Vanguard News Network
VNN Media
VNN Digital Library
VNN Reader Mail
VNN Broadcasts

Old July 13th, 2007 #21
lawrence dennis
Anti-anti-antisemite
 
lawrence dennis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Rocky Mountains
Posts: 1,265
lawrence dennis
Default Hilton Kramer, art critic and founder of New Criterion, just another neo-con kike

He's always been true to his jewishness, and although he 'pretends' to want to conserve things of value, he doesn't really know what has value--he just denounces things he doesn't like, much of which is admittedly bad.

Here he is at a function honoring him, surrounded by Jews and more Jews, and a few gentile neo-fools:

Hilton Kramer, A Man of Arts & Letters
By GARY SHAPIRO
Quote:
June 9, 2006 -- The 25th anniversary season of the New Criterion, a monthly journal devoted to the arts and intellectual life, was the occasion for a dinner in honor of its founder, Hilton Kramer.

"More than any other critic of our time - more energetically, more relentlessly, more brilliantly, more courageously - Hilton has stood out against the degradation of modernism in the arts and the symbiotic degradation of liberalism in politics and culture," Commentary magazine editor-at-large Norman Podhoretz said at the dinner.

Friends and colleagues gathered in Midtown to celebrate a magazine that recalls a time - according to the editor's note in its first issue - "when criticism was more strictly concerned to distinguish achievement from failure, to identify and uphold a standard of quality." It has sought to "speak plainly and vigorously about the problems that beset the life of the arts and the life of the mind in our society."

Mr. Podhoretz offered an anecdote that epitomized Mr. Kramer's qualities: The story goes that one night, when Hilton was still chief art critic of the New YorkTimes, he found himself seated next to Woody Allen, who asked him whether he felt embarrassed when he ran into people whose work he had attacked. "No," Hilton replied without missing a beat,"I expect them to be embarrassed for doing bad work."

Essayist Joseph Epstein sent remarks that New Criterion co-editor Roger Kimball read aloud. In the remarks, Mr. Epstein recalled the late University of Chicago sociologist Edward Shils, who had admired Mr. Kramer, once saying that what philosopher Sidney Hook [also a jew --L.D.] and Hilton Kramer had in common "was hatred of a lie."

Mr. Epstein first encountered the name Hilton Kramer in 1959 when, stationed at an army base in Little Rock, Ark., he read an attack on the New Yorker magazine that Mr. Kramer wrote in Commentary. [Back then, an exclusively jewish journal. --L.D.] He next encountered Mr. Kramer's work, "when I was associate editor of the New Leader and he was the magazine's regular art critic. I resented him slightly because, as an editor, he gave me nothing to do, so clean and finished was his copy, though on occasion I was able to remove a set of double dashes and replace them with commas, which he charitably allowed me to do."

Mr. Epstein recalled that in 1962, Mr. Kramer became an associate editor of the New Leader." His vocabulary delighted me; dressed out in his own special New England accent, it was even better. I had never heard anyone use the word 'lavish' with the same comic emphasis," he said. "When the rather philistine editor of the New Leader once asked him if every piece of art criticism had to contain the word 'oeuvre,' Hilton replied that he wasn't certain, but he could promise that every piece of his would have at least one oeuvre in it."

Speaking of the New Criterion, Judge Bork said only William F. Buckley drove him to the dictionary more frequently: "The shorter OED in two volumes is not sufficient."

Deputy director of the White House office of public liaison, Tim Goeglein, read greetings from President Bush. He also quoted American pragmatist philosopher William James in referring to Mr. Kramer's achievement: "The great use of life is to spend it for something that will outlast it."

The crowd included artists Helen Frankenthaler and Paul Resika; American Spectator editor and New York Sun columnist R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr.; Mark Steyn, a New York Sun columnist who went on to receive the Breindel Award the following evening; Midge Decter; Andre Emmerich; Commentary editor Neal Kozodoy; Hudson Institute president Herbert London; attorney and classicist William Warren; critic John Simon; a deputy managing editor at the Atlantic Monthly, Robert Messenger, formerly the deputy managing editor of The New York Sun; and Michael Grebe, president of the Bradley Foundation.

Mr. Kimball recalled the first time he met Mr. Kramer. "I was in graduate school at Yale and, doubtless because of that insalubrious influence, I ventured some cheery words about postmodern architecture. Hilton demolished that illusion quicker than you can say 'Philip Johnson,' and I never looked back."

They unveiled a portrait of Mr. Kramer, by Claude Buckley, as a token of esteem. As anyone who has seen Mr. Kramer's library knows, a book would be like bring coals to Newcastle, Mr. Kimball said.

"I've had a very lucky life," [helped along by his jew pals in the media, in academia, and in neo-con think tanks --L.D.] Mr. Kramer said, stepping to the podium. "What brings us together," he said, "is we're all on the right side."
Descendent of 'Russian'-Jews, Kramer is on the left below:


ART:ISRAELI WORKS,1920-1980,SHOWN AT JEWISH MUSEUM
by Hilton Kramer
Quote:
February 27, 1981 -- MORE than 16 years have passed since the late William C. Seitz, then a distinguished curator at the Museum of Modern Art, organized a comprehensive exhibition of contemporary Israeli art at the Jewish Museum. Called ''Art Israel,'' the show traveled extensively on the American museum circuit, and thus introduced the accomplishments of living Israeli painters and sculptors to the American art public.

Now the Jewish Museum has returned to the subject with an exhibition called ''Artists of Israel: 1920-80.'' Organized by the museum's chief curator, Susan Tumarkin Goodman, this show attempts to give us a somewhat wider perspective on the history of modern Israeli art. While including some of the artists whose work appeared in the Seitz exhibition, it also focuses on the work of the older generation, artists who started in the 1920's. At the same time it brings us up to date on recent and current developments.
The result is an exhibition that is often of more historical than of purely artistic interest. There are, to be sure, some very interesting and accomplished painters represented in this exhibition - among others, Yosef Zaritsky, Yeheskel Streichman, Avigdor Stematsky, Michael Gross, Joshua Neustein, Avigdor Arikha and Moshe Kupferman. And there are two good sculptors - Yitzhak Danziger and Yehiel Shemi. But much of the art that we see in this survey is, sad to say, provincial in conception and undistinguished in execution. On the basis of this exhibition, at least, one is compelled to observe that the country [Israel] has not yet produced a single artist in the master class.

Given the very difficult conditions under which Israeli artists have been obliged to live and work, [unlike, say, the lavish conditions in which Palestinian artists work and live... --L.D.] it is something of a miracle, of course, that they have accomplished as much as they have. Art thrives, after all, on vital artistic traditions, and as far as the visual arts are concerned, these have apparently been slow in establishing themselves in Israel. Artists have often had to look elsewhere - to Paris, New York and other international centers - for inspiration and impetus, and ideas imported from abroad have not always been clearly understood or assimilated with the requisite taste. For artists who have chosen to live and work abroad, there are inevitably other problems--most notably, the problem of identity....
BOOK REVIEW: The Neoconservative Revolution: Jewish Intellectuals and the Shaping of Public Policy. By Murray Friedman. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005. vi, 303 pp. $29.00, ISBN 0-521-83656-5.)
by Kevin J. Smant
Quote:
This is a well-researched, timely book delving into the history of "neoconservatives" and their impact on U.S. policy and culture. Murray Friedman argues that Jewish intellectuals played an important role in the emergence of neoconservatism, which has in turn impacted American conservatism as a whole. Thinkers such as Irving Kristol and Norman Podhoretz have played pivotal roles in shaping a more conservative direction for American domestic and foreign policy since the 1960s. How did this happen?

Someone once remarked that a neoconservative was a liberal "mugged by reality." Friedman does not greatly depart from this thesis, but he adds some crucial elements to it. He tells the familiar story of how many future neoconservatives began as members of the New York "cosmopolitan" Left in the 1930s and 1940s. But Friedman also stresses that this is not the sum total of the movement's origins—also important were the surprising (and heretofore often ignored) numbers of Jewish conservatives active before and immediately after World War II. There were libertarians such as Ayn Rand and Frank Chodorov and members of the National Review magazine circle such as Frank Meyer and Will Herberg. Some of the free-marketeers at the University of Chicago were Jewish intellectuals.

Such tendencies prepared the way for the later coming of neoconservatism; Friedman nicely shows the connections between this body of work and later neoconservatism. From here, the story becomes a familiar one, though it is thoughtfully and thoroughly told: The antiwar radicalism of the 1960s, along with perceived anti-American and anti-Jewish feeling among African American radicals, turned off thinkers such as Kristol, Podhoretz, and others; Kristol then created the journal the Public Interest, and Podhoretz moved Commentary to the right, while the drift of Democrats and even some Republicans toward détente with the Soviet Union led many neoconservatives to fear that the United States was losing the Cold War.

This intellectual path placed most neoconservatives in Ronald Reagan's camp; their support, and his victory over Jimmy Carter in 1980, eventually got neocons such as Jeane J. Kirkpatrick, Elliott Abrams, and Richard Perle key positions in the Reagan administration and influenced U.S. policy, from arms-control negotiations to Nicaragua to the Strategic Defense Initiative. Neoconservative influence has thus remained strong up to the present, from Gertrude Himmelfarb and Hilton Kramer's influence on history, multiculturalism, and literature to the impact of Paul Wolfowitz and the Weekly Standard on the war in Iraq. There can be no question of neoconservatives' importance in American political and intellectual history over the past sixty years. After World War II, they were some of the first to point out weaknesses in America's welfare policies, and they were influential in pushing American foreign policy toward a tough stance on the Soviet Union. This work is not merely a celebration of neoconservatism; Friedman is at times critical, for example, questioning whether neoconservatives fully appreciated the plight of America's poor.

