Where Mani goes wrong...

Without a doubt Mani Deli is one of the more interesting posters in rec.arts.fine. For one thing, at least he HAS a point of view. Sadly, some posters seem to lack that. It seems to me that Mani has an impressive knowledge of art, and that should be respected.

Further, Mr. Fox is likely wrong for calling Mani a sour-grapes person. Mani has made some thoughtful criticisms of art- school curricula. Whether or not Mani has a degree from such an institution himself has nothing to do with his feelings about what is being taught at art schools these days. One thing I

Another one on the mission to save the world.

It's my observation that the consensus opinion in this newsgroup has been that Mani is incapable of 'growing.' Growing in the sense of learning something valuably new, or having a single new idea in all the years he's been posting his 'broken record' diatribes here, often resorting to childish name-calling and mud-slinging.

If he only saves r.a.f. from some of the familiar tantrums and evokes some thoughtful dialog it will be enough for me.

You make some interesting points well articulated but then interject emotionally charged put-down words. That tendency causes you to lose the high ground. Your obsession with the symbolists cause you to interject them in almost every one of your postings which reduces your postings to a promotional platform for symbolism.

The question becomes: is your posting a comment on Mani or a opportunity to promote your own obsession? Is this then your true point of view - promote symbolism whenever, wherever and however? That is exactly what a bible thumper does?

If you are posting on the topic of where Mani goes wrong; why are you commenting on Mr. Fox? You sit in judgement of him - placing your self in the position of judge over another is a method of building yourself up at the expense of another. Your are saying: 'look at my articulate writing style - it is so superior to that of Mr. Fox'.

As the old saying goes. 'you sound like a pompous ass'.

As far as artistic philosophy is concerned Mani and his supporters are not artistic pluralists. They proclaim - without in my opinion any artistic understanding - that the 'trompe l'oeil' style is the only true form of art. Like it or not that is their position but they do not come across as pompous asses - just bull headed fools.

keith

This newsgroup centers on Mani, revolves around Mani, is fueled by Mani. He is the god to be revered and vilified. Without him there would be nothing to talk about. HE is the discussion, not art. The redundant diatribes have gone on through the years and will go on forever more... godlike, don't you think?

Sigh... wasn't art the point here? Not just one single minded, redundant, opinion? I don't read him, but he is obviously the darling of rest of the troops.

You know, I can't quarrel with a thing you say in your first paragraph. As to the mixing of the 'well-articulated' with the 'emotional,' that is one facet of my posting style. While that would certainly be a flaw in an academic article, many of my newsgroup readers enjoy it. Further, because of the great difference in background among newsgroup readers, it is impossible to maintain the high-ground with all of them all the time. What gives you high-ground among some will put you on 'low ground' with others. So, I just try to keep them entertained and coming back for more.

But please do not misunderstand that to mean I am insincere. After all, you can mean what you say and still try to be entertaining. I certainly mean what I say when I pose what a reasonable person would see as a serious argument. Further, you are correct about my promoting Symbolism. My doing that is only fair to those many great artists who have been more-or-less neglected for a century. For instance, just ask yourself how much energy and money has gone into promoting the Impressionists for the last one-hundred years. Why? For a number of reasons, but mostly because art dealers knew that the Impressionists had a vast market-potential because of the thematic concerns of their art makes it suitable to so many different kinds of people and in so many situations. So, what is wrong with the long neglected Symbolists getting some much-needed promotion now?

One good example of the neglect showed itself when I did a Google newsgroup search on Carlos Schwabe the other day and came up with very few GEMS (a GEM is a 'Google mention'. Further, several of those GEMS were from my earlier articles on Symbolism, and most of the others were from some French-speakers. Of course, if you check now there will be a few more based on my posts of the past couple of days, but still

Of course, I should have written,

A Confederacy of Dunces Ignatius, is that you?

I'm curious about your personal life Mr. Palmer. I hope you moved out of your mother's house. You're beginning to sound deranged.

nice return.

keith

I disagree