virus: Re: Manipulation Lesson 12

Ken Pantheists (
Tue, 25 Feb 1997 02:29:41 -0700

David R wrote:

Here's another example: The Popes of the Catholic Church used this
to gain credibility: Great artists like Michelangelo sculpt statues and
murals for the Church. People would make connections between genuinely
artwork and a completely bogus religion and would then think that the
Church was
great and had credibility.


Hey Dave! I think your looking through the large end of art criticism.

Your smashing sacred art and post industrial cult-of-the-artist memes

How can you possibly think that Michelangelo's art is great when it was
inspired by a bogus religion? Do you admire his technical prowess? His
"technique" is only one sentence in a long discourse of an aesthetic
tradition of portraying the sacred body. If the sacred aspect of his
work is bogus-- then what makes it even "good art?"

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but aren't you just repeating a
popularized opinion, that Michelangelo is a good artist. You state that
the memeset that decodes it is bogus-- so what is it? An expression?
Michelangelo wasn't an expressionist. (or are you making him into one?)

People did not have the word *non-sequitur*
(meaning--it does not follow logically) to help them understand that
really was no logical connection between, say, Michelangelo's work and a

Please explain this????

I see a very clear connection, but I've already gone over the top in
being a patronizing asshole-- so I won't state the obvious.

(all in all, I totally agree with your post about how language and
vocabulary are directly related to our ability to conceptualize-- I just
needed to "pirrahna-ize" your take on Michelangelo)

Flame at your heart's content.

  Ken Pantheists