 *TALKSHOW* 04-30-94 16:22:36 From: DIKE BLAIR To: DANIEL NEWBURG (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 13622 (NO COVER, NO MINIMUM) Saturday afternoons have been sort of fun. Elizabeth performs at 5 oclock sharp and I always bring a case of beer. Those interested are invited. Msg#:13801 *TALKSHOW* 05-01-94 12:57:36 From: WOLFGANG STAEHLE To: DIKE BLAIR (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 13691 (NO COVER, NO MINIMUM) Here are some videostills from the opening performance. Videography: Danny Newburg. *Enclosed File: GrayGoo.gif
Msg#:14044 *TALKSHOW* 05-04-94 10:56:11 From: RAINER GANAHL To: DANIEL NEWBURG (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 13622 (NO COVER, NO MINIMUM) I like the way the logic of this network produces ironies: your msg. showes up : "from daniel newburg" "to daniel newburg" and then a comment about e-mail dealing: now my question: is this tiny loop that even spirals itself into the private e-underworld a metaphor for the way the so-called art-WORLD, (a tiny back room world) functions (lets pretend we are naive)? Msg#:14125 *TALKSHOW* 05-04-94 15:42:25 From: DANIEL NEWBURG To: DIKE BLAIR (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 13691 (NO COVER, NO MINIMUM) You're right, I wrote that before Elizabeth showed up on Saturday. Msg#:14166 *TALKSHOW* 05-05-94 01:56:55 From: DIKE BLAIR To: DANIEL NEWBURG (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 14125 (NO COVER, NO MINIMUM) And again this Saturday--5/7/94--Elizabeth will perform her last and only dance in GGL at 5pm. All are invited, welcome, and beverages will be served! Msg#:12368 *TALKSHOW* 04-24-94 01:00:33 From: RAINER GANAHL To: DIKE BLAIR (Rcvd) Subj: NO COVER, NO MINIMUM your show at dany's can be seen as a two part show: in the main room you have the gouache (spl?) drawings (watercolours, if I am right) that are very "phenomenological", if I may say so, and in the back you have the GOGO set up, also a kind of "phenomenlological"approach (or of what sort is it?. what exactly is the relationship if there is any? (can your watercolours be seen as "zoom in's" into what sourrounds a visitor at a set up like you encounter them in the second room?) Msg#:12908 *TALKSHOW* 04-24-94 23:55:50 From: DIKE BLAIR To: RAINER GANAHL (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 12368 (NO COVER, NO MINIMUM) I think all these works address my constant theme of the sadness that results from the flawed interface between two related urges--transcendence and escapism. The paintings are small, personal, and build into my more external expressions of (as one viewer called it) Dikeworld. Msg#:12919 *TALKSHOW* 04-25-94 01:20:08 From: RAINER GANAHL To: DIKE BLAIR (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 12908 (NO COVER, NO MINIMUM) so, would you like to see your tragic flaw hypostatized in Dikeworld and sold for a pennyless illusionism usually refered to with some kind of an a? Msg#:13064 *TALKSHOW* 04-25-94 23:05:21 From: DIKE BLAIR To: RAINER GANAHL (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 12919 (NO COVER, NO MINIMUM) Could you please repeat the question? Msg#:13181 *TALKSHOW* 04-26-94 16:11:53 From: GISELA EHRENFRIED To: DIKE BLAIR (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 12908 (NO COVER, NO MINIMUM) Dikeworld! Sounds so American! Could you tell me more about it, Dike? How can I subscribe? The habitat you offer is about entertainment culture, which IS American culture. How was living in Paris, which you did for a year? European culture is still so high culture or nothing... Recently, Marshall Blonsky entertained me with the concept of virtual agents that will eventually scan for us the vast electronic territory and preselect ... a la mode de Madonna, in or maybe in Dikestyle, or whatever franchised taste buds one subscribes to. Msg#:13248 *TALKSHOW* 04-26-94 23:28:01 From: DIKE BLAIR To: GISELA EHRENFRIED (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 13181 (NO COVER, NO MINIMUM) You are participating, I suppose, already because of your interest. The stuff I make is quite American. I tried to address some European locations and themes in earlier works, but found I'd made pretty trite stuff. In Paris, I found some sympathetic artists, and contrary to popular opinion, some very good ones. It seems that cultures (American included) are quite reticent to abandon THE artistist who worked during the peak of their political influence. In France it is Duchamp and we have Warhol. There were some lessons for me to be learned from contemporary Duchampiam logic. I don't know Blonsky, sounds quite interesting. I did an interview (posted on TT) with robotics scientist Hans Moravec. Because he sees all human labor eventually being eliminated, he thinks in our future we will entertain each other. Msg#:14123 *TALKSHOW* 05-04-94 15:24:52 From: GISELA EHRENFRIED To: DIKE BLAIR (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 13248 (NO COVER, NO MINIMUM) < I did an interview < (posted on TT) with robotics scientist Hans Moravec. Because he sees < all human labor eventually being eliminated, he thinks in our future < we will entertain each other. Are you our New Age Boccaccio? He made some nice suggestions on how to