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.
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
