From: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com (aml-list-digest) To: aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: aml-list-digest V1 #984 Reply-To: aml-list Sender: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-aml-list-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk aml-list-digest Friday, February 28 2003 Volume 01 : Number 984 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 20 Feb 2003 18:30:01 -0700 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] Programming as Art Eric D. Dixon wrote: > I've always found Frank Zappa's definition of art most useful: that the > only thing separating *anything* from being art is a "frame" -- a > declaration of the boundaries of a particular artistic creation. Anything > is art when the creator declares it to be art, and the rest of us can argue > about whether it's any good, as a matter of taste. > If Jacob says his programming is art, then it's art. Whether it's any good > at performing the functions that we often value in art is another matter > altogether. Not that I feel strongly about this issue, so I don't feel like wasting too many posts on it, but I would argue that it's not art, even by the Zappa frame definition. I would maintain that Jacob is not putting a frame around his programming results and hanging them on a wall to be appreciated by an audience. He's loading them on a computer and using them to accomplish things unrelated to art. That is in fact what motivates him to write them in the first place--NOT artistic reasons. He can claim all day that, in addition to making his programs utilitarian and effective, he also wants to make them artistic, and I'll buy that. He can claim that, SECONDARILY, his programming could be looked at as art. But if he writes a marvelously artistic program that doesn't work for the purpose it was written, nobody is going to admire the artistry. They're going to toss it in the recycling bin. The utilitarian purpose is the purpose for its existence. The artistic design is of secondary importance and relatively irrelevant to the existence of the program. I'm saying that there is a nontrivial distinction between something that is intended as art and something that may be artistic, but whose primary purpose is not art. If Jacob decides to take a printout of one of his programs, frame it, and hang it on the wall where all visiting programmers can view it and admire his technique, THEN I'll call that art. But not the actual executable file on his hard disk that he runs whenever he wants to accomplish the purpose of the program, no matter how artistic its design. The former is intended as art for an audience to view. The latter has a purely utilitarian function unrelated to art. When Andy Warhol painted a can of Campbell's soup, framed it, and hung it on the wall, that was art. The can of Campbell's soup sitting in my cupboard waiting to be eaten is not art. Not even the design of the label that gets smacked on all the cans is art, not until someone like Warhol comes along and frames it and exhibits it. Are you exhibiting your programs as art somewhere, Jacob? Is there a "frame" around them anywhere? If not, they may be artistically designed, but they are not art. - -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 11:38:59 -0600 From: "Eric R. Samuelsen" (by way of Jonathan Langford ) Subject: [AML] Re: _The RM_ Okay, I finally saw it. My wife and I decided to see it Friday, so I could comment on it for my paper at AML Saturday. Here's the thing: I think comedy should be based on Truth, or more accurately, truth. Observed reality, in other words. I think stuff isn't funny if there's no basis in any kind of observed reality. So, Singles Ward was somewhat funny. A lot of people on the List pointed out that they'd seen actual goofinesses among LDS singles similar to those depicted in the film. So, okay, amusement ensues. What I disliked so intensely about SW was not actually the funny stuff, it was those moments when the film tried to get serious. Halestorm calls each film "A Hunter/Hale fireside," so, okay, let's take 'em at their word. What's being preached? Turns out, nothing I could agree with. RM, at least initially doesn't even have Singles' Ward's tiny, thin connection to truth, however. This gets interesting: Eric D Snider, who I like, points this out in his review of the film at his paper. He didn't think it was that big a problem. I saw it as a bigger problem. I think RM is much much worse than SW. But, of course, I haven't seen itall either, and Eric D did. For starters, RM commits that common screenwriting 101 mistake I call 'the non-volitional protagonist.' The entire film centers on a character--a new RM named Jared-- who makes absolutely nothing happen; he is a character to whom things happen. The result is generally a weak protagonist, and I think that happens here too. There's no particular reason subsequently to like the guy or feel anything for him; well, you do feel a little sorry for him. But you don't root for him, because he's not doing anything you can root for him to finish or achieve. The stuff that happens to him is so contrived and idiotic that neither he, nor his problems, are human. Beyond that, what stuff happens to him? For starters, he comes home from his mission, and his family has moved without