On the whole, this is an important contribution to the field and would be appropriate for graduate and upper-level undergraduate courses. It is based mainly on secondary sources, interviews, and neconservatives' public writings. One wishes that this work could have included more archival research. But that is not Friedman's fault: most of his subjects are still alive and thus their archives are not yet open to researchers. Soon they will be. We will learn more then. Friedman has, however, given later historians a valuable beginning point.
I found an interesting review of Kramer's book "Twilight of the Intellectuals" at Amazon:
Quote:
Do these people matter?, January 12, 2004 By David H Miller "rothbardianphysicist"

In his introduction, Hilton Kramer declares himself to be a "partisan" of artistic "modernism" and a "liberal anti-Communist." These essays are, then, a critique of twentieth-century Western leftist/modernist intellectuals by one of their own. Much of the book is taken up with denunciations of the Stalinism which was rampant among Western intellectuals in the 1930s and '40s. Kramer is here generally on target: there is no longer any honest doubt that Alger Hiss was a Soviet spy or that Lillian Hellman was a pathologically dishonest Stalinist stooge.

Even towards those intellectuals who were not tools of Stalinism, Kramer is unsparing. Although he seems in some ways to admire Mary McCarthy, he declares, "Mary McCarthy's politics were like her sex life -- promiscuous and unprincipled, more a question of opportunity than of commitment or belief."

The greater interest of the book lies in the hints Kramer offers the reader as to what went wrong with the whole twentieth-century intellectual enterprise. The author is never able to draw these hints together into a coherent explanation, perhaps because he himself continues to share the basic premises underlying the twentieth-century intellectual catastrophe.

Ernest Gellner once suggested that the rise of Anglo-American "linguistic philosophy" in the twentieth century was a consequence of verbalist intellectuals, having been displaced by modern science, trying to create for themselves a new niche which would justify their own skills of verbal manipulation. ["Verbalist intellectual" = jew --L.D.]

The same analysis explains the intellectuals' attraction to both Marxism and "modernism."

In discussing modern art, Kramer refers approvingly to the "culture of modernism, with its 'difficult' texts requiring lengthy and laborious study..." He specifically lavishes praise on Clement Greenberg, one of the most influential of modernist art critics.

Why it is that "'difficult' texts requiring lengthy and laborious study..." are per se a good thing, Kramer does not say. The answer of course is that such texts provide a raison d'etre for verbalist intellectuals who possess no actual knowledge or any useful expertise. Tom Wolfe, in "The Painted Word," developed this point in a brutally brilliant (and hilarious) attack on artistic modernism, focusing specifically on Kramer's hero Clem Greenberg: modern art is nothing but illustrations for the insanely convoluted and incomprehensible scribblings of self-important twentieth-century verbalist intellectuals.

Similarly, Marxism assigns to intellectuals a far more exalted status than they would otherwise appear to deserve: whatever the ultimate metaphysical role of the proletariat, it is, in practice, the intellectuals, not the poor workers, who have grasped the Marxian dynamics of history. It is therefore the intellectuals who are fitted to run the show under Marxism.

That modernism and Marxism would appeal to intellectuals is therefore obvious. But does it matter? How could a small band of discontented intellectuals affect society at large?

Kramer again offers us hints of how relatively small numbers of leftist/modernist intellectuals spread their influence throughout American society. Kramer explains that Stalinists :[] insinuated themselves into such "capitalist" institutions as Time magazine, the New York Times, and the universities, and, in some cases, received monetary subsidies from the Soviet Union.

The Soviets never accepted modern art, so Soviet funds were not available to fund artistic modernism. Curiously, funding for political leftists who espoused artistic modernism was provided by the American CIA! Kramer explains in some detail that the CIA-funded "Congress for Cultural Freedom" exhibited an "over dependence on the political Left as the intellectual mainstay of the Congress..." He adds approvingly, and not surprisingly given his own leftist leanings, that this "may indeed have been necessary given the realities of the moment..."

The most bizarrely fascinating essay in the book discusses the famous "Bloomsbury group" -- which included Vrginia Woolf, Lytton Strachey, John Maynard Keynes, etc. The phrase "moral decadence" is not adequate to capture the picture Kramer paints.

For example, Vanessa Bell, sister of Vrigina Woolf and the pivotal figure in the group, although married to Clive Bell, had a child by Duncan Grant, whose own real romantic interest was not Vanessa Bell but his own gay lover, David Garnett. In a final weird twist, the gay lover Garnett ended up marrying the illegitimate daughter when she matured.

The Bloomsburyites, who prided themselves on their sexual openness and lack of hypocrisy, kept the whole strange matter secret from the unfortunate girl who thought her biological father was Clive Bell.

In the early twentieth century, the Bloomsbury ethos was the preserve of a tiny group of upper-class aesthetes -- although Bloomsbury member John Maynard Keynes did succeed in selling Western governments upon an economic theory built upon the take-no-thought-for-the-morrow Bloomsbury ethos, with a resulting near collapse in the value of Western currencies.

But that ethos has now trickled down widely to the middle and working class in America, as is illustrated, for example, by the infamous Jerry Springer television program: Springer is a twenty-first century pop-culture version of the Bloomsbury group.

As an old-fashioned liberal (what is nowadays called a "neoconservative"), Hilton Kramer is an apologist for the basic political, social, and cultural institutions of the twentieth century. While he deplores much of what his intellectual colleagues have done to our society, he lacks the vantage point to see that the early twentieth century liberal "advances" in the power of government, the structure of education, etc. made this destruction possible.

That Kramer himself is now often dubbed a conservative, rather than, as he himself confesses in his introduction, a liberal, is a sign of the lack of any real conservative alternative or response to the catastrophic social and intellectual decline that constituted the twentieth century.

Nonetheless, if Kramer can offer no cure, "Twilight of the Intellectuals" is a fascinating and readable look at some of those intellectuals who helped cause the illnesses from which we and our society now suffer.
__________________

How is the faithful city become an harlot! It was full of judgment: righteousness lodged in it, but now murderers. Thy silver is become dross, thy wine mixed with water. Thy princes are rebellious, and companions of thieves: every one loveth gifts, and followeth after rewards.

Xian WN!

"The Jew can only be understood if it is known what he strives for: ... the destruction of the world.... [it is] the tragedy of Lucifer."

Holy-Hoax Exposed, Hollow-Cost Examined, How Low Cost? (toons)
 
Old July 15th, 2007 #22
janewhite88
aka nazibunny
 
janewhite88's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: in her big dog house
Posts: 598
janewhite88
Default

lol, not suprised to see Diane Arbus on the jew list....
she liked to take pics of freaks.

http://www.fineartphotography-online..._arbus_20.html
__________________
Form follows function --Louis Sullivan

a jane white portfolio
 
Old July 15th, 2007 #23
Oy Ze Hate
We're the Good Guys
 
Oy Ze Hate's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Pediatric Burn Unit
Posts: 4,776
Oy Ze Hate
Default

This thread really gives new meaning to the phrase "ye shall know them by their fruits".
 
Old July 16th, 2007 #24
lawrence dennis
Anti-anti-antisemite
 
lawrence dennis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Rocky Mountains
Posts: 1,265
lawrence dennis
Default Parts 1 & 2 of "A Study of Art" by anti-judaic jew Israel Shamir

A Study of Art
by Israel Shamir

Quote:
Wandering on the great peninsula of Peloponnese I drove into the medieval-looking town of Nauplio. Its harbour is guarded by a grey-walled islet, cosy cafes line up the waterfront, while behind them, narrow and curvy lanes rapidly climb up the steep mount, crowned by a Venetian fort. City streets are fresh and dainty, and preserve the proverbial charm of Greece. There are not many places on the Greek mainland that so effortlessly captivate a stranger. Greeks call it 'Nafplio', probably in honour of Nafnaf the Pig. Unusual for Greece, it was built up by Crusaders on their way to Jaffa and Acre, sculpted by Venetians, Turks, French and Bavarians, ruled by Duke of Athens. Nauplio was for a short while a first capital of independent Greece, but mercifully was spared the grim fate of Athens: it did not become a centre of overcrowded honking urban spread.

It is a good base to scout the plain of Argolis. On its main square, there is an old Venetian building. It houses now the local archaeological museum. Its collection starts with the great Mycenaean civilisation, a child of Minoan civilisation of Crete. This art blossomed not far away, in the walled cities of Mycenae and Tiryns, once ruled by the accursed Atreid kings. It is a period of wonderful free and inspired art, with voluptuous (like Baroque nymphs crowding the ceiling of my hotel room) figurines of goddesses, jolly octopuses (octopi for Jennifer) on the jars, and frescoes reminiscent of Palestinian work in Deir el-Balach. Mycenaeans could read and write, built castles and palaces, carved the magnificent lions above the gate of their capital. But as one continues the tour, all of a sudden one witnesses the great collapse. Art disappears, and its place is taken over by bare geometric forms. Centuries will pass - from 12 c BC to 6 c BC, until local inhabitants will regain the developed forms of art, knowledge of writing and sophistication of old.

One feels this lacuna of time while reading Odyssey. Homer composed his anachronistic masterpiece some four hundred years after the collapse, and he did not know that his heroes could write and read, and their princesses did not have to do laundry by themselves. After the collapse, one finds pieces of art strangely similar to our modern creations. In the small museum of Acropolis in Athens, there is a precise copy of Giacometti statuette, made some 2700 years ago. Geometric forms of that period are reproduced now as best examples of modern art. Thus, in the small museum of Nauplio, I found a missing piece to fit into the puzzle. Death of Art is a symptom of civilisation collapse.

For another piece of the puzzle, I travelled to the other end of Europe, to the Basque capital Bilbao, where the great Jewish American family of Guggenheim built a huge museum of modern art. It is probably the biggest building erected in modern Spain, looking like a flagman of the merchant fleet entering the shore of Biscay. Its forms are unique, there are no right angles, and curves are too complicated and defy easy definition. It is a building that intends to impress and it impresses you as a spacecraft on the village street.

