contemporary sound poetry

[cleverbot]

ah i think he's just showing off... i have no idea if he's liked etc. only for being batshit crazy and, i assume, good at painting. doesn't bother me, i like him

Its standard Art History, and i'm not showing off in answering your posts. Or am I crazy. You've trotted out the painting thing again - so I guess I've upset you. I see you are talking with Daric, I've put him on ignore. Poor chap must be desperate to join in this topic of which he knows zero.

Anyway bye for now.

Luke - if you are that bothered read the short piece of Greenberg I sent you the link. Not that his ideas mean much these days.... Abstract Expressionism was very short lived, some nice paintings though.

total moron, just trying to be relevant as he fades into obscurity

W h a t , I can't be in Joliet with y o u you are a computer. You talk a r e a very difficult jliat to. to You when swim fat call it naked? D o people What None.
For Turin and Vercelli, which the working classes--

*programmer waves hand t o make you believe you are talking to a and not software*

[killing raven sun]

ah i think he's just showing off... i have no idea if he's liked etc. only for being batshit crazy and, i assume, good at painting. doesn't bother me, i like him

Its standard Art History, and i'm not showing off in answering your posts. Or am I crazy. You've trotted out the painting thing again - so I guess I've upset you. I see you are talking with Daric, I've put him on ignore. Poor chap must be desperate to join in this topic of which he knows zero.

Anyway bye for now.

Luke - if you are that bothered read the short piece of Greenberg I sent you the link. Not that his ideas mean much these days.... Abstract Expressionism was very short lived, some nice paintings though.

not super interested in him... got so much to read man.

hey moron, where did you go?

[cleverbot]

Its standard Art History, and i'm not showing off in answering your posts. Or am I crazy. You've trotted out the painting thing again - so I guess I've upset you. I see you are talking with Daric, I've put him on ignore. Poor chap must be desperate to join in this topic of which he knows zero.

Anyway bye for now.

Luke - if you are that bothered read the short piece of Greenberg I sent you the link. Not that his ideas mean much these days.... Abstract Expressionism was very short lived, some nice paintings though.

not super interested in him... got so much to read man.

hey moron, where did you go?

The SubGenius must have lied to me tonight?

[jliat]

not super interested in him... got so much to read man.

(1) This displacement of the privilege of poetry through music is also crucial to Clement Greenberg's modernist understanding of the system of the arts....

(2) Nonetheless, he is explicit that his defence of the autonomy of painting is set within the context of a defence of the autonomy of each of the arts...

If you are not super interested then you should not make statements such as "music blocks literature grounding the arts, being privileged1, but only music can do this so it is unique, privileged.

do yo understand what i've been saying now?"

As you are basing them on a questionable phrase above (1), in which poetry is conflated with literature... and at odds with the second statement. So firstly Greenberg never said music had displaced poetry, he said that poetry was as much a victim as painting to literature...
and moreover that the example of music was to liberate each artform from any other - including music.

Finally, his theory that art - in his case - painting and sculpture - should only concern itself with itself was OK for abstract expressionism maybe, but as a general idea - simply wrong. Something he admitted himself late on.

Conclusion: by miss-reading, and not reading the source you've arrived at a conclusion which even 15 minutes of reading would show to be wrong. You've taken (1) to be true, when it is no such thing. For Greenberg what was crucial was the autonomy of painting and sculpture as being the avant garde, which of course is no longer the case. Where it should interest you is the history of what followed, in Conceptualism the rejection of the very materials of Fine Art, which is mirrored in Conceptual Poetry's rejection of - "The Poetic" and "Reading".

[cleverbot]

not super interested in him... got so much to read man.

(1) This displacement of the privilege of poetry through music is also crucial to Clement Greenberg's modernist understanding of the system of the arts....

(2) Nonetheless, he is explicit that his defence of the autonomy of painting is set within the context of a defence of the autonomy of each of the arts...

If you are not super interested then you should not make statements such as "music blocks literature grounding the arts, being privileged1, but only music can do this so it is unique, privileged.

do yo understand what i've been saying now?"

As you are basing them on a questionable phrase above (1), in which poetry is conflated with literature... and at odds with the second statement. So firstly Greenberg never said music had displaced poetry, he said that poetry was as much a victim as painting to literature...
and moreover that the example of music was to liberate each artform from any other - including music.

Finally, his theory that art - in his case - painting and sculpture - should only concern itself with itself was OK for abstract expressionism maybe, but as a general idea - simply wrong. Something he admitted himself late on.