entertain in a time when nothing else was left to do... a story telling contest (of a certain kind). By the way, I noticed that you didn't interview any artists. You rather seem to have an interest in the "stories" of scientists and futurologists. I'm amazed myself, how daring scientists can be in projecting the future. Do you think, that these days they are the better story tellers? Msg#:14165 *TALKSHOW* 05-05-94 01:54:12 From: DIKE BLAIR To: GISELA EHRENFRIED (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 14123 (NO COVER, NO MINIMUM) G--Again, I don't have much idea about your ? because I know next to nothing about Boccaccio other than I like the works and sometimes eat vegetables. I do prefer interviewing people outside of my discipline--especially people whose offerings are independent of image. I'm sure within the sciences there is as much politicing as other fields, but they present ideas that, more or less, work independently of image. Artists are incredibly annoying to interview. I think it is very possible that scientists are mapping our age in a much more articulate fashion than artists. Msg#:14392 *TALKSHOW* 05-06-94 12:01:37 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: DIKE BLAIR (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 14165 (NO COVER, NO MINIMUM) scientists are working in such a way that their ideas are subjected to intense scrutiny by their peers, and every attempt is made to locate flaws in method before results are accepted (this is the ideal, there is plenty of bad science done, but if you come up with an unusual result, other labs will try and replicate your experiment and see if the conclusions are robust...so there is much redundant experimentation and attempt to establish reproducibility). This is part of the structure of science, partly outlined by Sir Karl Popper, who insisted on the requirement of "disprovability" before something could be accepted as science. This means that only ideas, discoveries, or beliefs that are capable of being disproved properly belong in science. As for ideas that fall outside the realm of disproof, Niels Bohr, if I remember right, might or might not be so, but they ran the risk of "not even being fallacious". Fallibilism, the meta-belief that ones beliefs might be subject to revision or even total refutation, demands a rigorous and atheletic (meaning possesed of flexibility, stamina, and often brute strength) mentality that isn't encouraged (a Darwinian would say "selected against") in the low bogs and swamps of ArtThink, best suited to ameoboid life forms. Remember, artbiz qua artbiz is a marketing structure. It requires a certain temperament, essentially a salesman with some smoke and mirrors thrown in. The sheer badness of most of it necessitates a generous dollop of rationalization and denial, as well as other tenebrionidoid mechanisms of getting a fairly tacky reality to conform to an image of nobility and grandeur. Sick, no? Msg#:14555 *TALKSHOW* 05-07-94 00:03:36 From: DIKE BLAIR To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 14392 (NO COVER, NO MINIMUM) Yes. I appreciate your distinction between hard and soft (or pseudo) science. I confess I have a weakness for the latter and still refer to it as science. Someone like Moravec, who is the reason this topic came up, mingles the two in such a way that I begin to question Popper's test. I also think that science employs its own set of smoke and mirrors--it's inescapable. Artbiz--yeah. I suppose images of "nobility and grandeur" do some good for the hive, but the illusion must be firmly in place. For those like me (and seemingly like you) it would be great to adjust that beam of light that plays on the smoke and mirrors--no? Msg#:14694 *TALKSHOW* 05-07-94 13:30:50 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: DIKE BLAIR (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 14555 (NO COVER, NO MINIMUM) those smoke and mirror constructs are remarkably sturdy, as they are the institutionalization of the neurotic mechanism of the players in the field. The psyche defends itself at all costs, and can be breathtakingly devious at doing so. Often the worst price of "making it" in an intrinsically disturbed game, most often those when elements of celebrity and acclaim come into play, is the rigidification and frozenness of the psychological mask one comes to wear. If you spend time with people who have "celebrity syndrome" you get to appreciate how much of the psychic resource gets directed out to maintain the fabulous surface, and what sits behind it often pathetically stunted and one dimensional. This isn't a problem of art, per se, but of any situation where a spotlight is thrown on the personality or carefully manufactured pseudo-idiosyncrasy. I studied with a bio prof who was the son of a Nobel Laureate (who nonetheless gave me a tremendous respect for the thoroughness and intensity of good science and its terrible power to slice through mountains of crap to get to the nut of the situation) and he was weirdsville deluxe...completely hung up on getting the Nobel and being a big star like dad...the man was fuuucked up, but his science was righteous. Even speculation and proto-science is important, liberation, often fertile if