h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Hmmm. On this tack, does that mean performance art is not art because it doesn't actually produce anything? Interesting question...

As for the Andy Warhol thing: I do actually have a bit of respect for him. Before he became famous as a pop artist in the early '60s, he was a well-known (and rather good) graphic artist and illustrator. The whole point of the pop art movement, in a nutshell, is that art is not meant to be a rarefied and exclusive concept; its proponents spent their time trying to push people's perceptions of what art could constitute. Like I said before, it changes: few people think that what Roy Lichenstein produced is not art. I don't think he exactly challenged himself after 1964, but that's besides the point.

'Can anyone explain why a can of soup is a work of art?'

Why is a still life a work of art? If we're talking about Warhol's cans, that, in a way, is what they are. I think the problem is that there is no single, umbrella definition of what constitutes art. I don't think this is a problem per se; personally, I think if we had a firm definition of art, then it would become some sort of manufacturing industry, churning out stuff that satisfies accepted criteria. Slightly interesting anecdote: in the early 20th Century, someone (possibly Duchamps, actually) tried to import the Modernist artist Constantin Brancusi's sculpture of a bird in flight from France to the USA. Being a Modernist, his statue of course bore rather scarce resemblance to a literal representation of a bird in flight. This was a problem, because the US authorities DID have a definition of what constituted art, a definition that ran roughly thus: a work of art was a recognisable representation of subject. Items that corresponded with this description could be imported to the US duty free, whereas anything else was subject to a 40% duty charge. Needless to say, the authorities decided that Brancusi's statue was simply an 'object', and slapped the duty on it. In the end, sculptor and recipient took the authorities to court and succeeded in changing the definition of art. And got their money back.

So there you go. The fact that we are arguing about this is a Good Thing. If we weren't, I'd be quite worried.

First cave man is painting a huge mural of Wildebeest on a cave wall.

A second cave man comes up and says: "What the Hell do you think you're doing?"

First cave man: "It is a painting..."

Second cave man: "A WHAT? What the Hell is that?"

First cave man: "It's art."

Second cave man: "That's not art!"

First cave man: "Sure it is! It is a two-dimensional representation of that great big herd of Wildebeest that passed by here a few days ago."

Second cave man: "It may be a two-dimensional representation of that great big herd of Wildebeest, but that ain't art!"

Second cave man pulls out of his pocket a little carving of a very voluptuous woman: "Now, THAT is art!"

First cave man: "Geez! Put that disgusting thing away before some women or children see that! What are you a pervert! That isn't art. That's pornography!"

After the local cave-constable breaks up the fight, they apear before the chief.

Chief: "What's this I hear about you two having a fight?"

First cave man: "This idiot had the nerve to say my painting over there isn't art!"

Second cave man: "Then he had the nerve to call this (pulling out the carving) pornography."

The Chief orders the first man to be clubbed to death and the second man to hand over the carving to the chief.

First cave man: "But why!?! I don't understand!"

Chief: "Well, I may not know art, but I know what I like!"

Thank you. It is a little rough around the edges and on the way home from work, I rewrote it several times. Not bad for 10 mintues.

It just goes to show that the debate about what is and isn't art has been going on since the dawn of man.... and will go on until the end of man.

After seeing "The Day After Tomorrow," I'm here to tell you that the end of man isn't far off.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3816699.stm

That's right Georgey Boy, you just keep digging yourself into that lovely deep hole, me ole pal me ole beauty

Okay, Gosho, I'll comment, even though you've drifted away from the topic of art. I shall respond with a parody of cinematic art:



Hey, there, Georgie Boy,
Walking down the street so fancy free.
Nobody you meet could ever see the emptiness there
Inside you.

Hey, there, Georgie Boy,
Why do all the French just pass you by?
Could it be you just don't try,
Or that you're so unaware?

You've got the Muslims hopping,
With car bombs popping. Folks die.
Your explanations simply don't fly
The least little bit....

Anybody care to finish it?

I wouldn't presume to try and live up to that standard of satire Paul

Also, although this thread might have started out about art, it's another one of my 'occasional series' kind of thread - a subject line waiting for a suitable story

According to this press briefing, Korea's move to developing nucUlur weapons was a "regional problem".... and yet, Iraq's "wmds" was threat ebough to warrant marching in. Funny, that.... http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/images/20030306-8_d030603-1-515h.html#

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020925-3.html#4

"Q We can go back to that in a minute. I have another question. Yesterday in the briefing, you said that the information you have has said al Qaeda is operating in Iraq. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld was asked about linkages between al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein this morning. He said very definitively that, yes, he believes there are. And then the President said, talking about al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein, the danger is that they work in concert. Is the President saying that they are working in concert, that there is a relationship? Do you have evidence that supports that?

MR. FLEISCHER: No, the President is saying that's the danger. The President has repeatedly said that the worst thing that could happen is for people -- the world's worst dictators with the world's worst weapons of mass destruction to work in concert with terrorists such as al Qaeda, who have shown an ability to attack the United States. And that's what the President has said.

Q So why -- when Rumsfeld was saying, yes, there is a linkage between the two, what is he talking about?