telling him, and also forgotten when he's coming home. I mean, seriously? What kind of bizarre sociopathic family does this dude come from? They're not portrayed as bizarrely sociopathic; they're supposed to be normal everyday LDS people. And they forget to tell their missionary that they've moved? This doesn't happen. It may be the punch line to a joke, and it may be some paranoid fantasy shared by a few kids on missions, but it doesn't happen. And it's not funny. I don't care how many swimming pools Jared falls into, or how many ladders he falls off of. This stuff isn't funny. Nobody in the theater when I saw it laughed at all, nothing, nada, nary a chuckle. Then Jared's girlfriend, who he thought waited, didn't. She dumps him. His reaction: he's sort of bummed. He goes home, tells mom, and she does the 'that's too bad, dear,' thang I do when one of my kids shows me an owie. So that's Mormonism; a place where a broken engagement has no affect or emotional resonance, where marriage--temple marriage--or its disruption is seen as a trivial inconvenience. And where Moms couldn't care less about the pain suffered by their children. But that's where the film seems to be taking us, thematically. The parents, for example, do some kind of Amway/Nuskin pyramid scam thing. So there you go; that works. The film could be exploring some essential emotional coldness and shallowness within Mormon culture, which consists of people who don't even have friends; just marketing opportunities. Now, I think maybe that's valid. I think that it's possible that these sorts of utterly inhuman interactions may indeed constitute 'friendship' for some Mormons. Get your home/visiting teaching numbers, and meanwhile make a buck off your ward members. But, dang, it's depressing to think about. So, okay, the only argument I can make for this film is that they're trying some sort of Swiftean Modest Proposal savagery, a blistering satire into the utter emotional bleakness at the heart of Mormondom. If so, they screwed the tone up. The thing needs some bite. It doesn't have any. They're pretty inept in every other way, and it's possible that they're just untalented satirists who nonetheless have a point. But I think not. All this stuff isn't supposed to add up to anything, I think. I think they think they're just riffing, an unconnected series of gags about how loveably kooky Mormons are. I kept focussing on what an inhuman film this is. It's a film that I found utterly bleak and despairing, and aggressively unfunny. So I ask, can you make fun of utter inhuman emotional bleakness? I mean, just use that subject as the pretext for sight gags? Ha ha, Mormon parents don't love their kids, have no friends, and are sort of jolly fat sociopaths! I think you could, again in a really tough minded satirical way, like something like Dr. Strangelove mocks cold war soldiers and pols. But RM just doesn't have that feel to it. How does the end solve things? I don't know. I didn't see it. The film projector broke 40 minutes in. The theatre offered my wife and I coupons for another film, and we'll use them. I think we'll go see Chicago, which I heard was good and raunchy. That's good; when you see a film that's as spiritually empty and soul destroying as RM, all that prettified nihilism, then you need to see something good and raunchy, to replace those destructively wholesome images in your mind with something truthful and corrupt, so you can feel the Spirit again. Two quick addenda. First, I was genuinely looking forward to RM being good. I really was. I wanted to like it. Eric Snider said it was better than SW, and if it had been even a modest improvement, I would have applauded it. I know y'all don't believe me when I say that, but it's true. I went to the theatre hoping for and anticipating an entertaining experience. But this leads to a really interesting question for me. I like satire, I like comedy, I am a loud and easy laugher. I think there's nothing inappropriate about making fun of LDS culture. Heck, I write for the Sugarbeet, and enjoy it. I write comedy. I've got a comedy playing in a theatre near you, if you live in Orem. But my response to both Halestorm comedies has been tremendously negative. Why is that? Why do these two films so bother me? I don't know the answer, but watching RM, I have an inkling. I think it's because the humor in it touches on really valuable issues, but then doesn't do much with them. I mean, I'd love a good satirical examination on the success of multi-level marketing schemes among Mormons. I don't get how someone could abuse friendship like that, but it certainly seems a popular thing among my brothers and sisters. Maybe it does indicate some real coldness at the heart of our culture. Whatever, I think it's a really intriguing theme. But the Halestorm approach is just to mention it, get their laugh, and move on. That bothers me. It seems an irresponsible approach to comedy. I think, along with John Cleese, that comedy is serious, but not solemn. I think Mormon culture is frequently solemn, but actually not serious. Well, Halestorm seems like a version of that; they're silly, and then they get solemn, but they're never serious. Does that work? Anyway, I've only seen half of RM. I have no intention of seeing the second half. I think, based on what I saw, that it's