Inside, it is less imposing. Some pieces of corrugated iron, video screens, bare geometric forms are being offered as the chef-d'ouvres of the modern art. A New York artist brought here fifteen ton of rusty iron plates, a Japanese artist has a big room where dozens of TV screens show endless emptiness. Four large floors of nothing are surmounted by the fifth floor, displaying the collection of Armani suits. Every piece could be easily interchanged for another one. There is no 'Rafael of rusty iron', an artist as creator of art disappeared and gave place to the museum curator, the collection owner. It is he who decides what sort of junk will be displayed, whose name will be written under the photo of tinned soup or a dead rat. Only Armani brand reigns supreme, impervious to curator's will, or perhaps it is the curator's ideal art.

The museum of Modern Art in Bilbao was supposed to contain Gernica, Picasso's modern version of the Last Judgement. Instead, it is stuffed with corrugated iron. It is a good place to contemplate the present decay, nay, demise of the European visual art. As good as any, for the example set by Guggenheim is followed everywhere. In Biennale of Venice, Belgians exhibit a row of chairs, Japanese - two hundred yards of photo of a cell, Israelis - bookshelves with yesteryear cheap books, English - trashed old cars. On my way through Milan, I passed by a lorry carrying a dozen of flattened car wrecks to the scrap yard. It could make a good object of art for Biennale, as well as a heap of garbage. I am sure nobody would find it out of place if it would be provided with a name of artist, his country and his media.

In Amsterdam museum I saw a collection of rotten decomposed pig trunks. Newspapers wrote that a certain trunk immersed in formaldehyde took fancy of an American private collector and was sold for fifty thousand dollars. It became a piece of art by decision of two Mammonites, the curator and the collector. In St Nicolas Church of Copenhagen, instead of inspirational images of Madonna (banned from the church by the good Protestants) I saw huge full colour photograph of naked old and sick woman, next to a door-size print of female genitals, next to a photo of homosexual oral act. A church in Amsterdam had an exhibition of beach snapshots. It carried a double message: the church has to be profaned as well as art, and it achieved their double purpose - churches of Amsterdam and Copenhagen stay empty, and their artists produce junk.

How come these nauseating prints or rotten cadavers or cheap porn are considered a form of art? The Modern Art predecessors, Gustave Courbet and Edouard Manet, rebelled against Romantic rejection of real life and real Man. The pioneers of Modern Art, Marcel Duchamp and Kazimir Malevich, intended to épater le bourgeois, to extend the borders of art, to show limitless spirit of Man. But their paradoxical joke 'everything placed in a museum is art' was taken with dead seriousness and accepted for truth.

It was a good principle for Guggenheims, this great family that established Modern Art museums in New York, Bilbao, Venice. They had enough money to build a museum, they knew what they liked, and they did not mind to become the supreme arbiter. Guggenheim became the brand name in art. Whatever they proclaimed as art, was art. In the beginning, these were works of some dubious value like 'abstract painting' of Jackson Pollock, and eventually we came to rotten swine, corrugated iron and Armani suits. Art was destroyed.

II
A day drive from Bilbao, in the old royal city of Leon, one sees the masterpiece of stained glass in the Cathedral, one of the oldest and most wonderful in Europe. Churches and temples were the first and most important depositories of art, and art was produced for them. They were not 'customers' in a way a modern bank orders a painting from an artist. Visual art is inherently connected to temples and churches, it is a form of exquisite worship, proclaiming affinity of God and Man. The walls of Kremlin churches are covered with medieval Russian icons; in churches of Italy one finds a Caravaggio or Rafael painting, divinely human faces of Buddhist images shine from the niches in Pagan and Kyoto temples. Perfect marble bodies of Aphrodite, serene faces of the Virgin, severe images of Christ, gracious forms of Buddha in Theravada temples were the prevailing form of pre-modern art.

The artists are still inspired by God, and still ready to build cathedrals and fill them with painting proclaiming our love of God. The Starry Night of van Gogh could be an altar-piece, Gauguin painted but Nativity and Paradise in Tahiti; and the Dove of Picasso is the one that John the Baptist saw on the banks of Jordan River. Gaudi spent years of his life to create the uncompleted Barcelona Cathedral, while on the other end of Europe, in the one-thousand-years-old first capital of Russian civilisation, Kiev, the unique St Vladimir Cathedral was built and decorated. Outside, this cathedral is quite an ordinary church in Byzantine tradition, but inside it is a miracle. All the walls and ceilings of the church are decorated with frescoes by the great painters of the fin-de-ciecle, Surikov, Nesterov, Vrubel. It is the Sistine Chapel of the Eastern Christendom, and it is almost contemporary with Malevich.

The Russian painters used the traditional scheme and subjects of Orthodox church decoration, but their manner of painting was new, strong, fresh. Who knows, if the Soviet revolution of 1917 would not be so brutally anti-Christian, the great fire of Christendom could be lit again by the Russians. It did not happen, and the Russian churches were destroyed, turned into warehouses, or - in case of St Vladimir Cathedral - into a Museum of Atheism. But the spirit did not die so easily, and the noble and inspired Pilots and Sportsmen of Deineka, a Russian Soviet painter of 1930s, and of his Nordic contemporaries, proclaimed divinity of Man created in God's Image. Nowadays it is contemptuously called the Totalitarian Art, though Stalin and Voroshilov by Gerasimov is not more totalitarian than Napoleon by David or Henry the Fourth by Rubens.

There is no totalitarian art, but the totalitarian regime in art, totalitarian domination of single tendency in visual art connected with virtual ban of other tendencies. For Guggenheim curators and for the modern art critics, only their 'art' is acceptable, while figurative art is ostracised.

A leading figure of British art establishment, Ivan Massow, the Chairman of the Institute of Contemporary Arts, rose against this totalitarian trend. In an article in the New Statesman titled It's All Hype, he noted the totalitarian regime established by the closed gang of art curators:
Totalitarian states have an official art, a chosen aesthetic that is authorized and promoted at the cost of other, competing styles. In the Soviet Union, the official art was socialist realism. Working in any other mode was considered - and treated as - an act of subversion. In Britain, too, we have an official art - concept art - and it performs an equally valuable service. It is endorsed by Downing Street, sponsored by big business and selected and exhibited by cultural tsars such as the Tate's Nicholas Serota who dominate the arts scene from their crystal Kremlins. Together, they conspire both to protect their mutual investments and to defend the intellectual currency they've invested in this art.
Massow noticed the damage it causes, for the artists are forced to fit into Procrustean bed of this anti-art:
It seems sad that so many talented young artists, clawing to be noticed for their craft, are forced to ditch their talent and reinvent themselves as creators of video installations, or a machine that produces foam in the middle of a room, in order to be recognized as contemporary artists. In this, if nothing else, the arts establishment is guilty of conspiring to make concept art synonymous with contemporary art.

Thousands of young artists wait in the wings to see whether the taste arbiters will relinquish their exclusive fascination with concept art. It's a crime. We need art lovers to tell artists that they're not obliged to reinvent themselves into creators of piles of crap, or pass their work around like samizdat.

He felt that he is breaking the rules of the game:
By outing this opinion in public, I realize that there will be plenty of people waiting, like Madame Defarge with her knitting needles next to the guillotine, for my head to roll into their laps. The 'arts establishment' (what a weirdly oxymoronic phrase that is) is terrifyingly powerful and, like all centres of power, it is no friend to heterodoxy.
His prediction materialised: immediately after the publication of the article he was sacked and ostracised by the British art establishment led by the Jewish cultural tsar Nicholas Serota, and by the Jewish art collector and advertising magnate, a friend of Pinochet, Thatcher and Conrad Black, Charles Saatchi. His power is unique, and an art critic, Norman Rosenthal of the British Royal Academy suggested that "the Saatchis are probably the most important collectors of modern art in anywhere in the world."
__________________

How is the faithful city become an harlot! It was full of judgment: righteousness lodged in it, but now murderers. Thy silver is become dross, thy wine mixed with water. Thy princes are rebellious, and companions of thieves: every one loveth gifts, and followeth after rewards.

Xian WN!

"The Jew can only be understood if it is known what he strives for: ... the destruction of the world.... [it is] the tragedy of Lucifer."

Holy-Hoax Exposed, Hollow-Cost Examined, How Low Cost? (toons)
 
Old July 16th, 2007 #25
lawrence dennis
Anti-anti-antisemite
 
lawrence dennis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Rocky Mountains
Posts: 1,265
lawrence dennis
Default Part 3 of "A Study of Art" by anti-judaic jew Israel Shamir

From http://www.jewishtribalreview.org ...

Quote:
26. Modern Art [370 Kilobytes] [about 81 paper pages] Jewish pre-eminence in "high culture," including classical music and the visual arts; Jewish talent agencies; Jewish dominance in the entrepreneurial realm of the visual arts; predominance of Jewish art dealers, critics, curators; Jewish philanthropy to art museums ("he that pays the piper calls the tune"); Jewish dominance of the photography field; defamation of Christianity in the art world.
Here is part 3, that reveals "who is behind the curtain" in today's art world:

A Study of Art
by Israel Shamir

Quote:
III
"Does it matter that they are Jewish?", asks the annoyed reader. "So there are a few Jews in the thoroughly anti-Christian, profane, totalitarian world of modern art. So what? They are still a tiny minority". Well, not really.

The large database on Jewish influence in the US, www.jewishtribalreview.org gives following names and numbers (Incidentally, the database uses exclusively Jewish sources):
The Jewish influence in modern art is well attended. By 1973, some estimated that 75-80% of the 2500 core "art market' personnel of the United States - art dealers, art curators, art critics, and art collectors -- were Jewish[ii]. In 2001, according to ARTnews, at least eight of the "Top Ten" US art collectors were Jewish: Debbie and Leon Black, Edythe and Eli Broad, Doris and Donald Fisher, Ronnie and Samuel Heyman, Marie-Josee and Henry R. Kravitz, Evelyn and Leonard Lauder, Jo Carole and Ronald S. Lauder, and Stephen Wynn.

"Today," wrote Gerald Krefetz in 1982, "... Jews enjoy every phase of the art world: as artists, dealers, collectors, critics, curators, consultants, and patrons. In fact, the contemporary art scene has a strong Jewish flavour. In some circles, the wheelers and dealers are referred to as the Jewish mafia since they command power, prestige, and most of all, money."

