Misc.

[Markekohut]

since the ole hard-working Alice has been working hard on this---" It's about work"--Alice
I want to go on record as feeling some of the same " didn't work" concerns when I first and second read it...

I will now reread it again, as Nabokov did Crime & Punishment, thrice being us charm for this one.

Sent from my iPad

On Nov 4, 2012, at 3:19 PM, alice wellintown <alicewellintown at gmail.com> wrote:

> It's too late baby now, to make over the early P, but maybe the next
> novel will...no...he can't do it. That is what it is all about and the
> Wooden Jims know it. P can only write as he does. if you don't like
> whales don't read Cuckoo's Nest. If you love squeezing sperm read
> Melville.  If you can't abide a paradox, crawl back in your cave. ..
> and ...paint on your own wall.
> 
> Itz not the cartooning I object to, it's how poorly it is done in this
> example with Vibe. So, I dig into it to see what diamonds sink in  the
> shit. That la-di-da aint no diamond, but a fools gold. Now, that use
> of sodamize interests me, as does the use of photographic degradation.
> I'm sure, given the P--List's propensity for paranoid reading we can
> fnd more souls in the rocks under pressure.
> 
> On Sun, Nov 4, 2012 at 3:06 PM, Markekohut <markekohut at yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I think I remember that soulless artist, yes, but I do remember thinking
>> whatever he was drawing was a comment on the end of that artistic
>> tradition--realistic bagels ( I cannot remember them but
>> If P's (or Morris's creative misremembering) satiric object, I like it as a
>> joke on still life works, on domestic scenes in art, etc., perhaps 'realism'
>> in general.
>> 
>> True about the comic tradition SO is it stupid of me to try to get somewhere
>> in "refuting" the wooden heads who want well-rounded characters even in
>> early TRP? Are we way beyond that, so to speak? (EXcept for Wood and
>> Kakutani and a few) who still hold out for that in pretty much all fiction?
>> 
>> Sent from my iPad
>> 
>> On Nov 4, 2012, at 2:41 PM, David Morris <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>> Actually P was making fun of mindless art, but he featured a soulless artist
>> churning out endless bagel (I think) paintings.
>> 
>> Cartoons have always been in literature, usually called comedy, satire,
>> parody...
>> 
>> On Sunday, November 4, 2012, Markekohut wrote:
>>> 
>>> I thought P made fun of abstract expressionism in V. , no? And in AtD
>>> maybe?
>>> 
>>> My question still exists, I think, independent of one's final take on Pop
>>> Art, but maybe I am wrong
>>> And they are progressively knotted.
>>> 
>>> My question is: the Zeitgeist accepted, created, room for cartoon
>>> representation in Art, however
>>> Wrong or degraded that might be. Felt that the human representation from
>>> Vermeer, Whistler thru
>>> Winslow Homer ( (and fill in the blank) had, maybe, said all it could and
>>> now was saying we are no longer as human?
>>> 
>>> so, since TRP is an artist of his time and 'for all time' we think, have
>>> cultural/literary commentators written of TRP in that Zeitgeist perspective?
>>> Anyone, anyone?
>>> 
>>> (I will respectfully disagree on PopArt as a generality. I have always
>>> been hit and moved with
>>> some Rauschenberg ( and others). I have said to Many Anti-folks, " but
>>> many of our emotions are now cartoonish")
>>> 
>>> Much art is Art because of the full embodiment of certain ideas, IMHO.
>>> Gombrich's work on THAT  within the history of Art convinced me, at least.
>>> 
>>> Warhol was a massive genius, IMHO. see Danto, others, on. He is
>>> Pynchonesque in his embodiment of his Time, in his originality, in his
>>> sensibility. but I'm nobody, who are you?
>>> 
>>> Sent from my iPad
>>> 
>>> On Nov 4, 2012, at 11:17 AM, Keith Davis <kbob42 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Agreed. Warhol? Give me a break.
>>> 
>>> On Nov 4, 2012 11:04 AM, "David Morris" <fqmorris at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> BTW, I think Pop Art, undeniably still very much influential, has led to
>>>> a degradation of art.  It celebrates crass, and is based in cynicism. It is
>>>> also essentially meta-art: the value of the object is conceptual, not the
>>>> object's own qualities.
>>>> 
>>>> I know I sound a retro conservative, but I think I'm looking forward to
>>>> something better than what now is.
>>>> 
>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ----------in
>>>> From: David Morris
>>>> 
>>>> P makes fun of Pop Art in V.  Pop Art may be a precursor of Post
>>>> Modernism, but their aesthetics are very dissimilar.
>>>> Also, Rauschenberg is not generally thought a Pop figure. He's more a
>>>> modernist collage master.
>>>> 
>>>> On Sunday, November 4, 2012, Markekohut wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> I caught up with a recent Friday NYT, reading luxuriously all the new
>>>>> movie reviews, all the long art show pieces, etc.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Lotsa good words on the Rauschenberg exhibit and other pop art from the
>>>>> time.Rauschenberg
>>>>> Drawing cartoon panels as his breakthrough around 1962ff. Warhol,
>>>>> others.
>>>>> 
>>>>> And I asked myself to ask the plisters why P appearing around then,
>>>>> faulted by many for his cartoon characters isn't ' talked about much as part
>>>>> of the same Zeitgeist.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Those artists gave us ourselves back as cartoons---and we think they
>>>>> were right
>>