chaotic. Science grapples with it and hopes to find constructive order within all those little spermatozoa of potentiality squirming all over the place. There have been ordering systems that were totally off the wall...I saw some medieval chinese taxonomy once; holy smoke, their categories were hilarious and completely useless; i.e. Things that could be put in a bottle, Things bigger than a horse, Things belonging to the emperor, etc. You get the idea, orderless structure. But this point about defense mechanisms is an inverse proportion thing. The more you unconsciously know that you are promoting or defending the fraudulent, or at least dubious, the more you have to lose yourself in precious little rituals (Freud:the narcissism of petty difference), charming innovations of costumery, speak (or pay others to do it for you) in dense, convoluted, quasi-scholarly phraseology, strenuously avoid people free of received wisdom, and if anybody gives you the slightest hard time, make a haughty display of pivoting away from such an unworthy source. It is an admixture of believing oneself to be a member of a higher plane, and at the same time tormented with (often supressed, or for the "pro" neurotic fully repressed) self loathing (for the genuine triviality of ones undertaking). This is not the kind of insight you are likely to hear trumpeted in the art press, for the simple reason that it is too damn true and too painful to see in all its glory. So, the narrow, blinkered, brittle petit monde remain focused inward, never capable of doing much about the world, mostly talking to itself about itself and getting all lathered up about the certified stink du jour, but having no real major opinions for the most part. Blech. Msg#:14744 *TALKSHOW* 05-08-94 00:10:13 From: DIKE BLAIR To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 14694 (NO COVER, NO MINIMUM) Whew!!! Great rant!!! I feel guilty of a multitude of sins that probably all reduce to vanity. One minute, I want to re-read your text...I want to say something smart, but you've covered the field. I have a feeling that celebrity must function in some positive way for the culture that creates it--even as antidote to some loathesome social neurotic tumor. I think there are people here and there that don't mind talking and exchanging although we all use different coinage. Perhaps you can tell me why this gets more rather than less difficult with age? Msg#:14754 *TALKSHOW* 05-08-94 03:32:21 From: RAINER GANAHL To: GISELA EHRENFRIED (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 14123 (NO COVER, NO MINIMUM) man, after these long scientific excursions, I need some sex from the GGLounch. (I mean the real one, not the poststructural, discursivly modelled one, that teaches you that desire only comes with castration, afteryou have chosen your sexual identity in your mirror stage which you probably never have left so that you always shift and have to be permanently on the site of production of it....) (I know one breaks rules asking this kind of questions: but have you had some of it over there?) Msg#:14898 *TALKSHOW* 05-10-94 11:20:49 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: DIKE BLAIR (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 14744 (NO COVER, NO MINIMUM) I'd betcha that "slebrity" grew out of a biologically (and evolutionary) determined impulse for a herd (or mob) to focus on one of its members. This focus then (I am supposing) took on two forms in an early religious structure..the golden one (and frequently sacrificial gift to the gods for harvests, freedom from pestilence and Schnabel retrospectives) and the scapegoat, driven out into the desert bearing the collective sins of the tribe. We remain extremely primitive at a psychodynamic level, because we deny the presence of these protean impulses. Our golden ones have mutated into celebrities (with sleb press, teevee, u.s.v.) and our evil ones embodied in "trew krime" fascinations, literature, serial killer ogling, and other effluvia of a civilization corroding from within. It is the refusal to see the crude simpicity of our cultural paganism, blended with redemptive hi-tek fascinations, producing such inert hybrids as Trekkie conventions and wierd porn (fertility goddess worship gone unhinged), this nutty blend of optomism and paranoia, coupled with ritualistic drug gobbling (derived from communion rites which are , after all, transformed canniblism) (thus canninbal urges become turned into wafer and wine taking, but through the catholic doctrine of Transubstantiation, once again become the blood and flesh of Christ when they enter the body of the truly faithful, but at what exact point the Popes have been silent, and re-primitivised into line snorting and doobie huffing obliteration rituals) But, he what, we get the governments, laws, and culture we deserve. Can you believe that Clinton is going to have his dick photographed for evidence in a civil suit In Re his Arkansas escapades. I think this lawsuit mania is part of collective culturalk madness of trying to know the will of god through the mediation of the father figure (judge) or maybe some replay of Greek tragedy needed to make life sensible again. I highly doubt it though, as we have gone beyond the critical