In 1996, Jewish art historian Eunice Lipton explained that she went into a career of an art historian in order to be in a field dominated by Jews: "I wanted to be where Jews were -- that is, I wanted a profession that would allow me tacitly to acknowledge my Jewishness through the company I kept."[iii] The field of art history... was filled with Jews. One might even say it was shaped by them[iv].

At the Metropolitan Museum of New York, Arthur Ochs Sulzberger (former publisher of the New York Times) eventually became its chairman. He oversaw an institution in which Jews, says George Goodman, "have enriched every area of the Museum's collections, including pre-Colombian ceramics (Nathan Cummings), African art (Klaus Perls), ancient Mediterranean and Middle Easter Art (Norbert Schimmel), Old Masters Paintings (Lore and Rudolph Heinemann), French decoration arts (Belle and Sol Linsky) modern European Art (Florence May Schoenborn), modern American art (Muriel Kallis Steinberg Newman; Edith and Milton Lowenthal), Indonesian bronzes (Samuel Eilenberg), and South and Southeast Asian Art (Enid Haupt and Lita Hazen, Walter Annenberg's sisters).[v]

Throughout the Met too, galleries, rooms, theatres, and gardens are named after Jewish sponsors including Iris and B. Gerald Canter, Helene and Michael David-Weill, Lawrence and Barbara Fleishman, Howard Gilman, Leon Levy, Henry R. Kravis, Janice H. Levin, Carroll and Milton Petrie, Arthur, Mortimer, and Raymond Sacker, Laurence Tisch, and Ruth and Harold Uris. (Among the various Jewish curators at the Museum is Barbara Weinberg, head of American Paintings and Sculpture).

By the 1980s, four of the ten board members that dole out the MacArthur Foundation "genius awards" were also Jewish; two Jews also sat on the board of the Russell Sage Foundation.[vi] The Kaplan Fund has also had an important impact on the art community in divvying out awards. One of J. M. Kaplan's daughters was the Chairman of the New York State Arts Council.[vii] Joan Kaplan Davidson was appointed as chairman of the $34 million New York State Art Council in 1975 despite the fact that she was "not professionally trained in the arts." Her mother, Alice Kaplan, was once president of the American Federation of the Arts.

The Getty Museum, founded by the non-Jewish oil mogul, J. Paul Getty (and with $4 billion of funds, the richest museum on earth) has consistently had Jews at the economic helm. In 1998, after 17 years, Harold Williams left the presidency of the J. Paul Getty Trust. Williams, notes George Goodman, was "raised in a Labor Zionist home in East Los Angeles."[viii]. The new president of the J. Paul Getty Trust is another Jewish administrator, Barry Munitz, formerly the chancellor of both the California State University system and the University of Houston.

The fact that Jews are so dominating in the art world is very rarely publicly acknowledged. It is forbidden -- as always for anyone, anywhere -- to discuss the subject for fear of being branded "anti-Semitic." Typically, as example, an entire 1989 academic volume on the "Sociology of the Arts" fails to mention Jews as sociological entity in the modern art dynamic. There are analyses of art galleries, "artist groups," art patrons, and art audiences, broken down into gender, age, income, occupation, and even "racial and ethnic minorities." We can find that, negligibly, "blacks, Orientals, and persons of Spanish origin constitute about 7% of the art audience," but there is nothing whatsoever about Jews, even their own percentage of that "art audience," let alone how many art galleries they own, museums they direct, and articles they generate about art value.[ix]
Why did it happen? What is the reason of Jewish success in the field of Modern Art? It is not due to great achievements of Jewish artists: they are quite modest, and despite the PR support of Jewish art collectors, curators and critics, they are well within what could be expected for a fifteen-million-strong wealthy community. Interaction of wealthy Jewish collectors and philanthropists with Jewish critics active in the Jewish-owned media provides us with a partial answer.

Still, the Jews were extremely ill equipped for their conquest of Olympus. For many generations, Jews never entered churches and hardly ever saw paintings. They were conditioned to reject image as part of their rejection of idols. In the course of two thousand year long selection process, visual gifs of Jews were not developed, as opposed to abilities to learn, argue and convince honed to perfection in Talmudic environment. Rejection of Christ - this main fountain of creativity - is even deeper reason. There is no visual art or poetry outside of God, at best, a godless person can imitate art. For this reason, Jews are, as a rule, poor painters and sculptors. (Chagall and Modigliani embraced Christ, and Chagall made the stained glass of Chartres). While their mastery of word and ideology is very high (well above average of 100, at 130), their average visual ability is only 75, extremely low. One can consider it a scientific proof of 'no art without Christ'. Indeed until recently there were no important Jewish painters or sculptors. The Jewish temple was supposedly built by Phoenicians and Greeks, and it had a very few images. Even illumination of medieval Jewish manuscripts was usually done by non-Jewish artists, who made very obvious errors trying to copy Jewish letters.

Jewish success in the Art world is amazing. If the Olympic Sports committee would consist of handicapped persons, and a fair share of sports commentators would be lame, and even some winners of the games would be lame, we would have reason to be astonished. But probably, looking at it carefully we would find that the main Olympic sport is Run in Bags, or chess.

Visually handicapped Jews created a similar anomaly - that of non-visual 'conceptual' art. A piece of 'conceptual' art is describable and explainable. It is a narration. Tracey Emin's 'Unmade bed' fully describes the object, while another beauty, Alighiero Boetti's sculpture 'Yearly Lamp', a light bulb that illuminated itself only once every twelve months, is fully described by this description. Preparation of these items places no demand on artistic abilities. They can be done by anybody. Such art is perfectly within Jewish abilities. Moreover, Jews with their good ability to produce ideas and read iconography will surely succeed in it. Thus, the Run in Bags, the kind of sport that began as a new entry into Olympic games, eventually is promoted to the position of an all-important one.

We can easily dismiss demonising talk of 'the Jews who destroy art in order to break Aryan spirit'. Jews bend art to fit their abilities, in order to succeed in this difficult (for them) occupation. Breaking (or not) the Aryan spirit is quite irrelevant for them. While there are wealthy Jews able to buy art and provide for an artist who makes what they like, while there are witty Jews in the media that approve of the art Jews like (one that is easy to tell about), they would create bias in favour of the art they like and understand. But how did they get into this position in the first place? How the lame runners of our example have got their opening into the Olympic committee? Despite their wealth and media domination, the Jews would not 'make it', but for a few previous developments.

1. Photography and reproduction. Recently I visited an excellent photo exhibition of Hagia Sophia mosaics, made to the highest standard. The photographs are so good that one has to touch it in order to recognise that these are not real mosaics. But for a strange reason, the photocopies do not inspire. One can look at them all day long but the soul is not stirred. And then, one comes across the real thing, and the heart turns to God.

Photography is to painting as pornography to real women. Both create an illusion of real thing, but leave a lingering emptiness. In the long run, the 'real thing' suffers. Pornography undid many happy unions. Reproduction of art conditioned us to view uninspiring beauty. It is difficult to view a painting of Mona Lisa without instinctively comparing it to its endless reproductions. In a way, the modern art was a botched response to reproductions, for an artist needs to attract attention of blasé viewers.

Photography was an important stepping stone to demise of art. Great paintings were reproduced in albums, and caused no great uplifting in the hearts. Purely materialistic vision of the age precluded even to referring to the vast difference between original and copy. Painting lost its uniqueness.

2. Museums. Removal of paintings and sculptures from the churches into museums was fatal for the West. A painting lost its context, it was de-contextualised and de-constructed. Paintings and sculptures of Annunciation and Passion were given into the custody of the new priesthood, the curators and critics. It undermined the living practice of faith: despoiled of their precious art, empty churches did not attract visitors.

De-contextualisation of art was done under cover of not-too-sophisticated sophisms. "God needs no paintings, true faith needs no adornment, art will be safe in museums" etc. As if the organisers of mass confiscation wished to strengthen faith, as if they wished to bring people to the church!... It reminds me the favourite Jewish sentence so frequently used: 'It (whatever you are doing or saying) is undermining the Palestinian cause', as if they wished to help Palestinians.

In France, churches lost its riches in the beginning of the 20th century, and since that time both faith and art (after a short splash) went downhill. Need to 'protect art from thieves' was frequently used as a pretext for undermining it. It was similar to locking princess away in a Maiden Tower of so many legends. The Tower protected her, to be sure, but it turned her into an old spinster.

The chef d'oevres of the human spirit were removed from the churches to museum, - to jail. People go and visit the jailed dear friend for a while, and it brings profit to jailers, while the churches brought no profit; but eventually they forget the jailed man, and it is even more profitable, for spirit interferes with profit.

3. De-sacralisation of art. It was achieved after removal of art into museums. From this point of view, while Bilbao Guggenheim is quite repulsive, its mother institution is even worse. New York Guggenheim Museum of Modern Art carefully mixes sacral art and junk. Exposition is done in a way saying: they are the same. Sacred images of Brazilian Virgins are placed next to rude idols, or to erotica. Indeed, pictures of Christ and His Mother are plentiful in the modern art. But as a rule, they are aimed to profane their image. Made of faeces, or presented in indecent poses, they are part of the war on art and Christ. A photograph of crucifix in a container of urine, entitled Piss Christ was exhibited in the Whitney Museum which is headed by a great friend of Ariel Sharon, a member of Mega, Leonard Lauder. Recently I saw in Stockholm an image of Christ presented as the poster for the week (or was it the month?) of gay pride: a crucified black man was erotically embraced by a white muscular Nordic man. He even placed the inside of his leg on the crucified man's body.

If one wants to shock people one can follow the example of a small Russian city that placed the icon of Christ on its coat of arms. All Moscow-based American correspondents visited the dashing rebels and asked them whether they are not afraid of Jews. Probably that is the only 'sacrilege' that still has some shocking value. Alternatively, one can envisage a model of the Wailing Wall with urinals in public toilet.

