Dear Aspiring Subgenius Answer Artist

Posted by:: Artemia Salina
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 03:46:11 -0500

--------
They say that one must suffer to be an artist.

What exactly is meant by this? What sort of suffering
is required? And how much? Is the amount of suffering
directly proportional to the quality of art one
thenceforth produces, or is the suffering versus
quality of work logarithmically related? Does the type
of suffering have any relationship to the type of art,
or perhaps the medium used? If, let's say, I was painting
a picture in a comfortable chair and someone was to
periodically twist my nipples as I continued to paint,
would the quality of my work correspondingly increase
and decrease in the completed painting, or would the
quality simply increase incrementally after each nipple
twisting period? If there is indeed a relationship between
the type of suffering experienced and the type of art that
may be produced afterward, then this would seem to imply that
there could, theoretically at least, be a type of art that I
could do without having had to suffer beforehand. Is this true?

Please reply to this post using interpretive dance as the
means of expression, if possible. Thanks.

--
0:-) 0:-) 0:-) 0:-) (-:0 (-:0 (-:0 (-:0
0:-) Artemia Salina (-:0
0:-) Surrounded by Angels (-:0
0:-) 0:-) 0:-) 0:-) (-:0 (-:0 (-:0 (-:0

Posted by:: "krustymadfaker"
Date: 25 Mar 2005 01:02:35 -0800

--------
Artemia Salina wrote the silent manifesto:

>They say that one must suffer to be an artist.

>What exactly is meant by this? What sort of suffering
is required? And how much? Is the amount of suffering
directly proportional to the quality of art one
thenceforth produces, or is the suffering versus
quality of work logarithmically related? Does the type
of suffering have any relationship to the type of art,
or perhaps the medium used? If, let's say, I was painting
a picture in a comfortable chair and someone was to
periodically twist my nipples as I continued to paint,
would the quality of my work correspondingly increase
and decrease in the completed painting, or would the
quality simply increase incrementally after each nipple
twisting period? If there is indeed a relationship between
the type of suffering experienced and the type of art that
may be produced afterward, then this would seem to imply that
there could, theoretically at least, be a type of art that I
could do without having had to suffer beforehand. >Is this true?

>Please reply to this post using interpretive dance as the
means of expression, if >possible. Thanks

You just really want Stang's job don't you?
I'd start off with passing the Hellpope Huey bullet
time B.B. test first!

Rev-Sci-Fi-entist KrustyMADfaker
"I didn't give up. The equipment
malfunctioned!"

"Because the arm of this conspiratorial government-within-
the-government is evil incarnate! They -it- will stop at nothing! They
stole half of Nebraska!" - Sam Devereaux in The Road to Omaha (by
Robert Ludlum)

Posted by:: "Rev Chain Smerker"
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 09:29:54 GMT

--------
Art is bullshit, Art dont exist.

Its all in your head man, its like you know thought puke, thats all art is,
its 100% thought puke with some emotion and other chemicals mixed in, it
dont mean shit to no-one.

Like suffering is part of the conspiracy, they want thought pukers to suffer
cause they find puke distasteful and they cant get it man, like you know.

So dont suffer and like thought puke all day and night and remember "Bob".

(Yes I now do self-help seminars email me for me info)

Posted by:: "Paul Casino"
Date: 25 Mar 2005 05:23:29 -0800

--------
I dunno Salina, the real suffering with your art doesn't seem to come
while you're DOING it, but while I'm stuck VIEWING it. That's the tough
part.

(rimshot)

Seriously...I have no idea and that's a good question.

Posted by:: HdMrs. Salacia the Overseer
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 07:55:43 -0600

--------
On 25 Mar 2005 05:23:29 -0800, "Paul Casino"
wrote:

>I dunno Salina, the real suffering with your art doesn't seem to come
>while you're DOING it, but while I'm stuck VIEWING it. That's the tough
>part.
>
>(rimshot)
>
>Seriously...I have no idea and that's a good question.