idiocy point where response to regressive urges is possible. Soon we will be renaming the stars in the sky after stars on urth. Look up there son, that bright one, that's Bogart, in the constellation Casablanca, and those are the 39 steps. I must go eat peyote now and have sex with a tree. Stay in touch (through your quartz crystal, of course). Msg#:14915 *TALKSHOW* 05-10-94 16:14:53 From: DAVID PLATZKER To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 14898 (NO COVER, NO MINIMUM) Sorry to take you off the topic a bit, but first, why do we care if Clinton has to drop his pants? Sure it's like the mother of all invasion of personal property, but really, when it comes down to it about 1/2 of us have a dick, so what makes any single one any more personal than another? It's not like a hair cut, that is somewhat personal and sculptable. Rather it's something that has been traditionally hidden to most and exposed to few. Like the Goo images here at TT, sure they look, well, arousing (intelectually, he says), but you've seen breasts before so what's so special about seeing a few more? The dick being the same. Good for somethings, but in the end only a means to an end. (A measure for pleasure.) Secondly, if it wasn't for the prying minds that spawned People Magazine in the 70s that later built the level of titilation (there's that word) upward and upward to the point that we WANT more information and more _personal_ information we _need_ things like Hard Copy, or the like. We want that camera in the bedroom, we want dicks on the front page of the News, we want to see the mighty fall. What do you remember most the good or the bad? The good = health care / the bad = Clinton's libedo. Such is life in the 90s, which was dubed the decade of the New Sincerity by so many, which in the end is just a cynical view of all that is around us. Msg#:14961 *TALKSHOW* 05-11-94 13:10:11 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: DAVID PLATZKER (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 14915 (NO COVER, NO MINIMUM) The answer, simple and clear, is that we are a civilization in decline. We have become lesser beings, lower quality humans, over the years. Now many will contest this, but if you can hear through what they are saying to what they are not saying, you will see that they know it well themselves but find it unbearable to let the thought fully form in their minds. But the realities are there for you with eyes to look at. We are a deeply misguided people with shallow, and destructive values and interests. Remember Stevie Wonder's admonition in Talking Book, "I don't have to do nothing to you at all, you cause your own country to fall". He was right. This isn't anything new. Civilizations have natural lifespans, and as often as not implode from their accumulated bad habits as they do from external agression. What prevents this fate from befalling us? Some magical prop? The Eye on the back of the dollar bill? I think the danger begins when a civilization starts driving drunk and not watching the road...an illusion of invincability sets in, that nothing can sink it no matter what you do, that your personal behavior and manner has no effect on the whole, that it is each one persuing his or her grand destiny. This is the beginning of the end, this cheapening and crudening of daily interaction, this gradual erosion of mutual respect. Conversation reduces to yapping in trivialities and commonplaces, and nobody cares to take a controversial position because it is too much trouble, and, well, you might be less liked. I would also put an almost pathological need to be liked, or to be popular, at the expense of other dimensions of selfhood, as one of the central instigators of soul rot. To be a constant creature of the opinions of others is to give up any possibility of having convictions, the fixed points that seperate adults from perpetual children. And isn't the dream of being a perpetual child one of the great fantasies of these times? Tidal waves of "recovery" progams, and "survivorship" and inner child crapola to fill shelves in your bookstore, practically a cult of child and child fascination. In the midst of all this, I sense an inability to see to authentic humanity in children and reduce them to pouty dolls that redeem the ruined lives of their parents. Then look at the explosive growth of "gaming" (read:fleecing) industries, whole cities devoted to idiotic mooks, and rationalized in the same way the "beverage" (read:ethanol neurotoxin) industry is. I.E. we are just giving these simple hardworking folks a moment of well deserved happiness and a chance to...bla...bla...bla. Reality check: these industries are creating a kind of man by colluding with his most self destructive instincts. They are producing a stupider, baser, coarser, more easily suggestible, more thoroughly imprisioned kind of mind slave than Orwell could have drempt of. When you look at the unmitigated shit that the "health" (read:illness) industry has sunk to, or the even worse than unmitigated shit that the legal (read:extortion) industry has sunk to, and the oceans of hypocracy that they float in, why, I ask you, shouldn't the Presidential Dick be on the cover of People. The should put the Presidential