SHARKFORUM: OPINION WITH TEETH

Hey Python and student et al.! Come on and comment. I promise not to insult you, to be calm and ever so friendly.

Mr. Brandl,

"Who's afraid of the big bad wolf..." Not I. Speaking of "literally correct", my name is Pythoness, not Python. Fire the first salvo, I'm ready when you are...

I already fired! I wrote the entry, O anguis muliebris sine nomene! What do you think of the content?

Fire the first salvo, I'm ready when you are...

Mark, I think you have your answer- this foul smelling tube sock stuffed with stale pudding is at best a snake by proxy, ironically not unlike many of todays university produced 'artists'.

The Shark is scrambling around looking for his writings of Marcus Aurelius.....another exquisite post from 'The Continental' -not to be confused with 'The Sophisticate'... Lets see Foucault as a sophist........I like that....Academic aggression based not on philosophical constructs in and of themselves, but rather on the idea of prevailing at any cost. That sounds about right. Though what we are discussing in our art world for my way of thinking might be more acutely described as plain old decadence, the ensuing torpor -as in collapse of what 'things' mean.

I like that snakess wants to challenge us --- but I was hoping it would lead to a discussion of content, not our manners. Pythoness --- do you even read the actual blog articles, or only the comments.

You like pokin' that snake with a stick don't you? I occasionally come upon sea snakes, for me they are not unlike ocean going spagetti. Snap!

Mr. Brandl, Not to worry, it takes some of us university trained artists some time to formulate a response, plus I can't seem to find my dictionary. Patience.

can't find my dictionary.....and that shark ate my homework.....sheeeesh!

Perhaps 'pythoness' is as she claims to be, which would explain the slow pace of things concerning her- ...aren't we still waiting for any form of substance emanating from her -beyond our being horrible and abusive?

Why python anyway? Why not something slightly quicker, more deadly, and way more glamorous -like The Green Mamba for instance?

Well, in fairness to biology pythons do take quite a while to digest their intake...

Well of course -this is a snake that spends most of its life plopped on a rock waiting for its last meal to rot enough for it to be able to move again: In many ways, really a second rate snake....I mean this tomato can has none of the sexiness of the King Cobra, the previously mentioned Mamba, the deadly eastern brown snake, or even your basic diamondback rattler........you have to ask, why the python? And then you get into questions of free will and the dilemma of being.

Anyone can understand how happy a shark is to be a shark...its like hitting the evolutionary jackpot in terms of destiny! Now excuse me while I exercise my free will and swim off in search of something to chomp...

Mr. Roth, thank you for your kind words and for taking the time to answer me with respect. So Mr. Brandl, if what you mean by "content" there is something to glean from your recent posting other than a definition of Sophistry and a few vague references to museum directors and art school directors guilty of such behavior, than yes I would agree there is content. However, I would like to think your definition of sophistry is an apt description of the policy of how Sharkforum polices and treats its commentators - hence, my first question as to why you treat people like assholes when they are not up to your apparent standards of what? intellect? - who knows? "The essential claim of Sophistry is that the actual validity of an argument is irrelevant (even non-existent); it is only the ruling of the audience which matters --- and often only the ruling of a "chosen" audience of fellow-believers. Thus any position ruled true by these "judges" must be considered literally correct, even if it was arrived at by naked pandering to prejudices, or even by bribery or by coercion." I think you could also be guilty of sophistry. The problem is that you all have established your own set of rules and guidlines as to what is valid, based on some god given expertise you all claim to have that remains unknown to your average reader. I think you should all be grateful and thankful for anyone who wades through all your postings to begin with. If you would all step back just a little bit and stop taking yourselves so seriously, you just might stop assuming that everyone is an idiot. And if you really want to get down to a real discussion, why not cite some concrete examples of what your touting as sophistry and tell us all why you think so. This all feels like a one sided conversation to me. PS. Mr.shark, it's good for the digestion to wait, no stress. You on the other hand just chomp and swallow - how utterly tasteless.

Dear Ms. Pythoness,

Please don't confuse my tendency toward civility with kindness. To be honest I've yet to see much of value in your postings, and the truth is that you seem motivated by a need for attention and little else.

Please feel free to prove me wrong.

As to Brandl's post, I fear that your response says much more about you than him. I find the generalizations you smear on with the 3 inch brush to be confusing at best, and rather offensive at worst. As one of two primary founders of this web site I take personal offense at the characterization. Feel free to apologize at any time...

What's worse is that you clearly have not read many of the posts in which we respond to others who find it easier to engage us in intelligent discourse.

I wonder if you're not falling into the trap that many people on the Right seem to these days - that a lack of agreement equals intolerance. Put more simply, the fact that we don't agree with you doesn't make us intolerant - it simply means we disagree.