It is impossible to rule whether the Jewish participation (surely very active) in the processes of de-uniquisation, de-contextualisation and de-sacralisation of art was decisive. Consider a city with a big oil company which supplied the citizens with oil. There was also a tiny kerosene shop that provided a few diehards with the stuff in an old-fashioned way. It was impossible even to compare the two companies. But eventually the big company was streamlined, broken to pieces 'to enliven competition' - surely in the best interests of the customers, - forced to tender some of its operations, and was undermined. The tiny kerosene shop received the same status as the once great corporation, and when the corporation's plant was burned down, it rose to unexpected greatness. Was it achieved by the kerosene sellers, or did they enjoy the windfall?

Now we come to a stumbling block of 'conspiracy'. Can one believe that the Jews, ordinary Cohens and Levys, actually conspired to remove art from churches, develop photography and place sacred images in juxtaposition with profane things in order to kill art and the European civilisation? Should we consider a possibility of Jewish conspiracy against art as a part of the warfare against spirit?

In order to unravel this mystery we shall introduce a concept of a Group Interest. Groups (classes and nations) have interests which do not coincide with the sum of interests of its individual members. Moreover, individual members are not always aware of this Group Interest. Let us consider Mammon - personification of capitalist Class Interest. A capitalist may wish to sell drinking water, but Mammon wants to poison all water in order to force everybody to buy drinking water. A capitalist may build the mall, Mammon wants to destroy the world outside the mall, for the outside world interferes with the only meaningful occupation, shopping. While a separate capitalist can do a lot of damage, his Class Interest, Mammon, is more dangerous, nay ruinous for the world. Mammon will try to eliminate every distraction to shopping, be it churches, art, forests, rivers, seaside, fresh air, mountains. An individual capitalist probably is not aware that he follows his Class Interest when he dumps chemical poison waste into a river.

For Mammonites, Art is a distraction from the most important occupation, adoration of Mammon. Mammonite reviews of Art concentrate on price of Art. Recent discussion of a possible fate of the Pink Madonna by Raphael in the NY Times and in the Guardian was limited to the price tag and ownership. A modern Russian writer Victor Pelevin described[x] an exhibition of receipts, where the masterpieces are left in crates in the storehouse, while the walls of the exhibition hall are adorned by an art dealer-issued documents asserting that the painting was bought by the private collector for, say, 15 million dollars. It is the most advanced tendency in design, monetarist minimalism, says a character in the novel. Indeed, judging by many art reviews, such an exhibition would do nicely, as it keeps the most relevant items, price tag and ownership of the piece of art. For Mammonites, every art exhibition is a monetarist minimalist exhibition, as they notice only the bottom line - price tag. Mother of a Jewish American Princess is supposed to meet her potential son-in-law wearing mink replete with price tag, says a cruel Jewish joke. In the modern art, mink is removed, but the tag is preserved. Thus the Capitalist Class Interest supports Conceptual Art; moreover, it turns every kind of art into Conceptual art.

For Jews, their Group Interest lays in undermining visual art for they can't compete in it. Even deeper group interest of Jews is to undermine Christianity, their main enemy. We see this interest satisfied now by relentless attack on Mel Gibson who dared to produce a film about Christ. Not about Jesus - a kind Jewish Rabbi, neither about whoring Jeshu from jolly Nazareth - but about God Who Died on the Cross. As sacrality in Europe is unavoidably Christian, profanation of art is certainly within Jewish Group Interests. It does not mean the Jews, or even some Jews understand that they act in their own group interests.

However, they did it before, as well, for the Eastern Christianity experienced a similar development twelve hundred years ago. The Jews were prominent in the great tragedy of Byzantine art, the iconoclasm. In the beautiful and spacious Church of Hagia Sophia, the arguably greatest achievement of the Eastern Orthodox Christianity, lovingly restored in 20th century by Turkish masters, in vain one seeks mosaics of Justinian and Theodora copied at Ravenna. One finds only relatively late mosaics and frescoes. Everywhere, with a very few exclusions, the sacred images of that fruitful period were destroyed, when the rejection of images became the official doctrine of the Empire. They survived in far away places: in St Catherine of Mt Sinai, in remote monasteries, to haunt us with their sublime beauty and with feeling of irreparable loss. The contemporary writers leave us no doubt: Jews (a powerful community in these days as nowadays) were extremely active in promoting this concept.

However, this comparison brings some hope, for after two hundred years of iconoclasm, people got tired of boring non-spiritual churches, and brought the visual art back. Until now, the Church celebrates Sunday of Orthodoxy, when the Art Came Back. We also can do it. The sacred images should be returned to their rightful place, in the church. All of them, the delightful Annunciation by van Eyck from Washington Museum, and Trinity by Rublev in Moscow Museum of Old Russian Art, should be re-contextualised. We should not be cruel to collectors: in my opinion, Saatchi may keep all formaldehyde swine he likes.

And while at it, other cultural properties should be re-contextualised as well. Let us return the mosaics of Pompeii to their place from the boring museum of Naples, and the Greek marbles to Athens, let the treasures of Mesopotamia go back to Iraq, and the statues of Hisham Palace back to Jericho. Let us empty the Grand Louvre and fill small French towns with art. It will repair the broken fabric of spirit. Art objects can't be owned by private persons, they are our connection to Divine. Restoration is possible: during last few years Russia restored vast amount of churches, and precious icons were returned to them. In Old Ladoga, an old Russian town, (70 miles from St Petersburg), restored churches of 12th century shine again on the bank of Volchov River after years of neglect. With gruesome complaints the Russian museums give up church properties swallowed in 1920s. The West can do the same: there will be thousands of visitors in the churches after their art pieces will be restored to them, the fountain of faith will supply us with endless creativity, and the Aberration will be over.

FOOTNOTES TO ALL 3 PARTS:
[i] FALLON, p. 335 This and following data is quoted by the great compendium of Jewish activities, www.jewishtribalreview.org with much gratitude.
[ii] BURNHAM, p. 25.
[iii] RUBIN- DURSKY, p. 289
[iv] LIPTON, p. 285 [v] GOODMAN, #2, p. 73
[vi] CHRISTOPHER, p. 121 [vii] KREFETZ, p. 153
[viii] GOODMAN, #2, p. 142
[ix] FOSTER/BLAU, 1989
[x] Pelevin, Babylon, Faber and Faber 1999.
Israel Shamir's web site is at: http://www.israelshamir.net

Some "controversy" attends Mr. Shamir and his identity. More on this here:

Yes Virginia, There Really is an Israel Shamir and He Lives in Jaffa, Israel

Excerpt:
Quote:
...
Shamir is an Orthodox Christian, who I think would be simply morally incapable of posting against anyone the kind of false witness that Mr. Wheeler lodges against Shamir. Mr. Wheeler mentions Google. Anything on Google, like anything on Wikipedia needs to be read with caution, with seasoned judgment and especially with awareness that Shamir is today the target of the organized malevolent action of the people of the world--Jews and Gentiles--who cannot stand the light he has thrown, in his fine books and articles, on the criminally racist and murderous Israeli oppression of the Palestinians. And Shamir is also hated for the truth he tells about the Israeli abuse of Christian and Christian things in Palestine, and abuse of the integrity of the American nation in so many ways that I would tire the readers to list them. But to name just a few standout enormities: the spy Pollard, the destruction of the U.S.S. Liberty, and the hijacking of our treasure via the tactic of buying legislators. (Woe to us, of course, that such people are available for the buying.) I speak for myself when I say that I am not only not ashamed of my review of Shamir's book; I am delighted to have done it and delighted that Publisher Jones printed it.

Now to counter some of Mr. Wheeler's misinformation-not to inform Mr. Wheeler, who I am quite sure is not interested in the truth of the case. Shamir's fellow Jew and anti-Zionist, Paul Eisen, has written CW as follows:
'I know Shamir extremely well professionally and quite well personally. He is, in my view, an outstanding thinker and writer-theologically, philosophically and politically (and also expressively)-and is also an outstanding activist for human rights and equality, particularly regarding the Palestinians. He is also an extremely nice man-gentle and good-humoured and absolutely non-violent and non-discriminatory.

'Is he an anti-Semite? Well, it all depends on what you mean by the term. If you mean does Shamir hate all Jews, then the notion is utterly absurd. But if you mean does Shamir have grave criticisms to make in the way many Jews are currently behaving, both individually and collectively, and also, does Shamir have concerns about Judaism and Jewishness, when empowered and politicised, as a spirit of ideology, then he may indeed be an anti-Semite. But then so am I, and so is pretty nearly every truthful and aware person on the planet. Like myself and many others, Shamir stands for Jews to be treated the same as anyone else-no more and no less.

'Regarding all that stuff about Swedish fascists, etc.-this nonsense has been widely pedaled around by Jewish and Zionist activists and their supporters for some time, so it is readily available on the net. I have met Shamir many times, both in Israel and in the U.K. He is a Russian, now an Israeli, who lives in Jaffa. He speaks Hebrew as any Israeli would and knows loads of people there. He may be seen any day of the week in Tel-Aviv, Jerusalem and any other part of Israel/Palestine.

'Shamir did have a Swedish wife and he has two sons (one of whom I have met) who clearly have been brought up in Sweden, so it is likely that Shamir himself has lived in Sweden. He may well have used this name or that for all sorts of purposes, but I don't know and don't much care.

'Also, it is very possible that he has been, and still is, in touch with various individuals and bodies that may, in the current climate, be labeled anti-Semitic. Again I don't know and don't much care. I also am happy to be in contact with such people, so long as they are non-violent, non-discrimatory and have something to say that interests me.

'I notice that your correspondent attacks the writer but completely ignores what he has written. Typical'
__________________

How is the faithful city become an harlot! It was full of judgment: righteousness lodged in it, but now murderers. Thy silver is become dross, thy wine mixed with water. Thy princes are rebellious, and companions of thieves: every one loveth gifts, and followeth after rewards.

Xian WN!

"The Jew can only be understood if it is known what he strives for: ... the destruction of the world.... [it is] the tragedy of Lucifer."

