Less to See than on NHL Center Ice®

[mmm3587]

From Drudge:

"Private telephone numbers of celebrities have been unleashed on the Internet after an apparent hacking into Paris Hilton's T-MOBILE SIDEKICK Address Book, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

The FBI has opened an investigation into the hack, a government source said.

The DRUDGE REPORT has confirmed the authenticity of many of the unlisted and super-secret numbers: Private phone numbers and email addresses of Eminem, Lindsay Lohan, Christina Aguilera, Andy Roddick, Ashlee Simpson, Victoria Gotti, Vin Diesel, Anna Kournikova and many others!"

http://www.gawker.com/news/culture/p...lton/index.php

http://s117433060.onlinehome.us/paris-addressbook.html

Excerpts:

"Lohan, Lindsay
+1-347-596-9990

Lohan, Lindsay
crossheart@tmail.com"

"Kournikova, Anna
305-206-5883"

"Philippoussis, Mark
mark7@tmail.com

Phillipoussis, Mark
011-61-411454444

Phillipoussis, Mark
+61-411454444"

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
I may have whiffed, but as least I scroll before I post.

You think HE whiffed?!

(Okay, now I know not to hit send before typing. It's fixed now.)

Naw, let's do it this way: Pretend this is PLF's post:

No, I understand that. All of these people (well, I don't know about Burden) brought some quality to what they were doing that, while their work didn't always satisfy the reward-buttons that people had been trained to look to in order to claim satisfaction, did provide some new kind of satisfaction once you could wait for it. I know that had to hear Monk a number of times before I could get an idea of what he was trying to say. (Burden still baffles me - all I can see is him saying "shoot me!") Coleman was similarly strange the first few times. (Thanks gawd for Jerry G.) In short, most of these people left one with a strong impression once you could put down the template you had been trying to fill out, and let them freehand. I got a sense of what they were trying to say, eventually (which said delay is more a reflection on me, I understand, then them.) With Christos, I not only don't get that sense, I wonder why he bothers to speak.


Last edited by bilmore on 02-21-2005 at 03:50 PM

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
Heh. The cows are now terrorizing South Africans. Come on, Coltrane. Get with the fucking program .

I didn't realize it was a parade. I am clearly out of the cows-as-art loop. Crap. Where's Jesus in a jar of piss when you need it?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Diane_Keaton
Heh. The cows are now terrorizing South Africans. Come on, Coltrane. Get with the fucking program .

Okay, I have seen this Cow Parade art thingie, and I am now finally beginning to understand Burden's "shoot me" impulse. Maybe it was art, after all.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally posted by bilmore
No, I understand that. All of these people (well, I don't know about Burden) brought some quality to what they were doing that, while their work didn't always satisfy the reward-buttons that people had been trained to look to in order to claim satisfaction, did provide some new kind of satisfaction once you could wait for it. I know that had to hear Monk a number of times before I could get an idea of what he was trying to say. (Burden still baffles me - all I can see is him saying "shoot me!") Coleman was similarly strange the first few times. (Thanks gawd for Jerry G.) In short, most of these people left one with a strong impression once you could put down the template you had been trying to fill out, and let them freehand. I got a sense of what they were trying to say, eventually (which said delay is more a reflection on me, I understand, then them.) With Christos, I not only don't get that sense, I wonder why he bothers to speak.

Well, O.K., maybe. But look at a different iteration of your criticism: "Maybe it's the concept itself that no one else could come up with - maybe that's his "art" - but I look at it, and it never makes me wish I could have his talent." If I understand what you are saying here, Christos' art does not display talent - at best it is a concept that nobody else can come up with. But it sure seems like pretty much the same thing can be said of the other artists, at least to varying degrees. I mean, when you are projecting imaginary mental images on walls, or having a symphony play nothing, there does not seem to be anything left BUT the concept. What "quality" did John Cage bring to silence? What "quality" did Jim Dine bring to non-existent images?

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Pretty Little Flower
Well, O.K., maybe.

I got no kick against modern jazz, unless they play it too darn fast. So, I join with the Flower.

I kinda like the way the saffron curtains catch the light in the park at different times of the day. Very cool. And the pink plastic Christo (or is it Cristo?) put around the islands in Miami's Biscayne Bay back in the pre-Miami Vice 1980s really did make them look like water lilies from above. Pretty.

Originally posted by bilmore
I think there's always been a sort of feeling that "true art" (yeah, yeah, don't even say it) has to be a product of, among other things, some talent of expression that can't be, or at least isn't, shared by the mob. It's the old "can you paint Binky" thing - everyone can do it, but few can make it grab. Christos' work always strikes me as something inspired by an Ikea catalog, that could be done exactly as he has done it, by anyone. Maybe it's the concept itself that no one else could come up with - maybe that's his "art" - but I look at it, and it never makes me wish I could have his talent. RT's friend, on the other hand, creates something that does inspire that feeling.