Asshole on the rear cover with a scratch'n'sniff ink so we call all get a better sense of the man. Now, this must seem like angry and disgusted outpouring. Do keep in mind that we as Americans have something of a Willy Loman complex. We are expected to always be smiling and upbeat, because when you smile, the world smiles with you. But, there is a time for disgust. There is a time when revulsion is appropriate, and necessary. There is a time to look at the dishonest and defective, and call it for what it is. As long as we won't, or can't, we are in the position of the pour soul with the failing immune system, slowly wasted away by every two bit infection in town. Msg#:15044 *TALKSHOW* 05-13-94 00:28:51 From: DIKE BLAIR To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 14898 (NO COVER, NO MINIMUM) Coming to you via quartz crystal and copper wire. Thanks for the celebrity thinking. Today I'm reading what I consider to be a superior SF novel, "Steel Beach," by John Varley. I covers some of the turf you've just pulverized in an equally entertaining and intelligent fashion. Perhaps you'd like it. As TT is not structured as a democratic (I'm not suggesting it should be) forum, and you have great ideas (with a heavy dose of bile), I think you should have a daily column. I'd read it. Msg#:15073 *TALKSHOW* 05-13-94 11:40:36 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: DIKE BLAIR (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 15044 (NO COVER, NO MINIMUM) "Bile Awhile" (?????)(!!!!!) the big bile unload has wads and wads of pent up digestive juices because I spent a lot of time around people that thought the only way to get ahead was to become very unreal in their behavior. The clinical evidence is (for all you acedemo-technoids, see Cognitive Dissonance) that if you modify your behaviors, eventually your beliefs will change to match your behavior (well comprehended by mind control regimes of every stripe, from dingbat cults to police states). You start out thinking you will play along, and pretty soon you are meshed into the game. Now, any game that demands high levels of emotional dishonesty, or falsification, is going to take an incredible psychic toll on its players (the will either become neurotically symptomatic, and very "delicate", or compensate for their feelings of powerlessness by adopting a "macho" pose, or, on the other hand, they may somatise, or exhibit body problems to a high degree). Me, I've found that letting it all hang out is the healthiest thing I can do, both for body and mind. Naturalness, freedom from affectation, is the most beautiful thing about people. Not to say though, that every lout should have a licence to "do his beautiful thing" if it involves being environmentally destructive. You see these dudes in action if you like to spend time in the wilderness and you see the crap people leave all over the place without a second thought. Its a touch more complex than giving rein to every damn primary urge, there is an element of consciousness and feeling for the world around, but there is a truth to what one really feels and who one really is. Unreality is worrisome, it has the germ of madness in it, or at least the hidden shame that one is bought and sold like any other commodity. Art deserves better than that, and so does the rest of living. Msg#:15480 *TALKSHOW* 05-17-94 20:37:27 From: MICHAEL BENNETT To: MORGAN GARWOOD (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 15073 (NO COVER, NO MINIMUM) Freedom from "affectation" in all its forms is a privilege of the rich and powerful in the art world. Those without such wealth and power are extremely vulnerable; and it is not surprising that there are those who will assume any "affectation" in order to get ahead. A healthy scepticism--vis a vis the affectatious--as to what one sees, hears, or reads is the order of the day. Msg#:15584 *TALKSHOW* 05-18-94 19:22:13 From: MORGAN GARWOOD To: MICHAEL BENNETT (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 15480 (NO COVER, NO MINIMUM) from empirical experience, these "powerful" ones you speak of have struck me as among the most strangely affected of all. This is conceivably the result of having not much in the way of feedback loops from the outer realms straightening them out as to how freakish they are. The mask of the jester and the mask of the master are quite different, but if either one finds the need to play the game, one mask or the other is obligatory. Msg#:14398 *TALKSHOW* 05-06-94 15:52:20 From: SYSOP To: ALL Subj: GOO More Goo pictures available now in the Files area. Look under Uploads or images.open_showcase. Soon to be released: Goo video in .AVI format. Msg#:14821 *TALKSHOW* 05-09-94 09:51:23 From: DAVID PLATZKER To: SYSOP (Rcvd) Subj: REPLY TO MSG# 14398 (GOO) What about Quicktime format too? Msg#:14838 *TALKSHOW* 05-09-94 15:39:03 From: WOLFGANG STAEHLE To: *.* Subj: CURTAIN TIME Dike, thanks for the conversation! I hope you stick around and we'll hear from you again in this or one of the other forums. Thanks also to Danny, Rainer, Barry, Gisela, and Morgan for their participation. Look out for the GGL video clip in the file area (available when Intel replaces our broken video capture board). Stay tuned for our next show.