MR. FLEISCHER: Clearly, al Qaeda is operating inside Iraq. And the point is, in the shadowy world of terrorism, sometimes there is no precise way to have definitive information until it is too late. And we've seen that in the past. And so the risk is that al Qaeda operating in Iraq does present a security threat, and it's cause for concern. And I think it's very understandably so.

If you're searching, Campbell, again, for the smoking gun, again I say what Secretary Rumsfeld said -- the problem with smoking guns is they only smoke after they're fired.

Q I'm not looking for a smoking gun. I'm just trying to figure out how you make that conclusion, because the British, the Russians, people on the Hill that you all have briefed about all this stuff say that there isn't a linkage, that they don't believe that al Qaeda is there working in conjunction in any way with Saddam Hussein. And there is a mountain of comments, both public and private statements that Osama bin Laden has made about Saddam, calling him a bad Muslim, suggesting that there would be no way that the two would ever connect. So I just -- if there's something, if you have some evidence that supports this, I'm just wondering why --

MR. FLEISCHER: What supports what I just said is that the President fears that the two can get together. That's what the President has said, and that's one of the reasons that he feels so strongly about the importance of fighting the war on terror."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020926-12.html
"Q What about all this talk last night that Condi engaged in on PBS about connections between Iraq and al Qaeda? That's new. I mean, she went further than you folks have ever gone before. Can you clarify some of what she was saying? I mean, how do we know this? Why do we suspect this?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, we know it because some of the information we have comes from detainees, and in particular some very high-ranking detainees. And --....

...MR. FLEISCHER: Here's what we know, and here's -- let me try to elaborate on what Condi said, or help you understand what Condi said.

Since Operation Enduring Freedom, we have solid evidence of the presence in Iraq of al Qaeda members, including some members who have been in Baghdad. And the relationship between Iraqi officials to those al Qaeda members remains unclear, but we know it's there. We have solid reporting of senior-level contacts between al Qaeda and Iraqi officials going back a decade, and, as Condi said, of chemical and biological agent training.

Reports of such cooperation have increased since 1998. We know that al Qaeda have found refuge in Iraq. There is credible reporting that al Qaeda leaders sought contacts in Iraq to acquire chemical and other weapons of mass destruction capabilities.

Q But today, the President stopped just short of saying that they were linked. Is there a reason he did that? I mean, are they linked, in his mind? I mean, are they -- there are --

MR. FLEISCHER: I'd have to take a look at the verbatim of how the President said it. But we're all saying the same thing: al Qaeda and Iraq are too close for comfort, in terms of some of these activities that we've talked about.

But I want to underscore, the case the President is making about the need for regime change is not directly tied to anything involving al Qaeda. It's tied to Saddam Hussein's history of developing weapons on his own. The President continues to have fears about what Iraq's activities with al Qaeda could lead to. But his case is much broader than that.

Q Well, what are these links that go back a decade? I mean, who are we talking about?

MR. FLEISCHER: These are links between al Qaeda and Baghdad.

Q But what are the links? I mean --

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, Condi --

Q -- has Baghdad supplied al Qaeda with training, munitions, supplies, whatever, that has allowed them to carry out attacks against the United States?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, as Condi said last night -- I cite her words -- "Iraq has provided some training to al Qaeda in chemical weapons development."

Q But do we know that that expertise has ever been used in a terrorist attack against -- not only the U.S., but anybody?

MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the point is to make certain that it's not. Why is Iraq providing training to terrorists that could put anybody at risk?...

.....Q Let me come back to the al Qaeda --

MR. FLEISCHER: Anything else?

Q Yes, let me come back to the al Qaeda connection. So, Condi is saying that these contacts go back more than a decade; that they are continual, they are ongoing; they're involved in Baghdad, they're involved in chemical and biological weapons training. But still no evidence of a connection between Iraq and 9/11?

MR. FLEISCHER: That's correct."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030208.html
Radio speech by GWB, February 8, 2003

"One of the greatest dangers we face is that weapons of mass destruction might be passed to terrorists who would not hesitate to use those weapons. Saddam Hussein has longstanding, direct and continuing ties to terrorist networks. Senior members of Iraqi intelligence and al Qaeda have met at least eight times since the early 1990s. Iraq has sent bomb-making and document forgery experts to work with al Qaeda. Iraq has also provided al Qaeda with chemical and biological weapons training. And an al Qaeda operative was sent to Iraq several times in the late 1990s for help in acquiring poisons and gases.

We also know that Iraq is harboring a terrorist network headed by a senior al Qaeda terrorist planner. This network runs a poison and explosive training camp in northeast Iraq, and many of its leaders are known to be in Baghdad."

The acid test of Dubya's excuse is whether it will convince the parents of those young men and women who have come home in body bags. As I've said beforehand, that least reprehensible thing about this entire SNAFU is that Saddam got deposed. Everything that preceded it and afterwards has been a complete shambles. And Rumsfeld should go.

<< And Rumsfeld should go. >>



Please! I will happily pay for a one-way ticket to Iraq for Donald Rumsfeld.

As for the rest of this silly stuff, I have to say that we have reached yet another low point when senior U.S. officials (elected and appointed) believe what high-ranking al-Qaeda operatives tell them. Come on, guys, they're going to give you disinformation!