Nmherman on Sat, 9 Feb 2002 22:36:02 +0100 (CET)

[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

[Nettime-bold] Does today's art market affect art content? [Was<thingist> drunk in america

In a message dated 2/9/2002 12:25:08 PM Central Standard Time, roberto@netzlos.com writes:

... rose sÚlavy ...

Heiko Recktenwald schrieb:

> > Delamerdelamerdelamerique.
> Duchamps mechant.

Glad you thingserver censoriate oafs can get back to serious, expert art.  Bchezne.
But after all the collegiality of Thingist is faked, obligatory professional resume-banter in real life right, or am I wrong?  How free are you really over there?  I question their form of freedom, isp.alt notwithstanding.

Back to serious critical net journalism.  Up for debate:  is Tom Sherman drunk on money?  Make up your own mind as we respindle the facts and backgrounds. 

Now how, says the objective reader, can this be?  How can Max Herman's aspersions of money driving art, in the Syracuse University system in particular, be true?  Max is a known manic-hubristic, exactly and precisely the "fried chicken art" that Tom Sherman hates.

I believe there is a grant-awarding and fundraising machinery in the USA that is way out of whack, has lost its integrity in a morass of unrest, pressure, mingling of interests and in short of massive debt-shredding.  If someone wants to give you an art- grant, instead of getting to the root of the matter, I advise you choose the sharp stick instead--at least based on what I've seen of how grants work here in USA.

Lose one eye, and it will heal.  Sure, you will be disfigured and crippled for life but what is life anyway, just a fleeting transience.  But what if you buy into a false economy?

If you buy into a false or debt-shredding corporation, you will lose out in the long run.  Bailouts are a form of corporate welfare also known as damage-control.  You make one enormous failure instead of daily obvious ones--take the savings and loan crisis of the 80's--shred the proof and go about business.  Executive debt relief.  Long-term, this accounting method cannot be recommended to any economy that wishes to survive.  Those who buy in do not realize how small the bailout circle at the top of the pyramid is.  Those who buy in out of a fatuous, disingenuous neutrality--like Sherman and Peppermint--are complicit beneficiaries of misfeasance if not strictly unethical.  It's no sin to call them out and call for testimony.  Basic accounting practice.  In terms of satire I mean, as an artistic professional job description, which it most certainly is.  You think Mencken was never sued for slander?  Or Nader?

Money is anything you believe to have instrinsic transferable value.  You accumulate it.  Think about what it means to you, this money factor.  Then send your answers to Genius 2000 for archiving and promotion, all proceeds to charity.

Why is Genius 2000 taboo?  What are the rationales?  They are all scribblings not worth the paper they're printed on. 

Also another more biting remark while I have the time and grace. 

I assert, as an intellectual and not as a child of god (for we are all children of god), that Tom Sherman's active support of Cary Peppermint's career has amounted to a transfer of funds and I find it to be a creepy and indicting document of how American art money is distributed.  It is in the funding system itself, and in its rationale, that we can find our answers and it is there we must look.  Yes it's unpleasant but have we in all honesty the luxury of eternal pleasure?  (http://www.geocities.com/genius-2000/paradiselink.html; Max Herman, html, 1998)

I simply want to call that to everyone's attention.  As well as the superb ideas of Genius 2000, like "God is the ineffable union of history and individual cognition."  I mean, it's a triflin koan ain't she?  Sure she is.

Why won't I stop discussing these types of transactions, you might ask?  Because I think they have been virtually shredded to hide questionable cash pipelines.  The actual documents of the transaction I mean.  All for appearances' sake, disreputable, swinish.  Is my candor malicious and dysfunctional?  In totum I think indubitably not.  Such is my apologia; but recantation, never.  By gogswounds, who will watch over the watchmen?

I'm trying to satirize corruption in art media, how can I not tabloidize the hapless Syracuse department in which I see and saw so much creepy money-shuffling?  So it's a Grimms fairy tale, grin and bear it.  I bet it's what their students are thinking anyway; watch for any populist support for "Art School Confidential," with Drew Barrymore!

Here's to world peace,

Max Herman
The Genius 2000 Network
Cognitive Audits and Mortgages Since 2000

--- Begin Message ---
... rose sÚlavy ...

Heiko Recktenwald schrieb:

> > Delamerdelamerdelamerique.
> Duchamps mechant.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> t h i n g i s t
> message by Heiko Recktenwald <uzs106@ibm.rhrz.uni-bonn.de>
> archive at http://bbs.thing.net
> info: send email to majordomo@bbs.thing.net
> and write "info thingist" in the message body
> --------------------------------------------------------------------

t h i n g i s t
message by Roberto Cabot <roberto@netzlos.com>
archive at http://bbs.thing.net
info: send email to majordomo@bbs.thing.net
and write "info thingist" in the message body
--- End Message ---