worse than Singles' Ward. And I really disliked Singles' Ward. But some of y'all liked Singles' Ward, and Eric Snider liked RM better. Interesting, n'est pas? Eric Samuelsen One last thing: they have all these jokes about Kirby as a first name, like for parents to name a kid Kirby is just the funniest thing going (this because Jared's girlfriend's fiancee is named Kirby). I'm sitting there going 'what's that about, Kirby's a reasonable enough first name, what's the big deal?' As we leave the theatre, I glance at the poster. The leading actor has the first name Kirby. So this is this huge inside joke, heartily appreciated by, who? The director, the crew? Great. Who cares if the audience is amused; what matters is that we had a good time on the set. - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 08:13:52 -0600 From: "Preston Hunter" Subject: [AML] John Lyde Interview on _In the Service of God_ LDSFilm.com comments about "In the Service of God" Approx. 25 minutes long. If you are a fan of "The Field is White," you will definitely enjoy John Lyde's new film, a "story of love, adventure and home teaching." If you did not like "The Field is White," you should probably avoid Lyde's new film, because although it is very different, it absolutely captures the same inimitable style. In "In the Service of God" we find a young man named Peter about to propose to his girlfriend Molly. But before doing so he learns that Molly would never agree to marry a man who didn't do his home teaching. It's the last day of the month, and Peter has not done his home teaching, and he scrambles to visit his families (after finding out who they are) before popping the question to Molly. The set-up sounds like the film might be "preachy" or something, but it's really not. I found it to be more a comedy than anything else. It's not slapstick or satire; it's a sort of slice-of-life, very realistic, character-based comedy with humor derived from believable events. Is this film inspirational? I think it is, but without forcing itself to be. The "inspirational value" doesn't come from cheats or musical swells. The main character is simply a good guy trying to do the right thing. But this is a film that would never have been produced by the Church itself. From Peter's haphazard white-shirt-and-sweats look to his good-natured but rather unorthodox hometeaching visits, "In the Service of God" is entertaining and appealing because it looks like real life, not like a Hollywood movie or a seminary film. One entire home teaching visit consists of Peter and his reluctant companion listening to an old man tell a straight-faced but completely fictitious story about working as a bouncer in a bar. In another scene an unfamiliar ward member (played by Tyson Downey, the star of "The Field is White") greets Peter with a frown and pretends to be an inactive member who doesn't want to see them, then tells them, "Just kidding" and invites them in. Furthermore, much of the film is not about home teaching, but is about Peter trying to propose to his girlfriend. The scenes are alternately awkward, uncomfortable, funny and sweet, and refreshingly free of typical Hollywood or Church film conventions. I smiled, I laughed, I enjoyed the video, but at times I also couldn't believe this film was actually being sold. The film really looks like Lyde spent no money at all to make it. Lyde really does know how to edit and direct, the lighting and sound are fine. If you want an expensive Hollywood look, this isn't for you, but if you are interested in seeing something fun, different, good-hearted and real, then check out "In the Service of God." As with "The Field is White," the DVD features a director's commentary which provides wonderful insight into the process behind making a commercially-sold film for essentially no money. LDSFilm.com Intervies Director John Lyde about his new film, "In the Service of God" Q. What are some of the key differences and similarities between "In the Service of God" and your last film, "The Field is White"? Lyde: Both films were shot dirt cheap. I used the same actors and Jonny Taylor did the music again. With "The Field is White" I wanted people to feel the spirit. This film is more light-hearted and fun. I made it with the intention of an Elders quorum presidents showing it at a social or maybe even in class. It's not meant to be preachy but maybe to get us to think about getting out there and doing our home teaching. Q. What equipment did you use to make "In the Service of God"? What was the production budget? Lyde: I used a lot of the same equipment that I did before. I shot it with my Canon XL1 and edited it on Adobe Premiere with DVStorm from Canopos. I used a Sennheiser microphone. Since most of it was shot outdoors, I used home-made reflector boards and shields. I had to pay for tapes and the use of a studio to record to music. Once again I was lucky and didn't have to pay my actors. It cost me more to get the VHS and DVD covers done than to make the film. Q. Was there any feedback from viewers, critics or other filmmakers about "The Field is White" which you considered when making "In the Service of God"? Lyde: I always enjoy feedback. If it happens to be negative I shed a quick tear and then realize that they are probably right and try and fix the problem in my next film. The