Don't get me wrong - I understand and appreciate a debate about whether something is "good" art or crap. And I understand completely if you think what Crisco's doing is a complete waste of time. What I find amusing is the visceral hatred of the whole project that I've been hearing from the usual right-wing media outlets around town when, as far as I know, the Clintons aren't even involved in this.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Pretty Little Flower
Well, O.K., maybe. But look at a different iteration of your criticism: "Maybe it's the concept itself that no one else could come up with - maybe that's his "art" - but I look at it, and it never makes me wish I could have his talent." If I understand what you are saying here, Christos' art does not display talent - at best it is a concept that nobody else can come up with. But it sure seems like pretty much the same thing can be said of the other artists, at least to varying degrees. I mean, when you are projecting imaginary mental images on walls, or having a symphony play nothing, there does not seem to be anything left BUT the concept. What "quality" did John Cage bring to silence? What "quality" did Jim Dine bring to non-existent images?

I was sloppy in my reply, relying primarily on my ultimate reactions to Monk, Pollack, Coleman, Monet, Stravinsky, and Picasso. Once I stopped looking for other people in their work, I could see them. I was explicit in my scorn for Burden, but knew (and know) nothing about Dine and Cage. From what you say about them, I suspect they can't draw Binky either.

Maybe the best thing I can say here is that, to me, art has to be something beyond a gimmick. It has to speak of, and to, something. For new kinds of expressions, the "to" part is usually the hardest, as we keep waiting to hear what astisfied us last Wednesday, and we have to eventually keep our days separate. But, I doubt Christos will make my next Wednesday any more interesting than he did last week.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by ironweed
Don't get me wrong - I understand and appreciate a debate about whether something is "good" art or crap. And I understand completely if you think what Crisco's doing is a complete waste of time. What I find amusing is the visceral hatred of the whole project that I've been hearing from the usual right-wing media outlets around town when, as far as I know, the Clinton's aren't even involved in this.

In keeping with my so-far theme, maybe if it really makes them mad, it's an admission that it really IS art. Mostly for me, though, Christos makes me wonder if I remembered to close the drapes when I left home.

The crowds of silly people . . . caused traffic.

This is what I said about the RNC, and they didn't even recycle. Except for Tucker Carlson. He's apparently been put on a compost heap somewhere.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by bilmore
I was sloppy in my reply, relying primarily on my ultimate reactions to Monk, Pollack, Coleman, Monet, Stravinsky, and Picasso. Once I stopped looking for other people in their work, I could see them. I was explicit in my scorn for Burden, but knew (and know) nothing about Dine and Cage. From what you say about them, I suspect they can't draw Binky either.

Maybe the best thing I can say here is that, to me, art has to be something beyond a gimmick. It has to speak of, and to, something. For new kinds of expressions, the "to" part is usually the hardest, as we keep waiting to hear what astisfied us last Wednesday, and we have to eventually keep our days separate. But, I doubt Christos will make my next Wednesday any more interesting than he did last week.

So, to see if I understand: Jean Socteau is art. Christo is a gimmick. And Drawing Mickey Mouse ears on Hank is just stating the obvious.

Boy, I'm glad I don't live in the Midwest.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally posted by Not Bob
I kinda like the way the saffron curtains catch the light in the park at different times of the day. Very cool. And the pink plastic Christo (or is it Cristo?) put around the islands in Miami's Biscayne Bay back in the pre-Miami Vice 1980s really did make them look like water lilies from above. Pretty.

O.K., it is Christo. Not any of the variations I have been calling him. Like I said, I have no opinion about whether he will stand the test of time - I do not even spell his name right.

I once knew someone who was an assitant curator of a contemporary art institute. There was a Chris Burden exhibit there. Someone there thought it would be funny to have one of the posters for the exhibit say: "Lots of people think Chris Burden should be in an institution. Just not ours." Chris Burden apparently did not think it was funny.

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by Pretty Little Flower
If I understand what you are saying here, Christos' art does not display talent - at best it is a concept that nobody else can come up with. But it sure seems like pretty much the same thing can be said of the other artists, at least to varying degrees.

At least for me, it isn't the lack of "art" or talent. And hey I even like Dada as much as the next guy (and shit, look at my face for christosakes). But I don't recall Warhol and the like ever having such a grandiose view of their art ofrthemselves as world changing. Pink flamingos wrapped around a Florida bay or whatever Not Bobbie said is pretty and all, but change the world? Piece of history? I don't think so. It's gimmicky, pretty, apparently raises money for a good cause, and I'm sure it takes talent to coordinate the enclosing of land in fabric (just like herding cats would take talent and coordination) but that's about it.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
So, to see if I understand: Jean Socteau is art. Christo is a gimmick. And Drawing Mickey Mouse ears on Hank is just stating the obvious.

Boy, I'm glad I don't live in the Midwest.

34. Goodbye, Old Paint
gs: Harold J. Stone (Alexandri Gregor Dubov)

A famous painter who has renounced civilization, Dubov, visits the island (with a short-wave radio, of course). The castaways are hopeful that Dubov will give them his transmitter, but soon discover he does not wish to go back to civilization. They must come up with a scheme to make him change his mind, and attempt to make him jealous by pretending Gilligan is an artistic genius.


b: 22-May-1965 pc: 0734 w: David P. Harmon d: Jack Arnold

[Diane_Keaton]

Originally posted by bilmore
Maybe the best thing I can say here is that, to me, art has to be something beyond a gimmick. It has to speak of, and to, something.

Unless the art acknowledges its place as a gimmick. And also art can be silly and funny. And entertaining - like whoever that photographer was that photographed thousands of nekkid people in famous squares and shit. Now THAT'S my kind of Christo.