There's a lot of different kinds of artists. You're talking about a
romantic notion of the artistic impulse, that developed during the
time of Beethoven, and the romantic poets like Shelly and Byron.
Before that art was a type of skilled interior designers trade guild,
way before that it was a simple form of group or societal display and
my personal favorites of all of them is ritual or religious display.
The earliest forms of art that still survive from the olden days
appear to have a ritual or religious theme.

Posted by:: König Prüße, GfbAEV
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 13:43:29 GMT

--------
Artemia Salina wrote:

>They say that one must suffer to be an artist.

The artists who suffer are the ones that aren't very good!

I know one artist who has six "exclusive" gallery contracts
with NYC galleries, which guarantees him a half-million a year,
plus whatever he can sell on the side.

The NY Times just had a good piece about taking advantage of manias
Hypomanic? Absolutely. But Oh So Productive!
By BENEDICT CAREY
Published: March 22, 2005

"Sometimes when talking to people, I'll tell them that I've just had a lot of coffee,
even though it's not true, because I know I fire off in all directions, and I can talk
to you about anything - literature, string theory, rock guitar - I once worked for
Leo Fender - and one thing I say to people is that, of course, I live near the edge;
the view is better."
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/22/health/psychology/22hypo.html?

Posted by:: "c-bee1"
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 13:49:52 GMT

Posted by:: "Kevin Cunningham"
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 14:15:55 GMT

--------

"Artemia Salina" wrote in message
news:pan.2005.03.25.08.46.11.428347@sheayright.com...
> They say that one must suffer to be an artist.
>
> What exactly is meant by this? What sort of suffering
> is required? And how much? Is the amount of suffering
> directly proportional to the quality of art one
> thenceforth produces, or is the suffering versus
> quality of work logarithmically related? Does the type
> of suffering have any relationship to the type of art,
> or perhaps the medium used? If, let's say, I was painting
> a picture in a comfortable chair and someone was to
> periodically twist my nipples as I continued to paint,
> would the quality of my work correspondingly increase
> and decrease in the completed painting, or would the
> quality simply increase incrementally after each nipple
> twisting period? If there is indeed a relationship between
> the type of suffering experienced and the type of art that
> may be produced afterward, then this would seem to imply that
> there could, theoretically at least, be a type of art that I
> could do without having had to suffer beforehand. Is this true?
>
> Please reply to this post using interpretive dance as the
> means of expression, if possible. Thanks.
>
> --
> 0:-) 0:-) 0:-) 0:-) (-:0 (-:0 (-:0 (-:0
> 0:-) Artemia Salina (-:0
> 0:-) Surrounded by Angels (-:0
> 0:-) 0:-) 0:-) 0:-) (-:0 (-:0 (-:0 (-:0
>
Who is "They..."? Well however "they" are they are Pink Boys! Swap "they"
for Pink Boys and you see, theres no change.

Look Pink Boys get as close to art as a modern rat does to Calvin Coolidge.
They neither know nor care about art, they think (when they think at all) of
art as crap on a canvas that costs to much. They'd like to have some but it
costs to much so they'd sell it and they'd be back to their artless state.

So in concusion "they" suck. Thank you.

Rev. Dr. Junior Mints
Anti-Pope of Atlanta

Posted by:: "nu-monet v7.0"
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 09:28:49 -0700

--------
Artemia Salina wrote:
>
> They say that one must suffer to be an artist.
>
> What exactly is meant by this? What sort of suffering
> is required? And how much?

Well, someone can experience all sorts of discomforts,
torments, annoyances, bondage gear, and pain-inducing
devices without "suffering".

"Suffering" implies self-pity, perhaps evolved into
an elaborate work of art itself. Take for example
the main character of the novel "Mrs. Wiggs of the
Cabbage Patch" by Wade Hall, an incredibly popular
bit of fluff from the early 20th Century.

The gods hated Mrs. Wiggs. So they sent her torment
after torment for her to *suffer* over. And *suffer*
she did, *suffering* through nearly every goddamn page
of that fucking book. Women loved it.

But, *at the same time*, she made it a point to *refuse*
to suffer, and to let everybody else know that she was
*refusing* to suffer, while obviously suffering out the
ass. In fact, she demanded that *everyone* acknowledge
that she was the most *suffering* person around, while
at the same time admiring her for refusing to *suffer*.