major thing I learned from "The Field is White" is that lighting and sound are so important. I made sure that the sound was a lot better this time. I never want do Looping again. When I get positive feedback it gives me incentive to go out and make another film. I've showed the film to my Teachers quorum and my dad showed it to the High Priests in his ward.! I think the High Priests liked it even more than my Teachers. Quite a few of them have already asked for copies. Q. How many of the events in this film were drawn from real experiences, and how many were completely fictitious? Lyde: I think most of this film is all fictitious. However, I think all writers try and draw from their own experiences of that of others as they write. I tried to think of everything that could happen wrong if you had to get something done in a certain amount of time. Q. Why did you decide to cast Brad Clark and Ashley Schumacher in the lead roles? Lyde: I cast Brad because of his personality and because we saw the movie "Signs" together. That's how we became friends. Ashley was cast because she happened to be engaged to Brad at the time. I didn't think the film would work unless the leads had really good chemistry. Thank goodness they did. Q. Brad Clark looks really, really young as "Peter." It's almost embarrassing watching him get ready to propose. Is he too young to get married? Lyde: I agree, Brad does look very young. He is actually a returned missionary and I think he is either 24 or 25. He is married to Ashley Shumacher (now Ashley Clark) in real life. I thought that his young look would add a little bit of humor to his part. Q. Many of the actors from "The Field is White" were cast in "In the Service of God." What was it like working a second time with so many people? Lyde: For a lot of actors it was not just our second time working together. It was my first time working with Brad and Ashley, but everyone else has been in my films numerous times. It's like a bunch of buddies getting together and hanging out. We just go out and shoot a movie though instead of watching TV or playing football. Although, we do those things too. Q. "In the Service of God" is about home teaching. Have the people you home teach seen it? Lyde: They haven't seen it yet. I am waiting to get a higher quality version from the duplicators. I will show it to them next month. Q. What did you think when you heard that HaleStorm Entertainment is planning to make a feature film called "The Home Teachers"? Lyde: At first I was a little upset because I had told one of the guys from HaleStorm my entire plot months ago and right when I'm getting to release my film they announce that they are making one. Their writer, John Moyer, assured me that there is no similarity in our plots. Except that they are both about home teaching on the last day of the month. I'm sure our films will be quite different. I think they have a budget of 500,000 dollars compared to mine of 500 cents. I'm sure their film will be great. Q. "In the Service of God" is definitely not like a typical Church-made inspirational film. Did you actively do anything to make your film different from a Church-made video? Lyde: I try and make my films as realistic as possible so people can relate to them better. I don't actively try and do anything different than the Church. I know their films have to go through an approval process since the film will be representing the church. I try and always portray the Church in a positive light. I show my films to my wife and parents first. If my mom doesn't get offended by it, no one will. Q. Were there things you wanted to do in "In the Service of God," but didn't, because your intended route of distribution was LDS bookstores? Lyde: I always wish I had more resources and money while making a film. While shooting I try and make it as professional as possible with what money I have. If I had more money I would shoot it on 16mm film and spend more time making the film. With most of my films we have such small windows of time where I can get people together to film. If I was ever to do a theatrical release I would want to shoot it in 35mm. One day maybe. Q. Explain the character of "Mr. Hedges" to me. Lyde: Mr. Hedges could be one of two things. Some people might think that Mr. Hedges is actually the family that the home teachers are trying to visit and is just hiding from them. Or he can be viewed as one of those strange people we always run into. A couple times on my mission when knocking on one door a neighbor would appear from behind a fence or something and say some of the strangest things then disappear before we could go over and talk to them. Q. Eight feature films have been released to theaters in the so-called "LDS Cinema" genre. Which is your favorite and why? Lyde: I would have to say that "God's Army" is my favorite. I liked it so much because it was a first of its kind. Not only that, but I thought overall it was a very enjoyable movie. I liked it in the theaters and on DVD. The commentary on the DVD is one of the few I can actually stand listening to and find it very informative. The acting and directing are top notch and the film was very believable to me and best of all I could feel the spirit while watching the film. On a side note, I really enjoyed the cinematography in "Handcart". Q. What