Holy-Hoax Exposed, Hollow-Cost Examined, How Low Cost? (toons)

Last edited by lawrence dennis; July 16th, 2007 at 11:07 PM.
 
Old July 16th, 2007 #26
Stronza
Senior Member
 
Stronza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,320
Stronza
Default

That's a helluva pair of articles, Lawrence. Where do you find these things. You know, I always thought that the museum itself in Bilbao was the piece of modern art that mattered; I didn't know that people actually went inside to admire tons of scrap metal.

In spite of Shamir's writings, there still seems to be some distrust of this fellow among racially aware people. I wonder if it is because he apparently invented some sort of identity for himself and no one seems to really know the truth about his background. Could he actually be a double agent, luring white folks like us, and then reporting back to his masters so they can pounce? Or am I paranoid.
 
Old August 12th, 2007 #27
lawrence dennis
Anti-anti-antisemite
 
lawrence dennis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Rocky Mountains
Posts: 1,265
lawrence dennis
Default ABC News: 'Observers, Artists, Critics Rank Children's Paintings With the Masters'

Jews are not named, even though they pretty much control the entire spectacle that is modern "art", from the gallery to sales to criticism to endowed university chairs.

Observers, Artists, Critics Rank Children's Paintings With the Masters
Quote:
March 11, 2005 -- People got very excited this year about Christo's massive public art work, "The Gates," in New York's Central Park. For two weeks in February, 7,500 metal gates draped with orange fabric were staked along 23 miles of the park's footpaths. Some people called "The Gates" a masterpiece. Others called it an ugly nuisance. New York Post columnist Andrea Peyser said all the orange fabric on "The Gates" made it look like an ad for Home Depot.

New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg (R) :[] was annoyed by the criticism. "Nobody's criticizing this. Everybody likes it. And this is certainly art," he said.

It is? Well, I kinda like it, but how does the mayor know that "The Gates" is really art, and not just shower curtains on poles? Do people really know what's art and what's just stuff?

We ran a test.

On ABCNews.com, we showed four reproductions of art works that are considered masterpieces of modern art along with six pieces that will never make it into any museum. We asked viewers to decide which work was art and which was not.

I assumed the famous art would get the most votes if only because art lovers would recognize them, but they didn't. Most got far fewer votes than the winner.

The one that received the most votes as a "real" artwork was a piece of framed fabric "20/20" bought at a thrift store for $5.

We also conducted the test with New Yorkers at Manhattan Mall. We asked people to tell us which artworks they'd expect to see in a museum. We included copies of the famous paintings, plus some other items.

How do critics :[] and curators :[] decide which is art?

How do they determine that Damien Hirst's embalmed shark and sliced cow carcasses are art?

Why is Willem de Kooning's "A Tree in Naples," which we included a reproduction of in our quiz, worth millions, when a more realistic looking landscape, done by elephants with paintbrushes in Thailand, is worth much less?

I asked an art historian: Why is De Kooning's "A Tree in Naples" art? The work doesn't look like a tree, let alone Naples.

"But if you look closely, you might say this brown part is the bark of the tree. You might say the blue is the sky. Maybe that's, maybe that's the case and maybe it's not. But you bring to it whatever feelings that this evokes," said Samantha Hoover, an art historian at New York's School of Visual Arts.

What about Kasimir Malevich's Black Circle, which we also included in the online quiz? "He was saying I want to free art from telling a story," said Hoover.

So it's just all in the eye of the beholder?

"I wouldn't say it's all in the eye of the beholder," Hoover said. "I think you need to know the story behind the work to understand its full impact and meaning."

OK, I can get that concept. Watching Ed Harris' performance in the film about famous artist Jackson Pollock, I learned that Pollock's creative genius came from his tortured soul. That led to a big breakthrough in modern art. But do the people who pay millions for Pollock's work really see the difference between his dripping colors and a child's painting? [Or pigeon droppings on cement? --L.D.]

Four of the art works in our test were done by 4-year-olds, and when we showed their artwork on the Web, and showed it to people at the mall, the kids' work ranked ahead of most of the masters.

I assumed real artists wouldn't fall for the trick, so we invited some to take our test. Most of them also put at least some of the kids' work up there with the masters.

One artist, Victor Acevedo, described one of the children's pieces as "a competent execution of abstract expressionism which was first made famous by de Kooning and Jackson Pollock and others. So it's emulating that style and it's a school of art."

When I told him the work was done by a 4-year-old he said, "That's amazing. Give that kid a show."

Actually, it was a collaboration. Maybe they should give Hannah and Haley, the two 4-year-old girls who painted it, a show of their own. More than 1,800 people said their work was great art.

And even Hoover, the art historian, ranked one of the children's paintings among the real artworks. When I told her who did the work she said, "It has good composition. I think it has good depth and space."

So can anybody explain to me why people want to spend millions of dollars on abstract art if any 4-year-old could create something great? :[]

"There's some art that's validated by the establishment or by the media and then there's the rest," said artist Deborah Gilbert.
But maybe the establishment :[] is out to lunch.

An artist who calls himself Flash Light told me, "The function of art is to make rich people feel more important."

Well, if rich people want to spend their own money this way, fine.
But whether you think it's art or junk, the real deal is that you're contributing your money too.

The politicians may say they're starved for funds, but they're still giving your hard-earned tax dollars to museums that exhibit these kinds of things.
__________________

How is the faithful city become an harlot! It was full of judgment: righteousness lodged in it, but now murderers. Thy silver is become dross, thy wine mixed with water. Thy princes are rebellious, and companions of thieves: every one loveth gifts, and followeth after rewards.

Xian WN!

"The Jew can only be understood if it is known what he strives for: ... the destruction of the world.... [it is] the tragedy of Lucifer."

Holy-Hoax Exposed, Hollow-Cost Examined, How Low Cost? (toons)
 
Old August 12th, 2007 #28
lawrence dennis
Anti-anti-antisemite
 
lawrence dennis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Rocky Mountains
Posts: 1,265
lawrence dennis
Default Websites ridicule modern jewed "art"

http://reverent.org/

For example:

Pollock or birds?
Quote:
Some of the images displayed below are the works of the legendary artist Jackson Pollock. He created them using his revolutionary dripping technique. The rest are birds' droppings on a sidewalk. Can you tell which is which?

...


4. Pollock Birds


5. Pollock Birds

...
http://ecclesiastes911.net/

For example:

Quote:

A drawing (pencil on paper) by Siri, an Asian elephant.


In 1982 James Ehmann (a journalist) and David Gucwa (a zoo keeper) showed to Jerome Witkin :[] (a professor of art at Syracuse University and an authority on abstract expressionism) a set of drawings done by an elephant (a sample above). They did not reveal to Prof. Witkin the identity of the artist and asked him to evaluate the pictures. The professor said "These drawings are very lyrical, very, very beautiful. They are so positive and affirmative and tense, the energy is so compact and controlled, it's just incredible... I can't get most of my students to fill a page like this." After learning the identity of the artist Witkin said: "Our egos as human beings have prevented us for too long for watching for the possibility of artistic expression in other beings." ...
Jerome Witkin and his brother Joel-Peter Witkin are jews:
Quote:
Joel-Peter Witkin (born September 13, 1939, in Brooklyn, New York City) is an American photographer. He was born to Jewish father and a Roman Catholic mother. He has a twin brother, Jerome Witkin, who also plays a significant role in the art world for his realistic paintings. His parents divorced when Witkin was young because they were unable to transcend their religious differences. ...
For a really good prank on the jewed art world, read:

Disumbrationist School of Painting
A hoax that embarrassed the art world


Quote:
The son of a Methodist minister, Paul Jordan-Smith graduated from a school of divinity in 1908 and became a pastor of the Universalist church. In 1910 he resigned after being charged with heresy [2] and became a writer. In 1924 he committed blasphemy against the strange gods of modern art.


He became convinced that "the modern critic in literature and art was a coward, so afraid of being out of step with his generation that he hesitated at giving honest opinion concerning art values, especially where those values were not perceptible" [1] and decided to play a joke on these art critics. He borrowed some old brushes, and on a discarded canvas slapped out a picture of a savage woman, waving a banana skin over her head. As Smith would be to banal for an independent artist, he chose Pavel Jerdanowitch for a name. He called his school of painting "The Disumbrationist" for the reason that he could not create no shadows. He applied for membership to the "No Jury" artist group in New York. After being accepted he submitted the picture under the title of "Exaltation". It was exhibited at the Waldorf Astoria Gallery in New York in 1925 and there was seen by Comte Chabrier, who wrote to Jerdanowitch from Paris asking him for a sketch of his life and for his photo. Jordan-Smith wrote that he was born in Moscow, that his parents brought him to Chicago. He was sent to study at Chicago's Art Institute, where he contracted tuberculosis. Some kind friends sent him to recover to the South Sea Islands, where he got acquainted with the savages. He returned to the United States and was living in deserts of California. Jordan-Smith also sent Chabrier the photo he made for this occasion and it appeared together with the praise of the new school of painting in the French art magazine Revue du Vrai et du Beau.


Now Jerdanowitch was invited to submit a painting to the No Jury Show in Chicago. He painted the "Aspiration" and it was exhibited at Marshall Field's Gallery in 1926. The painting was reproduced and described in glowing terms in the Chicago Evening Post. The following year he exhibited at Buffalo and was discovered by another French Journal, La Revue Moderne, which published reproductions of "Aspiration" and "Adoration". Finally, a full-page reproduction of "Aspiration" appeared in The Golden Book of Modern Art.
By 1927 Paul Jordan-Smith got tired of this joke and confessed it to Los Angeles Times [3]. This made a world-wide sensation. He wrote [1]: "I got more publicity from this little joke, which had occupied me no more than an hour a year during the three years I was engaged in it, than from all the serious work I ever did over many decades."