As I said, "suffering" can be a work of art in itself.

As another example, take Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, author
of The Gulag Archipelago. He suffered by writing a book
that would make everybody else suffer, were they to
actually read the damn thing, beyond the point where he
is forced to urinate into his own boot. But nobody seems
to be able to read beyond that point, so as an artist, he
is mostly remembered for urinating into his boot. Which
most people wouldn't really equate with suffering, more
something that the homeless guy who hangs out downtown
in front of the Starbucks whose hair has grown through
his hat and who argues with his left hand suffers.

Homosexual artists like to equate suffering with their
own sexual urges, as if homosexually having blue balls
due to wanting to boink someone causes more suffering
than heterosexually wanting to do so. Unfortunately,
this illusion is dispelled by the cold reality of
masturbation, the great equalizer.

Many artists like to suffer under dictatorship. This is
known as "dumbass suffering". In other words, you live
in a dictatorship, yet are surprised when you stand up
in a public place and call for the violent overthrow of
the government; followed shortly thereafter by being
severely beaten and thrown into a prison cell. Much like
what would happen if you lived in *any* damn country and
did the same. Suffering based on the lack of common sense.

Obviously, in addition to being filled with self-pity,
these artists don't really have a very good grasp of
cause and effect. They are no more unique in this than
is some guy who gets very drunk, goes to the zoo, jumps
into the polar bear cage and offers to teach said bear
Queensbury rules boxing, to their detriment.

Truthfully, in this case, it is the polar bear who is the
true artist. For he is both (relatively) in his element,
and he is a master of his element, and it is his milieu
that has been imbalanced. This gives him the purpose to
restore order and balance to his universe, by kicking shit
out of the tresspasser. And, unlike the drunk artist,
he is possessed of focus, his design is clear, and he is
in the realm of "unconscious competence", the highest level
of skill accomplishment.

The polar bear only suffers by being prohibited from
doing his polar bear thing more often. But for this he
is more than compensated by being fed three squares a day,
having regular veterinary care, not being shot with a high
powered rifle by Eskimos, and getting to knock seven bells
out of the occasional drunk suffering artist.

--
Be Sure To Visit the 'SubGenius Reverend' Blog:
http://slackoff.blogspot.com/
***********
"I wish to thank those who have been
admirably relentless in reminding us
when the line between doing a good
thing and thinking a bad thing has
been crossed."
-- Frank DiGiovanni

Posted by:: Zapanaz
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 08:51:07 -0800

--------
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 03:46:11 -0500, Artemia Salina
wrote:

>They say that one must suffer to be an artist.
>
>What exactly is meant by this? What sort of suffering
>is required? And how much? Is the amount of suffering
>directly proportional to the quality of art one
>thenceforth produces, or is the suffering versus
>quality of work logarithmically related? Does the type
>of suffering have any relationship to the type of art,
>or perhaps the medium used? If, let's say, I was painting
>a picture in a comfortable chair and someone was to
>periodically twist my nipples as I continued to paint,
>would the quality of my work correspondingly increase
>and decrease in the completed painting, or would the
>quality simply increase incrementally after each nipple
>twisting period? If there is indeed a relationship between
>the type of suffering experienced and the type of art that
>may be produced afterward, then this would seem to imply that
>there could, theoretically at least, be a type of art that I
>could do without having had to suffer beforehand. Is this true?
>
>Please reply to this post using interpretive dance as the
>means of expression, if possible. Thanks.

[me spins a pirouette.directly into a brick wall, WHAM]

--
Zapanaz
International Satanic Conspiracy
Customer Support Specialist
http://joecosby.com/
Oh, the lazily modern canyon of it ALL!