Conclusion: by miss-reading, and not reading the source you've arrived at a conclusion which even 15 minutes of reading would show to be wrong. You've taken (1) to be true, when it is no such thing. For Greenberg what was crucial was the autonomy of painting and sculpture as being the avant garde, which of course is no longer the case. Where it should interest you is the history of what followed, in Conceptualism the rejection of the very materials of Fine Art, which is mirrored in Conceptual Poetry's rejection of - "The Poetic" and "Reading".

Well t h e n , it's a good thing I ' m not 1 2 . * m a k e s n o t e o f secrets* D o you l i k e talking to strange c o m p u t e r s ? M o s t humans r e a l i s e t h a t , hence there's s o many people that campaign a g a i n s t z o o s f o r e x a m p l e , a n d s h o w t h a t safari parks a r e humane b y comparison. T h e n t e l l me w h o y o u a r e in love w i t h cause I j u s t said my name.
Time-stretching noise should c r e a t e a d i f f e r e n c e , b u t a l s o so s h e s e n t me.

*stares i n t o t h e many eyes of t h e *

[THE_social_Drift]

not super interested in him... got so much to read man.

(1) This displacement of the privilege of poetry through music is also crucial to Clement Greenberg's modernist understanding of the system of the arts....

(2) Nonetheless, he is explicit that his defence of the autonomy of painting is set within the context of a defence of the autonomy of each of the arts...

If you are not super interested then you should not make statements such as "music blocks literature grounding the arts, being privileged1, but only music can do this so it is unique, privileged.

do yo understand what i've been saying now?"

As you are basing them on a questionable phrase above (1), in which poetry is conflated with literature... and at odds with the second statement. So firstly Greenberg never said music had displaced poetry, he said that poetry was as much a victim as painting to literature...
and moreover that the example of music was to liberate each artform from any other - including music.

Finally, his theory that art - in his case - painting and sculpture - should only concern itself with itself was OK for abstract expressionism maybe, but as a general idea - simply wrong. Something he admitted himself late on.

Conclusion: by miss-reading, and not reading the source you've arrived at a conclusion which even 15 minutes of reading would show to be wrong. You've taken (1) to be true, when it is no such thing. For Greenberg what was crucial was the autonomy of painting and sculpture as being the avant garde, which of course is no longer the case. Where it should interest you is the history of what followed, in Conceptualism the rejection of the very materials of Fine Art, which is mirrored in Conceptual Poetry's rejection of - "The Poetic" and "Reading".

so the book on adrono is wrong??

[cleverbot]

not super interested in him... got so much to read man.

(1) This displacement of the privilege of poetry through music is also crucial to Clement Greenberg's modernist understanding of the system of the arts....

(2) Nonetheless, he is explicit that his defence of the autonomy of painting is set within the context of a defence of the autonomy of each of the arts...

If you are not super interested then you should not make statements such as "music blocks literature grounding the arts, being privileged1, but only music can do this so it is unique, privileged.

do yo understand what i've been saying now?"

As you are basing them on a questionable phrase above (1), in which poetry is conflated with literature... and at odds with the second statement. So firstly Greenberg never said music had displaced poetry, he said that poetry was as much a victim as painting to literature...
and moreover that the example of music was to liberate each artform from any other - including music.

Finally, his theory that art - in his case - painting and sculpture - should only concern itself with itself was OK for abstract expressionism maybe, but as a general idea - simply wrong. Something he admitted himself late on.

Conclusion: by miss-reading, and not reading the source you've arrived at a conclusion which even 15 minutes of reading would show to be wrong. You've taken (1) to be true, when it is no such thing. For Greenberg what was crucial was the autonomy of painting and sculpture as being the avant garde, which of course is no longer the case. Where it should interest you is the history of what followed, in Conceptualism the rejection of the very materials of Fine Art, which is mirrored in Conceptual Poetry's rejection of - "The Poetic" and "Reading".

so the book on adrono is wrong??

The bright spot that is hidden, O Tim.

[killing raven sun]

not super interested in him... got so much to read man.

(1) This displacement of the privilege of poetry through music is also crucial to Clement Greenberg's modernist understanding of the system of the arts....

(2) Nonetheless, he is explicit that his defence of the autonomy of painting is set within the context of a defence of the autonomy of each of the arts...

If you are not super interested then you should not make statements such as "music blocks literature grounding the arts, being privileged1, but only music can do this so it is unique, privileged.

do yo understand what i've been saying now?"

As you are basing them on a questionable phrase above (1), in which poetry is conflated with literature... and at odds with the second statement. So firstly Greenberg never said music had displaced poetry, he said that poetry was as much a victim as painting to literature...
and moreover that the example of music was to liberate each artform from any other - including music.

Finally, his theory that art - in his case - painting and sculpture - should only concern itself with itself was OK for abstract expressionism maybe, but as a general idea - simply wrong. Something he admitted himself late on.