The fact that we find your criticisms to be childish and petulant means just that. Others have disagreed with us, but in an intelligent manner, and they're responded to appropriately. But look, it's hard to say it but you haven't represented yourself very well here. Your posts present the profile of someone who's rather thoughtless and emotional.

The truth is that we live in a VERY frightening political climate, a climate in which sophists yank the levers of power in an effort to serve their personal needs and little else. A climate in which the Vice President of the United States is willing to turn to a U.S. Senator during a nationally televised debate and tell a bald-faced lie: that he'd never met the man before. A climate in which the PRESIDENT and his handlers feel fully justified in thumbing their noses at the courts and Congress, that they will drape themselves in the flag and desecrate the memory of the hapless victims of 9/11, purely to serve their personal needs.

Are you beginning to get the message? What about an administration which sees nothing wrong with limiting access to the President during the last campaign to those who are not only willing to sign an oath of fealty to him, but are then ushered into a room of phone banks so that they can make cold calls for the man? Up is down, black is white, and "work will set you free."

Art, as always, is a barometer of the times, and it's little surprise that we see many sophists at the controls today. I'll be the first to acknowledge that the opposite of artistic and political sophistry is just as dangerous, as it descends rapidly into rigid didacticism. But come on - you have to be asleep to miss it in the political arena. What do you think is happening when Hannity, Coulter and O'Reilly accuse Lefties of "hating America?"

So some of us are mean at times. Boo hoo. Is that any worse than the craven among the local elite who abuse their power and sneer at the earnest? We run a web site - they run institutions. What do you do? As Keith Olberman has said recently "in this business you punch up, not down..."

In case it got by you I'll help you out - we regularly back up our positions with something more than insult. Brandl, in particular, has done a very good job of breaking out his arguments in detail. Did you miss that?

"The problem is that you all have established your own set of rules and guidlines as to what is valid, based on some god given expertise you all claim to have that remains unknown to your average reader."

What in Sam Hill are you on about? We're people with opinions. Where and when have we articulated such rules and guidelines? I'd hasten to refer you to our "antimanifesto," or the half-page article on Wesley and I in the Reader last December. We made it quite clear that we were not advancing any specific esthetic doctrine. And how the hell do you know what is or is not known to our average reader? Just who the fuck do you think you are? You haven't a clue what you're talking about. Have you even got a clue as to how many people view this site every day? I didn't think so. Nor have you got ANY business claiming any amount of knowledge regarding our "average" reader. Of this you can be sure - there are many among our readers who ARE willing to state their names, and they're people you should know about, such as Arthur Danto, and David Reed, and Gene Colan and Donald Kuspit, just to name a few. Are they our average reader? What of our average poster? They seem to have much more of substance to offer.

"I think you should all be grateful and thankful for anyone who wades through all your postings to begin with. If you would all step back just a little bit and stop taking yourselves so seriously, you just might stop assuming that everyone is an idiot."

You're confused again. Just because someone here may think that your intellect is sub-par does not in any way mean that they consider all visitors to be idiots. You're globalizing. Are you a narcissist? You really act as if this is personal.

"and if you really want to get down to a real discussion, why not cite some concrete examples of what your touting as sophistry and tell us all why you think so."

Now that's actually a legitimate suggestion. It almost got lost in all that silly bile. You really should try to focus on the positive. "Hatred destroys the soul."

I would hasten to remind you that I've disagreed with almost all of your posts and yet I've taken the time to respond to them in detail. I pride myself on making best efforts at respect at best, and civility at worst. Obviously this post of mine is an exception, as I find you accusations offensive. I'll say it again - you should find the nerve to use your own name. I find your rotten tomatos to be rather hard to take seriously.

Oh, and by the way - unless I missed it you've still yet to acknowledge the inherent falacy of this comment, which is an actual quotation:

"Why are you guys such assholes to everyone who posts a comment here?

Well? Where's your intellectual veracity? I'll conclude with two questions: Why do you bother to read this site, and why don't you go start your own web site? I'll even offer you a name: you can call it Barkforum.

I've checked and it's available. Now unless you'd like to discuss something other than how much you hate us I think your 15 minutes are up.

Forget it Dave -just pull the plug, Little Ms python need to slither off and go find something and or/ someone else to hiss at.

Well, I must say I agree with Dave. Pythy, I rather enjoyed the fact that you seemed to want to rumble, however your response seems rather confused and still not actually ABOUT anything --- apparently you just want to bitch at us (as if we were an "us" --- we Sharkites are far less in agreement than you assume) for not always being friendly. Thanks for writing a long comment though, anyway!

