Subject: Re: Beautiful Bag
From: jason varsoke (jjv@caesun.msd.ray.com)
Date: Wed Feb 23 2000 - 09:19:00 EST
On Tue, 22 Feb 2000, Matt Kozusko wrote:
> I've consulted several telephone astrologers (and, with all due regard
> to the once-great David Lowery, the I-Ching), but to no avail. There
> is something in me--something extra-cosmic, apparently--that doesn't
> like a bag.
>
> It was a neat idea. It was fun to watch. But to say that beauty's in
> the bag...it's a little too cute. A little too "deep." Cute and
> "deep" don't go so well together.
Yeah, have to agree with Matt here. I think the problem is that if
you're the original person who has the moment of realizing the bag, then
it is significant, maybe it's even Zen enlightenment. But I don't think
anyone who comes to the scene and is presented with, "Hey look at this.
This is art. This is life." comes away with anything but, "This is a
bag." The experience is non-transferable. I feel everyone's subscription
to it as "beautiful" as part of their willingness to rebel against the
establishment. There is no way the establishment will consider it art, so
everyone who hates establishment is compelled to think it is. Imagine if
this "most beautiful think I ever felt" ended up winning an Oscar: "Now,
in the category of best supporting inanimate object we have: the Boat
from "Titanic", the Red Beret from "Rushmore", and, finally, the Bag from
"American Beauty. And the winner is . . ." Come'on guys.
Besides, they didn't once show the guy just out of frame with the leave
blower.
> Paper or plastic?
Paper, of course. I don't want her to suffocate.
-j
-
* Unsubscribing? Mail majordomo@roughdraft.org with the message
* UNSUBSCRIBE BANANAFISH
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Thu Mar 02 2000 - 19:30:21 EST