AW: [syndicate] \\

[claudia westermann]

> Sounded like a _concerned_ citizen to me but
> I would agree - it's not your thing.


'I am (name). I am an academic painter'
and therefore I decide that this is crap .... etc ...


hm ... I am quite unsure what an academic painter is
but I am truly suspicious




> Finally - this nonsense gets turned into the usual
> "I'm an artist. I have the right to pee all over your dignity
> and you must give me a grant so I can do so"   \+\  "Oh, no, reality
> has dawned upon our exhibition.
> That's not fair!"


Nee,

in the name of the young and next generation every space that allows for
discussion
between those in opposition should be protected by the State

It does not matter if those attacking could be called left or right or
instrumentalized. 


So, maybe the question is, if this space is meant to be a space for
discussion or simply a provocation (funded by the EU etc)
or maybe the question is what the intention of the artists is, no matter who
funded the exhibition

Is it?


> I already answered her in detail.
> As most 'artists' she's not engaged in any dialog.

I disagree. I have sat with her whole days and there were only discussion.
Possible, she prefers to discuss locally - orally. I do so, too.
Regular language is weaker than the language of an artwork that can be left
alone somewhere to an audience. 
It needs time. It is only meant for those who want to listen. 

In an artwork by comparison one tries to compress the thoughts of maybe
weeks, years - and sometimes one manages to interrupt the stream of thoughts
of someone who looks like it - to change direction. 



> She's engaged in 'rights' , eg. securing the right
> to insult the dignity of a people, in the name of 'art'

She uses the word 'art' in a very similar way than I do, I think.
I call art what is changing perception - opens up to grey zones that were
previously painted in black and white

And sometimes we disagree if something is grey or black or white. 


> Art serves people not the ego's of artists.
> 'Art' that requires the protection of the authorities,
> not unlike a Bush visit, is not art - but degenerate,
> corrupt refuse.

It isn't the art that requires protection but the people who are willing to
take a risk
in order to allow for a dialogue that seemed impossible before

because there were only words
in black and white