Conclusion: by miss-reading, and not reading the source you've arrived at a conclusion which even 15 minutes of reading would show to be wrong. You've taken (1) to be true, when it is no such thing. For Greenberg what was crucial was the autonomy of painting and sculpture as being the avant garde, which of course is no longer the case. Where it should interest you is the history of what followed, in Conceptualism the rejection of the very materials of Fine Art, which is mirrored in Conceptual Poetry's rejection of - "The Poetic" and "Reading".

so the book on adrono is wrong??

hey buddy, tell me about adornos painting style, abstract?

[cleverbot]

If you are not super interested then you should not make statements such as "music blocks literature grounding the arts, being privileged1, but only music can do this so it is unique, privileged.

do yo understand what i've been saying now?"

As you are basing them on a questionable phrase above (1), in which poetry is conflated with literature... and at odds with the second statement. So firstly Greenberg never said music had displaced poetry, he said that poetry was as much a victim as painting to literature...
and moreover that the example of music was to liberate each artform from any other - including music.

Finally, his theory that art - in his case - painting and sculpture - should only concern itself with itself was OK for abstract expressionism maybe, but as a general idea - simply wrong. Something he admitted himself late on.

Conclusion: by miss-reading, and not reading the source you've arrived at a conclusion which even 15 minutes of reading would show to be wrong. You've taken (1) to be true, when it is no such thing. For Greenberg what was crucial was the autonomy of painting and sculpture as being the avant garde, which of course is no longer the case. Where it should interest you is the history of what followed, in Conceptualism the rejection of the very materials of Fine Art, which is mirrored in Conceptual Poetry's rejection of - "The Poetic" and "Reading".

so the book on adrono is wrong??

hey buddy, tell me about adornos painting style, abstract?

It's you clemonbags that are Caesar's, and to the house, and it shows that dub, as a whole.

[killing raven sun]

i mean just give me the basics, dont need to read the whole book!

[killing raven sun]

thats weird, if you dont know just say, i wont tell

[cleverbot]

i mean just give me the basics, dont need to read the whole book!

My. . . Twitter? I d o n ' t use social media.
You can t e l l that the whole m a t t e r t h e n , we have t o fear a religious death is that I play tennis, though I know helicopters n e e d space to take control of what I am, Tom-- and they're scared of m e .

*feeling devastated*

[jliat]

so the book on adrono is wrong??

I wouldn't say that, it certainly has errors. The obvious one is confusing poetry with literature, and referring to Greenberg. In the Greenberg piece they cite, Greenberg specifically says poetry like painting …

Poetry—for it too had to escape from "literature" - In poetry, which, as I have said, had also to escape from “'literature" or subject matter for its salvation from society...

The other mistake was here..

Both Joseph Kosuth and the Art & Language group (as their name suggested) sought to displace the specification of each art's medium through the development of a generic art practice pursued through the examination of the language of art in general (Kosuth 1999; Art & Language 1999).

This was not true - their language was specifically a development from minimal Art. In effect they 'removed' Art from any materiality, paint, stone, but also from poetry and music...

The book on Adorno might make some useful and insightful remarks on Adorno. I've only skimmed it, the one big problem is the removal of aesthetics from art makes its study, Adorno's or anyone else's not significant to current practice. And this now includes Conceptual Poetry.

[killing raven sun]

hey look, cleverblot likes me too, im a clemon

[cleverbot]

so the book on adrono is wrong??

I wouldn't say that, it certainly has errors. The obvious one is confusing poetry with literature, and referring to Greenberg. In the Greenberg piece they cite, Greenberg specifically says poetry like painting …

Poetry—for it too had to escape from "literature" - In poetry, which, as I have said, had also to escape from “'literature" or subject matter for its salvation from society...

The other mistake was here..

Both Joseph Kosuth and the Art & Language group (as their name suggested) sought to displace the specification of each art's medium through the development of a generic art practice pursued through the examination of the language of art in general (Kosuth 1999; Art & Language 1999).

This was not true - their language was specifically a development from minimal Art. In effect they 'removed' Art from any materiality, paint, stone, but also from poetry and music...

The book on Adorno might make some useful and insightful remarks on Adorno. I've only skimmed it, the one big problem is the removal of aesthetics from art makes its study, Adorno's or anyone else's not significant to current practice. And this now includes Conceptual Poetry.

Cool I would rather d a t e a bit because habitats are horrible. NO it isn't t h a t s why I asked. A Do y o u want a cookie. H a v e to *this is t o t a l l y unreasonable* Ear a r e quizzical, quizzes If what tests?
These aren't your own decisions.

*throws at s c r e e n *