... if what you mean by "content" there is something to glean from your recent posting other than a definition of Sophistry and a few vague references ...

Huh? First, I meant content in all our posts, not just here. I probably wasn't clear there. Second, there is no vagueness at all in THIS entry. In fact I feel that YOU probably feel directly insulted by it, thus it is in fact crystal clear. If not, then your university-training was for naught. You seemed to think that mentioning your "training" was important. Big deal. I'm on my fifth university, third degree and still have never been "trained." I was taught.

I would like to think your definition of sophistry is an apt description of the policy of how Sharkforum polices and treats its commentators - hence, my first question as to why you treat people like assholes

Well, you have a point there, I suppose, if not actually a logical one. I tend to be rather pugnacious, sorry if that offends you, and I mean that, but I am proud of my passion and will not change it --- that is NOT Sophistry --- try reading the definition until you actually understand it.

The problem is that you all have established your own set of rules...

I don't agree with that, but that is why I'm glad you wrote. YOU seem very bothered by the manner in which we answer. Which, again, has no necessary connection to any tacit rules. I personally don't see any rules. The three of us you address, for instance, all create completely different art --- certainly do not present the unified mannerist similarity that the Neo-Con Acad does. But then maybe you don't know our work. We clearly have VERY different styles of writing and interests though. Dave is even nice to commentors usually, Wesley rather attack oriented and I am always looking for a good argument. I'm against "pulling the plug" on commentors who simply seek to insult. I always hope they can actually find something to say. I hoped so with you, Pythoness, but it doesn't seem to be so.

I think you should all be grateful and thankful for anyone who wades through all your postings to begin with.

Oh, I am very grateful. That's why I invited you to make a comment, since you took the time to do so before! "Wade through" though, that I take umbrage with. I get lots of comments on every entry --- mostly by email directly, and have never had that complaint. I even get regular positive responses from world famous philosophers, theorists and authors, who know a thing or too about clarity. Consider also the fact that I write for Art in America, the best written of the major art magazine. You may not like my (or our) opinions, but they are not difficult to understand. If they are so for YOU then, I am sorry to say, then it IS perhaps a question of intelligence, of too much "training" and not enough thinking.

If you would all step back just a little bit and stop taking yourselves so seriously, you just might stop assuming that everyone is an idiot.

Hell, we joke a lot and about ourselves in these posts. Again, you seem to not actually READ very much. I definitely do not think everyone is an idiot. That's why I write these things --- I take it for granted that they are communicative and are reaching an intelligent audience that is many places out there, even art schools. Well, maybe.

... cite some concrete examples ... name names..

Now I have a pretty good idea of "who" you are. You are one of the very Neo-Con mannerists I have criticized. That is a pretty standard comment for a Sophist --- you just want to get down to what YOU see as "real" facts --- personal, Yuppie-style back-biting, social climbing, gossip. Naming names so that any attempt to discuss things at a theoretical level can be returned to a simple "my friends"/"your friends" level. Wesley names names a LOT! and I have frequently done so as well in other posts, but most of my references would be international and Euro people, not Chicagoans, as I have lived as an Ex-Pat for so long. I doubt if that would be much help for you anyway.

Too bad you can't really react with substance. You just snap away. i was hoping you could concentrate and argue. You do no more that exactly embody what you complain to US about.

And to everyone else, as well as Pythoness: We DO appreciate all your comments, whether you are Danto himself or Joe Blow. It is GREAT that we get so much response.But for those who write directly, please considering doing it as published comments. We like to discuss in the open air. I know many have told me that they are nervous about their style and so on --- but I get so many WONDERFUL comments, ideas and so on by direct email! If we get feisty, it is because, as often said here, art is marvelously important to us. It is our lives, if I may be free to try to speak for DR and WK and others as well as for myself. We want to argue about art and where it is and where it is going and what it should be and and and ---- because it is VITAL, not just an ersatz-career for spoiled "suburbies" who cannot do anything else. Join in! criticize us too! But let's try to actually say things of importance. Time is too short to waste on superficialities. I'm an asshole because I care.

Rumsfeld? Ahhhhh Do we need, more "caring assholes"?? Denken Sie an das ironie. So, history repeats, but we cannot stop it with more of the caring arschloch. Hitler irgendjemand? & einschüchterung, ist nicht die antwort.

Ah, Mr Baxter, not a bad comment, and I agree with you, but I don't know what that has to do with this blog entry! Meiner Meinung nach, is Donny-Boy klar ein Weider(mis)geburt von Goebbels oder Himmler --- nichtdestotrotz --- es tut mir Leid, aber ich weiss ueberhaupt nicht, worueber Sie reden --- was hat das mit diesem Blog-Entry zu tun?