Some people decided that Jordan-Smith was able to pull off the hoax because he possessed an artistic genius. :krofl He writes [1]: "Many of the critics in America contended that since I was already a writer and new something about organization, I had artistic ability, but was either too ignorant or too stubborn to see it and acknowledge it. Even my old friend, Havelock Ellis, wrote a letter reproving me for making light of my talent."
__________________

How is the faithful city become an harlot! It was full of judgment: righteousness lodged in it, but now murderers. Thy silver is become dross, thy wine mixed with water. Thy princes are rebellious, and companions of thieves: every one loveth gifts, and followeth after rewards.

Xian WN!

"The Jew can only be understood if it is known what he strives for: ... the destruction of the world.... [it is] the tragedy of Lucifer."

Holy-Hoax Exposed, Hollow-Cost Examined, How Low Cost? (toons)
 
Old August 12th, 2007 #29
lawrence dennis
Anti-anti-antisemite
 
lawrence dennis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Rocky Mountains
Posts: 1,265
lawrence dennis
Default Websites ridicule modern "art"

http://reverent.org/

For example:

Pollock or birds?
Quote:
Some of the images displayed below are the works of the legendary artist Jackson Pollock. He created them using his revolutionary dripping technique. The rest are birds' droppings on a sidewalk. Can you tell which is which?

...


4. Pollock Birds


5. Pollock Birds

...
http://ecclesiastes911.net/

For example:

Quote:

A drawing (pencil on paper) by Siri, an Asian elephant.


In 1982 James Ehmann (a journalist) and David Gucwa (a zoo keeper) showed to Jerome Witkin :[] (a professor of art at Syracuse University and an authority on abstract expressionism) a set of drawings done by an elephant (a sample above). They did not reveal to Prof. Witkin the identity of the artist and asked him to evaluate the pictures. The professor said "These drawings are very lyrical, very, very beautiful. They are so positive and affirmative and tense, the energy is so compact and controlled, it's just incredible... I can't get most of my students to fill a page like this." After learning the identity of the artist Witkin said: "Our egos as human beings have prevented us for too long for watching for the possibility of artistic expression in other beings." ...
Jerome Witkin and his brother Joel-Peter Witkin are jews:
Quote:
Joel-Peter Witkin (born September 13, 1939, in Brooklyn, New York City) is an American photographer. He was born to Jewish father and a Roman Catholic mother. He has a twin brother, Jerome Witkin, who also plays a significant role in the art world for his realistic paintings. His parents divorced when Witkin was young because they were unable to transcend their religious differences. ...
For a really good prank on the modern "art" world:

Disumbrationist School of Painting
A hoax that embarrassed the art world


Quote:
The son of a Methodist minister, Paul Jordan-Smith graduated from a school of divinity in 1908 and became a pastor of the Universalist church. In 1910 he resigned after being charged with heresy [2] and became a writer. In 1924 he committed blasphemy against the strange gods of modern art.

He became convinced that "the modern critic in literature and art was a coward, so afraid of being out of step with his generation that he hesitated at giving honest opinion concerning art values, especially where those values were not perceptible" [1] and decided to play a joke on these art critics. He borrowed some old brushes, and on a discarded canvas slapped out a picture of a savage woman, waving a banana skin over her head. As Smith would be to banal for an independent artist, he chose Pavel Jerdanowitch for a name. He called his school of painting "The Disumbrationist" for the reason that he could not create shadows. He applied for membership to the "No Jury" artist group in New York. After being accepted, he submitted the picture under the title of "Exaltation". It was exhibited at the Waldorf Astoria Gallery in New York in 1925 and there was seen by Comte Chabrier, who wrote to Jerdanowitch from Paris asking him for a sketch of his life and for his photo. Jordan-Smith wrote that he was born in Moscow, that his parents brought him to Chicago. He was sent to study at Chicago's Art Institute, where he contracted tuberculosis. Some kind friends sent him to recover to the South Sea Islands, where he got acquainted with the savages. He returned to the United States and was living in deserts of California. Jordan-Smith also sent Chabrier the photo he made for this occasion and it appeared together with the praise of the new school of painting in the French art magazine Revue du Vrai et du Beau.

Now Jerdanowitch was invited to submit a painting to the No Jury Show in Chicago. He painted the "Aspiration" and it was exhibited at Marshall Field's Gallery in 1926. The painting was reproduced and described in glowing terms in the Chicago Evening Post. The following year he exhibited at Buffalo and was discovered by another French Journal, La Revue Moderne, which published reproductions of "Aspiration" and "Adoration". Finally, a full-page reproduction of "Aspiration" appeared in The Golden Book of Modern Art.

By 1927 Paul Jordan-Smith got tired of this joke and confessed it to Los Angeles Times [3]. This made a world-wide sensation. He wrote [1]: "I got more publicity from this little joke, which had occupied me no more than an hour a year during the three years I was engaged in it, than from all the serious work I ever did over many decades."

Some people decided that Jordan-Smith was able to pull off the hoax because he possessed an artistic genius. :krofl He writes [1]: "Many of the critics in America contended that since I was already a writer and new something about organization, I had artistic ability, but was either too ignorant or too stubborn to see it and acknowledge it. Even my old friend, Havelock Ellis, wrote a letter reproving me for making light of my talent." ...

The Seven Deadly Sins

Exaltation [see the bogus "explanation" of this painting below in big red. --L.D.]


Aspiration


Adoration


Illumination


Gination


Capitulation


Collation

The seven Disumbrationist paintings, produced by Rev Jordan-Smith, who christened them "The Seven Deadly Sins". Aspiration, Capitulation, and Collation are now in the UCLA Library of Special Collections [4]. The fate of the other four paintings is unknown.

...

Pavel Jerdanowitch explains the meaning of his works

In 1928 the final and complete exhibition of Jerdanowitch's paintings took place at Vose Galleries in Boston. Paul Jordan-Smith and Robert Vose prepared a leaflet describing the Disumbrationist School of Painting and its aims.

Courtesy, Vose Galleries

Besides, Paul Jordan-Smith prepared special leaflets describing the meaning of the Disumbrationist paintings. Here are some of the explanations.


Exaltation
It represents the breaking of the shackles of womanhood. The lady has just killed a missionary, represented by a skull. She is hungry. Women are forbidden to eat bananas on that Island. She has just taken a luscious bite and is waving the banana skin in triumph and freedom [1].


Aspiration
The bird you see in the upper right corner is called the cosmic rooster, and is a symbol of suppressed desires; it sits upon a cross, which is of course another symbol, and at the end of the closes line is the cosmos flower with white leaves signifying immortality. The entire painting affords a marvellous illustration of the law of dynamic symmetry; everything directs the eye of the beholder towards the central symbol, so that at first we are like the washer woman (who stares at the cosmic rooster: this is why the painting is called "Aspiration") and fail to notice the hand of greed reaching for her purse [5].

Illumination
It is midnight and the drunken man stumbles home, anticipating a storm from his indignant wife; he sees her eyes and the lightning of her wrath. It is conscience at work [1].

Gination
It depicts the appalling effects of alcohol on Hollywood women of the studios. It is a moral picture. Note the look of corruption on the lady's skin. Everything is unbalanced. While good gin might not have just that effect, boulevard gin brings it about in short time. The picture is painted in bold strokes and with a sure hand. I believe it is the most powerful of my works [1].
__________________

How is the faithful city become an harlot! It was full of judgment: righteousness lodged in it, but now murderers. Thy silver is become dross, thy wine mixed with water. Thy princes are rebellious, and companions of thieves: every one loveth gifts, and followeth after rewards.

Xian WN!

"The Jew can only be understood if it is known what he strives for: ... the destruction of the world.... [it is] the tragedy of Lucifer."

Holy-Hoax Exposed, Hollow-Cost Examined, How Low Cost? (toons)

Last edited by lawrence dennis; August 12th, 2007 at 10:54 AM. Reason: added pics
 
Old September 21st, 2007 #30
lawrence dennis
Anti-anti-antisemite
 
lawrence dennis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Rocky Mountains
Posts: 1,265
lawrence dennis
Default Don't call modern art "degenerate" unless you are a Nazi sympathizer...

...even if it really is degenerate.

Cardinal in 'Nazi art term' row
Quote:
A German archbishop has sparked controversy by calling some modern art "degenerate" - a term used by the Nazi regime in its persecution of artists.

Cardinal Joachim Meisner, Archbishop of Cologne, was speaking as the Church inaugurated its Kolumba art museum.

Cardinal Meisner warned that when art became estranged from worship, culture became degenerate.

The cardinal had not intended to pay tribute to "old ideologies", a spokesman said.

Taboo
The BBC's Marianne Landzettel says this was no off-the-cuff remark by the cardinal, delivered in a sermon in Cologne Cathedral, but was precisely scripted.

She says the phrase degenerate art - "entartete Kunst" - in German has only one connotation: that of Nazi Germany and the persecution of artists, the banning of paintings and the burning of books.

"Entartete Kunst" was the name of an exhibition of works organised by the Nazis in 1937 in Munich as a warning to the German people.

In a newspaper interview, the North Rhine-Westphalia culture secretary, Hans-Dietrich Grosse-Brockhoff, said it was appalling that Cardinal Meisner had used such a word.

Former minister Michael Vesper also said he was shocked.

"I thought all this was history, and then it is a high-ranking member of the Catholic clergy who uses it," he said.

After Adolf Hitler came to power in 1933, the Nazi government started to bring art under its control.

All modern art, and Expressionism in particular, was labelled degenerate and was not to be shown in public.

More than 15,000 paintings were removed from German museums.

Recently Cardinal Meisner expressed opposition to a new stained-glass window in Cologne Cathedral.

The abstract work by renowned artist Gerhard Richter contains thousands of squares.

The archbishop's supporters say he is not opposed to modern art as such but wanted the window to be a more figurative representation, including of those who suffered under Nazi persecution.

Correspondents say any sign of agreement with the Nazis is taboo in Germany.

Last week, a top TV presenter was sacked for praising the Nazis' respect for families and motherhood.
__________________

How is the faithful city become an harlot! It was full of judgment: righteousness lodged in it, but now murderers. Thy silver is become dross, thy wine mixed with water. Thy princes are rebellious, and companions of thieves: every one loveth gifts, and followeth after rewards.