can you tell me briefly about the movie you're working on now, "The Collectors"? Lyde: Filming starts in just a couple weeks. I am trying a lot of new things with this film. I took 3 months off work at BYU to make this film. I am holding auditions and paying actors for the major roles. I actually have a little bit of money to make this film. I am using a Director of Photography [Kels Goodman], which I have only done one other time. I really want this film to have a polished look. It still won't look like a major Hollywood film, but it will definitely look better than the countless straight-to-video movies out there. We have already shot and cut together the opening scene and I am quite happy with the way it turned out. We are hoping to have an international video release with this film. - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 27 Feb 2003 13:50:04 -0800 (PST) From: Dallas Robbins Subject: [AML] Online Writing Groups I know this has been posted before, but I seem to not be able to find what I am looking for. Does anyone know of any online writing groups - that is the primary purpose it to post work, and have it critiqued - - in speculative fiction? Any help would be appreciated. Thanks. Dallas Robbins cloudhill@yahoo.com ===== _________________________________________ For great nutritional and herbal products visit http://www.home.awarenesslife.com __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Tax Center - forms, calculators, tips, more http://taxes.yahoo.com/ - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 10:10:12 -0700 From: "D. Michael Martindale" Subject: Re: [AML] _Ender's Game_ Movie Melissa Proffitt wrote: > Except that I find it very annoying when people talk about that surprise > ending as though only an idiot wouldn't have seen it coming--because, guess > what? I was totally surprised. I believe that was someone else who intimated idiocy to someone who didn't see the surprise ending coming in _Ender's Game_. I merely said the surprise ending was telegraphed too much. That still leaves room for perfectly normal people to have missed the telegraphing. It so happens, I didn't. > Don't make me come over there, D. (I leave > off the emoticon because I know you don't like them, so you can just guess > what it was.) No need to guess. You're writing is sufficiently communicative that I can easily tell what emoticon you meant. Which is why I'm anti-emoticons. We're supposed to be writers. I've yet to see an emoticon in good literature making sure I got the emotion the words intended. > Seriously, the assumption that because a reader isn't surprised by a > surprise ending, it was poorly done, makes very little sense to me. Your comment makes very little sense to me. If the ending was supposed to have an element of surprise, and a lot of readers were not surprised, surely that means the surprise ending was poorly done. If the impact of the whole book was counting on the surprise ending, then the whole book is poorly done. (I would argue a story counting on a surprise ending for its whole impact, even if the surprise is pulled off well, is poorly done. Except for jokes, perhaps.) > It's not that > I don't agree with you about the deflation of a surprise ending; I just > don't equate the lack of surprise with the book not having been done right. _Ender's Game_ was not ruined by the unsurprising surprise ending because it didn't count on that ending for the bulk of its impact. That makes _Ender's Game_ well written and impactful in spite of the telegraphing of the surprise. But the surprise itself was not done right. The greatest books on earth still have elements in them that could have been done better. - -- D. Michael Martindale dmichael@wwno.com ================================== Check out Worldsmiths, the new online LDS writers group, at http://www.wwno.com/worldsmiths Sponsored by Worlds Without Number http://www.wwno.com ================================== - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 09:28:00 -0800 From: "Susan Malmrose" Subject: Re: [AML] Why Not PG? > on 2/19/03 4:31 PM, J. Scott Bronson at bronsonjscott@juno.com wrote: > (snippet) > > 1. The Little Mermaid (g) > > > > This is a story about a teeneage > > girl who carelessly endangers her > > community by breaking the rules > > and when she gets caught she rebells > > by signing a pact with the Devil. When > > someone else saves her scaly little > > butt, she doesn't repent and still inherits > > eternal glory. All for lust. Give me a > > stinking break. Ah, but that's the Disney version of it. The original animated story that I saw as a child has always stuck with me--because she dies at the end, becomes the foam washing up on the seashore. Susan M - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 10:20:05 -0800 From: Jeff Needle Subject: Re: [AML] WEYLAND, _Cheyenne in New York_ (Review) Actually, I *didn't* know this. I certainly appreciate the information. At 09:15 AM 2/22/2003 -0800, you wrote: >Thanks for this review, Jeff. Some of you may know that Jack Weyland >introduced this character and the roots of this story in his short story >"Cheyenne is in New York" which I had the privilege of editing for >Cornerstone's compilation of Jack Weyland short stories entitled _Forever_. >He did the same with "Charly," which first appeared as