June 14, 2004

• new york times sign-in required crisis - don't we have a generic account?
• Sorry! I didn't sign in so I spaced that one! I'll hook ya up--I think this will work
• OR...let's just do this login: apesok pass: moreapes
• Well, at least she didn't let pounds of ham to waste. And yes, it brings a point - that currently, art is at the service of commerce. Not 'art' as in patronaged onjects in a hallowed room under spotlights, but all the energy, creativity and imagination flowing from young artists into advertising and publicity.
• onjects = objects It's late, should be sleeping. Ooow.
• So. Clearly not prostitution. Art though? I mean for five thousand or so, you could go do the same thing yourself with the streetwalker of your choice. Only if you got caught there'd be fines involved. A side thought: In the article it talks about the artwork being no more morally challenging than temptation island. I dunno. To me it seems like the difference between the artwork and the show is fairly distinct. The people on temptation island are undoubtedly encouraged to have sex, but they don't go into the show knowing that they'll get paid to have sex.
• I'm thinking it's not prostitution in the same way an adult film isn't prostitution. Comment looked a little harsher than I'd intended.
• I'm guessing this hour doesn't include demonstrating her knowledge of scripture, flower arrangement, the 64 (? sorry, no copy handy) arts of which boinking is only one, etc. ...
• Wolof.
• Well, I got the right number of arts from memory, didn't I? Cheers, bees.
• Fine arts, Wolof. Here's tae us, there's none like us. And may your glass always have a wee waft o' clucurrans buds.
• To lapse into Dutch for a mo, dank u!
• Monkeyfilter: the 64 arts... of which boinking is only one.
• Y'know, I'm sick of "artists" pretending that their genitals are somehow transgressive. Does this art have anything to say that hasn't been said before? No. Is the only thing that makes this newsworthy the sum paid by the "collector"? Yes. This should be seen as creative bankruptcy, not some new edging of the envelope. This may be art, but it is bad art indeed.
• She occupies herself with shampooing his body and pressing his head. Shampoo is way older than i tought, then.
• *snkk!* You said head!
• So. Clearly not prostitution. I'm thinking it's not prostitution in the same way an adult film isn't prostitution. I disagree. I think both this and adult film *is* prostitution, if we go for the standard definition of accepting money for sexual favors--which is what's going on in both cases. I don't think that changes if you're calling it art or p0rn. Now, I don't mind that it's prostitution. I'm one of those wacky people who thinks that prostitution should be legal and regulated. I'm also one of those wacky people who thinks that almost anything is open to the definition of art. And I think the fact that what she did is prostitution is part of the point. She's commenting on how she views the process of making money as an artist. That said, I don't think her metaphorical and literal connection between artist and prostitute as very ground-breaking. In fact, it seems rather obvious and that was a long way to go to make a point (or $20,000 for that matter).
• Sigh. I really need to just avoid all these art threads. It's got to be at least once or twice a week right? That someone's going to point out art that people don't consider art because it's not familiar to them. This post is a rarity, because it's a Times article, but is usually a link to some Yahoo two-paragraph summary with a 100x100 thumbnail. Which after browsing for half a minute, people are ready to judge--not it's value, or how it makes them feel, but whether or not it is even "art" at all. It usually takes historians decades before they can accurately say where a piece belongs, but I guess they just lack common sensibilities. Does this art have anything to say that hasn't been said before? No. Is the only thing that makes this newsworthy the sum paid by the "collector"? Yes. So someone's done this before then? But the fee was less...? Or are you referring to the painting Le Déjeuner sur l'herbe that Manet painted in 1863? Then yes, I guess it all has been said before. Caused lots of public hostility then too.
• In related developments, rap music isn't music, and James Joyce writes filthy obscene trash.
• Not my fault, he's the one brought up Jamie. Then, pious Eneas, conformant to thc fulminant firman which enjoins on the tremylose terrian that, when the call comes, he shall produce nichthemerically from his unheavenly body a no uncertain quantity of obscene matter not protected by copriright in the United Stars of Ourania or bedeed and bedood and bedang and bedung to him, with this double dye, brought to blood heat, gallic acid on iron ore, through the bowels of his misery, flashly, faithly, nastily, appropriately, this Esuan Menschavik and the first till last alshemist wrote over every square inch of the only foolscap available, his own body, till by its corrosive sublimation one continuous present tense integument slowly unfolded all marryvoising moodmoulded cyclewheeling history (thereby, he said, reflecting from his own individual person life unlivable, transaccidentated through the slow fires of consciousness into a dividual chaos, perilous, potent, common to allflesh, human only, mortal) but with each word that would not pass away the squidself which he had squirtscreened from the crystalline world waned chagreenold and doriangrayer in its dudhud. [reference]
• Anybody got a .torrent? I would have to watch it in order to tell whether or not it's art.
• Absolute filth! I think I'll have to watch it an eighth time just to make sure how unsuitable it is for public consumption.
• Harumph! oh, damn, what's she doing there? I say, Harumph!