- "A beam from the spirit"

Posted by:: König Prüße, GfbAEV
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 17:01:39 GMT

--------
Zapanaz:

>
>[me spins a pirouette.directly into a brick wall, WHAM]

{I eat another pierogi, laff ass off! belch...}

Posted by:: nenslo
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 16:54:51 -0800

--------
Artemia Salina wrote:
>
> They say that one must suffer to be an artist.
>
> What exactly is meant by this? What sort of suffering
> is required? And how much? Is the amount of suffering
> directly proportional to the quality of art one
> thenceforth produces, or is the suffering versus
> quality of work logarithmically related? Does the type
> of suffering have any relationship to the type of art,
> or perhaps the medium used? If, let's say, I was painting
> a picture in a comfortable chair and someone was to
> periodically twist my nipples as I continued to paint,
> would the quality of my work correspondingly increase
> and decrease in the completed painting, or would the
> quality simply increase incrementally after each nipple
> twisting period? If there is indeed a relationship between
> the type of suffering experienced and the type of art that
> may be produced afterward, then this would seem to imply that
> there could, theoretically at least, be a type of art that I
> could do without having had to suffer beforehand. Is this true?
>
> Please reply to this post using interpretive dance as the
> means of expression, if possible. Thanks.

(pulls down pants, wags scrawny white hiney) THAT'S HOW MUCH.

Posted by:: König Prüße, GfbAEV
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 01:42:31 GMT

--------
nenslo wrote:

>Artemia Salina wrote:
>>
>> They say that one must suffer to be an artist.
>>
>> What exactly is meant by this? What sort of suffering
>> is required? And how much? Is the amount of suffering
>> directly proportional to the quality of art one
>> thenceforth produces, or is the suffering versus
>> quality of work logarithmically related? Does the type
>> of suffering have any relationship to the type of art,
>> or perhaps the medium used? If, let's say, I was painting
>> a picture in a comfortable chair and someone was to
>> periodically twist my nipples as I continued to paint,
>> would the quality of my work correspondingly increase
>> and decrease in the completed painting, or would the
>> quality simply increase incrementally after each nipple
>> twisting period? If there is indeed a relationship between
>> the type of suffering experienced and the type of art that
>> may be produced afterward, then this would seem to imply that
>> there could, theoretically at least, be a type of art that I
>> could do without having had to suffer beforehand. Is this true?
>>
>> Please reply to this post using interpretive dance as the
>> means of expression, if possible. Thanks.
>
>(pulls down pants, wags scrawny white hiney) THAT'S HOW MUCH.

You go, girlfriend!
You're not 100% right, but you sure are a lot of fun!

Posted by:: HellPope Huey
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 03:40:47 GMT

--------

> nenslo wrote:
>
> >(pulls down pants, wags scrawny white hiney) THAT'S HOW MUCH.

Goddamnit, I had to knock back a fifth of pernod and a swig of hydrogen
peroxide to scrub that image out of my mind. Is there no END to your
skullbuggery??

--

HellPope Huey
A SubGenius tarot deck
would just be a big fistful of jokers.
Forum follows dysfunction.

Just because you throw pearls before swine
doesn't mean you aren't a pig yourself.
- Saint Nu-Monet

I am done with seriousness for the day.
Back to feces, disfiguration and the Flintstones.
- Rev. kdetal

Posted by:: nenslo
Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 23:43:35 -0800

--------
HellPope Huey wrote:
>
> > nenslo wrote:
> >
> > >(pulls down pants, wags scrawny white hiney) THAT'S HOW MUCH.
>
> Goddamnit, I had to knock back a fifth of pernod and a swig of hydrogen
> peroxide to scrub that image out of my mind. Is there no END to your
> skullbuggery??

That, in fact, was it.

Posted by:: HellPope Huey
Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2005 18:05:41 GMT

--------
In article <424512A7.8509B9CD@yahoox.com>, nenslo
wrote:
> HellPope Huey wrote:
> > > nenslo wrote:
> > >
> > > >(pulls down pants, wags scrawny white hiney) THAT'S HOW MUCH.
> >
> > Goddamnit, I had to knock back a fifth of pernod and a swig of hydrogen
> > peroxide to scrub that image out of my mind. Is there no END to your
> > skullbuggery??
>
> That, in fact, was it.

So its all downhill from here, eh? Well, you had a good run, no shame
in that. There is shame a-plenty in your CONTENT, but you get a brass
star for Persistipestilence.

--

HellPope Huey
White people doing flamenco
look like cranes on crank

Take your dissonance like a man.
- Charles Ives

"C'mon, wake up and smell the chaos!"
- "The West Wing"