a short story in the >Horizon collection _First Day of Forever_. While editing the short story, >we discussed what a powerful character he had come up within in Cheyenne, >and agreed that she would make a good subject for a full length novel. I'm >really pleased to see that he did, in fact, write the expanded novel, and >especially pleased to hear Jeff's favorable review of it. > >Richard Hopkins > - ---------------- Jeff Needle jeff.needle@general.com - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 13:44:59 -0700 From: "J. Scott Bronson" Subject: Re: [AML] Best Screen Kiss On Sat, 22 Feb 2003 13:01:16 EST RichardDutcher@aol.com writes: > In a message dated 2/21/2003 7:55:10 PM Mountain Standard Time, > bronsonjscott@juno.com writes: > > << The Sound of Music (g) > > Great songs, great actors, great story, > and the best screen kiss ever. >> > > I must disagree, Scott. I simply cannot let this pass. The best > screen kiss ever was undoubtedly the Jimmy Stewart/Donna > Reed kiss as they both held the telephone at the bottom of > the stairs in "It's A Wonderful Life." It had anger, joy, sadness, > desparation, and romance. A real grown-up smooch. I concede a tie. > The best real life kiss, however, was the Richard Dutcher/Gwen Yuill > kiss in the front seat of his rented car after eating Nutter Butters near > the opening of Provo Canyon. And you have three more opportunities to see the best stage kiss ever. "The Way We're Wired" still has three performances to go; this Thursday, Friday and Saturday. I will say this about the kiss -- it get's a cheer just about every night. You can't do better than that. scott - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 12:12:46 -0700 From: jeffress@xmission.com Subject: Re: [AML] Programming as Art Quoting "D. Michael Martindale" : > I could look at Jacob's astounding coding techniques and say, "Wow! > That's a work of art!" But it would be a metaphor, not a literal > statement. I will certainly agree that in most cases when we use the word "art" in this manner, we really mean technique, craft, skill, and even genius. True, we don't usually mean that we would frame the code and put it on display, but . . . > I can tell the distinction because his program will never be > displayed as art or discussed among artists for its aesthetic merit or > receive artistic grants so he can create more. It's the INTENT, the > PURPOSE for which it's created, that matters. . . . this bit just goes to far. We display a lot of stuff today as "art" that the creators of those objects never intended for display. And usually even contemporaries of the creator would also not label the object as "art." But today, we have entire museums full of old things originally created for some useful, everyday purpose that we now admire for aesthetic reasons, not because we still use the item for its intended purpose. I have to say that INTENT and PURPOSE in creating an object means almost nothing in the art world. > Frank Zappa was right when he said art is whatever someone puts a frame > around. He said it was because it created boundaries where art can be > distinguished from real life. But I say there's one more step involved > in the framing process. A frame implies the intent to display. Saying > "Hey, this is art," is not putting a frame around it. In fact, it sounds > more like an afterthought to me than anything. The intent to define the > boundaries of the creation AND DISPLAY IT AS ART is putting a frame > around it. > > No one puts a frame around a picture unless they expect at some point to > hang it up so people can see it. I would have to say that pop-culture has made the t-shirt the ultimate frame. We wander around with all sorts of things emblazoned on our chests and backs. Who could deny that the creators of a printed t-shirt intened that shirt for display? I have seen numerous t-shirts with artistic presentations of programming code. But in case you don't accept t-shirts as a frame . . . Having worked in the information technology field for 15 years, I have seen a lot of strange things in a frame. I have seen lines of code printed and framed. I have seed mathematical formulas printed and framed. I have seen CD-ROMs framed. Heck, I decorated my entire cubicle at one company with discarded CD-ROM discs. I've seen Christmas trees decorated with CD-ROM discs, floppies, magnetic tape, and circuit boards. No-one in the computer industry created these objects with the intent for display. I disagree with the idea that the frame creates the art. Instead, by framing an object, we label the object as "art." This label demonstrates one person's opinion about the artistic value of the object, but the object has the same artistic propertios, with or without the label. The object may have existed for some other purpose, but someone wanted to recognize the object for its artistic merits. ANY object, regardless of its creator's INTENT or PURPOSE, can thus received the label "art." In contrast, I know a lot of self-proclaimed artists that create objects with the intent and purpose of having those objects displayed, and those objects never see the light of day - - - in spite of the frame. We certainly still call objects created for display "art," but we also frame and display a lot of other stuff and call that "art" too. The creator's intent