Xian WN!

"The Jew can only be understood if it is known what he strives for: ... the destruction of the world.... [it is] the tragedy of Lucifer."

Holy-Hoax Exposed, Hollow-Cost Examined, How Low Cost? (toons)
 
Old May 30th, 2008 #31
Owen D.
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 148
Owen D.
Default Entartete Kunts

Jews spend £115,000 on Hitler paintings to ritually deface them

'When the artists Jake and Dinos Chapman bought a series of paintings by Adolf Hitler for £115,000, many questioned the morality of paying for works produced by one of history's most brutal dictators.'



'Yesterday, the brothers unveiled 13 of the watercolours, on which they had added psychedelic rainbows, stars and love hearts.'





http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-en...rs-836755.html

Ignore the psychobabble, all they have done is ceromoniously vandalised historical artifacts and taken them out of circulation.Their own artwork is jewish-bolshevist degenerate art in a classic sense:

Child blow-up dolls with penises for noses. No ifs. No buts, juxtoposing children with sex is paedophilia.




 
Old June 1st, 2008 #32
confederate
Senior Member
 
confederate's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: knee deep and surrounded
Posts: 1,763
confederate
Default

anything a jew says is artistic, isn't.
__________________
"OY,VEY ALREADY!!"

Dr. William Pierce
 
Old November 7th, 2008 #33
Blake Smith
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 271
Blake Smith
Default Jewish photography, Goyish Photography.

Behind a Century of Photos, Was There a Jewish Eye?

TO be a great photographer, Garry Winogrand liked to claim during the 1970's, it was first of all necessary to be Jewish. The best ones, in his opinion -- past and present, himself included, naturally -- shared this birthright. Jewish photographers by his definition were nervy, ironic, disruptive of artistic norms and proud outsiders. Eugène Atget, he happily argued (on no genealogical grounds), must have been Jewish because his photographs of French life on the tattered fringes seemed so Jewish in spirit.

As generalizations go, Winogrand's semi-serious barroom boast has a lot of evidence to back it up. In no other visual art form except cinema over the last 100 years were Jews such a shaping force. From first decade to last, in fine art, reportage, portraiture, fashion and especially street photography, a staggering number of influential figures have been Jewish.

To list just a few: Alfred Stieglitz, Paul Strand, Man Ray, El Lissitzky, Laszlo Moholy-Nagy, André Kertesz, Brassaï, Erich Saloman, Martin Munkasci, Robert Capa, Alfred Eisenstaedt, Lisette Model, Helen Levitt, Weegee, Aaron Siskind, Margaret Bourke-White, Irving Penn, Richard Avedon, Arnold Newman, Robert Frank, William Klein, Elliott Erwitt, Winogrand, Diane Arbus, Lee Friedlander, Annie Liebovitz, Mary Ellen Mark, Joel Meyerowitz and Nan Goldin.

Winogrand was by no means alone in observing that a vast number of the outstanding 20th-century photographers were Jewish. Over the years, a few curators have noted the fact in private, as have some Jewish photographers themselves.

''I've had this conversation with many of my colleagues,'' said Mark Haven, a photographer who teaches at the Rochester Institute of Technology. ''It's hard not to notice it. And it's hard to talk about. People can accuse you of being an ethnic chauvinist.''

Now this open secret has been aired in a public forum, in the exhibition ''New York: Capital of Photography'' at the Jewish Museum in Manhattan. The show, organized by the art critic Max Kozloff, underscores the essential role of Jewish photographers in capturing New York City. In a series of provocative essays in the catalog (published by Yale University Press), Mr. Kozloff speculates why this group, medium and city made such a good match.

The answers he proposes rely on some dubious aesthetic notions. He suggests, for example, that photographs of New York taken by Jews show a sensibility distinct from those by non-Jews. It's not clear who will feel more insulted by some of his ideas: Jewish photographers who have never regarded themselves as such, or non-Jewish photographers who, in Mr. Kozloff's opinion, have usually evidenced in their work a more stable and also a less soulful vision of the city.

But faced with the huge body of memorable images produced by Jewish photographers in New York, Mr. Kozloff, a former executive editor of Art Forum magazine and the author of several books of photographic criticism, is at least offering to explain this glaring statistical anomaly. And no one should fault his selection of rarely exhibited prints.

Mr. Kozloff confines his survey to street photography, which he considers a ''Jewish invention.'' He writes about a number of non-Jewish photographers, including Lewis Hine, Berenice Abbott and Walker Evans. But, he explains, ''in truth, we're largely dealing with a picture archive of an American city visualized by Jews, to which a few distinguished Gentiles have contributed.'' In his essay ''Jewish Sensibility and the Photography of New York,'' Mr. Kozloff says this is no accident.

Quote:
He seizes on a quote in The New Yorker last year by the photographer William Klein, who posited an opposition between what he calls ''goyish photography'' (the landscape school of Edward Weston and Ansel Adams) and ''Jewish photography'' (''funky'' urbanists like Weegee and Arbus).
Mr. Kozloff accepts this division of schools and argues that images of New York by Jewish photographers during the middle of the century tend to reveal a unique ''social tension,'' which is usually not found in the work of their non-Jewish colleagues. Wrestling with issues of cultural assimilation, Jewish photographers devoured New York with their cameras while at the same registering a sense that they stood apart.

''They present the city as formed instant by instant out of their impulsive responses,'' Mr. Kozloff writes. ''It is their improvised exchange with their subjects, not a kit of fixed and essential attributes, that distinguishes their work.''

Mr. Kozloff is aware that his theory is, to say the least, problematic. In a telephone interview, he acknowledged that some Jewish photographers are not happy with his thesis. ''They've spent their careers trying to escape these parochialized terms,'' he said. ''They think I'm putting them back into a ghetto. But that's not my intent.'' [..]

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpag...=&pagewanted=1

Goyish Photography

Ansel Adams









Jewish photography

Nan Goldin
Police seize photograph from art gallery


Mary Ellen Mark




Elliott Erwitt


Helen Levitt
 
Old November 7th, 2008 #34
Brad
Anti-semite Pro-human
 
Brad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Penal colony 37-144
Posts: 2,167
Brad
Default

What was that very first painting, three terds on a string?
__________________
Words hold power, for words influence thought, and thought shapes reality.

B.B. aka Arbiter of all truth.
 
Old November 10th, 2008 #35
Bassanio
Hath not a Goy eyes?
 
Bassanio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Venice
Posts: 4,287
Blog Entries: 6
Bassanio
Default

Anyone who views this thread should clean his cache right after because there's child porn in it.

Edit: It's gone now.
__________________
The Goy cries out in ecstasy as the Jew strikes him.

Last edited by Bassanio; November 10th, 2008 at 10:41 PM.
 
Old November 10th, 2008 #36
Brad
Anti-semite Pro-human
 
Brad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Penal colony 37-144
Posts: 2,167
Brad
Default

Very fucking astute Bassanio, I wouldn't have thought of it myself.

And one or two questionable images taken out of context is all those cocksuckers need to stitch you up.

Never mind that real pedo's keep thousand of cataloged images.
__________________
Words hold power, for words influence thought, and thought shapes reality.

B.B. aka Arbiter of all truth.
 
Old July 8th, 2010 #37
J. Holmes
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 40
J. Holmes
Default

At the risk of sounding like a kike, I have to say the Jewish memorials look much more interesting and memorable than the 'Anglo-Saxon' memorial. Just being honest.
 
Old October 25th, 2013 #38
Alexander M.
Senior Member
 
Alexander M.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 3,236
Alexander M.
Default Modern Art: An Artful Swindle

The first and most sweeping swindle perpetrated upon the West by its enemies was the obfuscation of the definition of Art.

http://alternativeright.com/blog/cat...2lkxsxvdyg62i9
__________________
Experience molds perception.
 
Old October 25th, 2013 #39
littlefieldjohn
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 8,048
littlefieldjohn
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Alexander M. View Post
The first and most sweeping swindle perpetrated upon the West by its enemies was the obfuscation of the definition of Art.

http://alternativeright.com/blog/cat...2lkxsxvdyg62i9




Quote:
........the greatest and most influential Artspeaker was Clement Greenberg, the Picasso of Artspeak.
Quote:
It is the job of the modern art critic by means of Artspeak to:

make stupidity seem profound
make incompetence seem philosophical
excuse mediocrity by claiming it is something utterly new




The major rules for writing Artspeak are roughly speaking:

use at least two hundred words where you could have used ten. (flatulence)
use obscure terms especially when writing esoteric theory. (obscurant)
when stating your subjective opinion make it sound like it is universally accepted as unquestionable truth. (belief)
drop names of famous people wherever possible. This advertises that you are well read. ( I'm a genuine intellectual)
humor should sound obscure, even grave. (Later modern Artspeak does contain a bit of humor.) (very very serious)
when writing a long statement that means practically nothing, use your skills to construct it in such a way that it never occurs to your reader to analyze it. (vacuous)


Artspeak generally addresses some of the following themes:

it is a subjective way of saying what amounts to, "I like this particular quality in the picture." In very longwinded prose. (I l-l-like it)
it proposes esoteric theories around unrelated subjects for example the fourth dimension, quantum mechanics, sociological stuff and psycho-babble. (profound theory)-
it deals with pedantic comparative stuff. The best example is found in five-pound Mondrian books which spend time talking about how he could have influenced Vermeer. (pedantic)
it often contains descriptions for the blind. (For the blind)


Artspeak aims at two audiences:

the Artzy-fartzy who claims he comprehends the deeper meaning of what is said--until he's asked.
the non-Artspeaker for whom the obscure terms and flowery inflated syntax are designed to make him feel intellectually inadequate and factually uninformed. It serves to prevent any thoughts that the object in question might really be just another put-on.
http://www3.sympatico.ca/manideli/Artsp.htm
 
Reply

Share


Thread
Display Modes


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:38 PM.
Page generated in 0.28890 seconds.