and purpose mean nothing in the long run. The perception of the viewer validates the label, not the intent of the creator. I think this works because you can't really create anything without some art. No matter what your profession, you have to use both art and skill to create a good product. To use the computer industry as an example, I have seen a lot of User Interfaces that look like crap, but work just fine. On the other hand, I have seen really beautiful user interfaces that didn't work at all. A good user interface requires both the technical programming skill and the artistic presentation to create good looks and functionality. I propose that you can extend this to any human endeavor. All human creations have a component of artistic quality. Why does Dell ship black computers with curved cases? Because they look cool -- not because the shape makes the processor run any better. All human creations have a component of art, and we can appreciate all objects on this bi-polar scale: does it work well (according to its intent), and can we appreciate the aesthetic aspects of the object. Often, we most appreciate the object that functions well and looks good. - -- Terry Jeffress - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 13:40:15 -0700 From: "J. Scott Bronson" Subject: Re: [AML] Thanks to AML People On Mon, 24 Feb 2003 23:43:00 -0700 "Kim Madsen" writes: > 4. To Scott Bronson for providing the highlight of my AML weekend, > albiet unconciously... (pun intended). I was delighted by his light > snoring as h[e] fought to stay awake in the final session of the day > Saturday. I'm sure it had everything to do with staying up late > performing at the theater the night before and nothing at all with the > quality of the presentation. That was Thom. He was three or four chairs away from me. I know it was him because the snoring wasn't all that light. In fact, it was so loud that it woke me up. > 5. And again to Scott Bronson and the rest of the cast at Center > Street Theatre for their amazing performances in THE WAY > WE'RE WIRED. I took two sisters that I visit teach ... and my > husband tonight (Monday). ... We all loved it. What a great time we had last night. You were our favorite audience. You got the added bonus of attending the show with the most bloopers so far. If this were film, half our out-take reel would have come from last night's show. Thanks for coming. By-the-way, Thom doesn't have play performances as an excuse for sleeping during that paper Saturday. He sleeps because he's old. scott - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 15:52:28 EST From: Paynecabin@aol.com Subject: Re: [AML] WILCOX/PERRY "From Cumorah's Hill" (BYU Newsnet) In a message dated 2/25/03 10:13:47 AM, andrewrhall@hotmail.com writes: <<"I'm a big fan of trying to make my dreams become a reality," Rachel said. "I think, that's the best part - having an idea, and then making it happen. The coolest thing about productions is that, because I'm working with a crew, their ideas and their input can be greater than what I imagined. It's not just limited to my capabilities.">> Gotta love that. <> Can't argue with goosebumps. <> So far, so good. << After that, Rachel and Jared said they spent 10 hours altering the script to fit their needs. >> Hmm... Steve, you wanna take the bait? (remembering what often happens to the fish that does) Marvin Payne __________________ Visit marvinpayne.com! __________________ "...come unto Christ, and lay hold upon every good gift..." (from the last page of the Book of Mormon) - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2003 17:34:42 -0500 From: "robert lauer" Subject: Re: [AML] Best Screen Kiss Regarding "the best screen kiss ever," RICHARD DUTCHER wrote: >I must disagree, Scott. I simply cannot let this pass. The best screen kiss >ever was undoubtedly the Jimmy Stewart/Donna Reed kiss as they both held >the >telephone at the bottom of the stairs in "It's A Wonderful Life." It had >anger, joy, sadness, desparation, and romance. A real grown-up smooch. In my opinion the Jimmy Stewart/Donna Reed kiss in IT'S A WONDERFUL LIFE has a competitor for best screen kiss: the kiss between Jimmy Stewart and Katharine Hepburn in THE PHILADELHPIA STORY. Actually the two kisses tie--but for different reasons. I agree that the Stewart/Reed kiss is the most adult of the two--with all the anger, desperation, joy, etc. that such a meeting of souls (and lips) can entail. The Stewart/Hepburn kiss, however, is pure romance. The situation is almost like something from Greek mythology (in fact, the myth of a certain Greek goddess inspired the film's story): Hepburn is the beautiful but cold, "perfect" goddess who is above mere human passion. But Stewart sees through her facade to the flesh and blood woman beneath, and his poetic overtures, leading up to the kiss, melt Hepburn's resolve. When they finally come together in the kiss there is a fabulous sense of salvation through sexual love--salvation from a dull, cold, inhuman existence. ROB. LAUER _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 helps eliminate e-mail viruses. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus - -- AML-List, a mailing list for the discussion of Mormon literature ------------------------------ End of aml-list-digest V1 #984 ******************************