frantz

"are you going with me" is absolutely my favorite track by Pat Metheny, but in the magical live version from "Travel."

Fosca, I can't wait to see you and to see us at the concert!

A masterpiece that, when revisited today, loses none of its brilliance; of course, it's not as shocking as it might have seemed in '75, but those were already tumultuous years in their own right, and they will never return! The first time I saw it was around 1980, and as a good fourteen-year-old, I didn't fully grasp it, but it shook me up and motivated me to seek out the more fun and transgressive side of r'n'r... but I was 14! I rewatched it last night in reversed years, on DVD with the stereo cranked up, the mega screen, and the room dark to recreate a bit of that "magical atmosphere." Unfortunately, the spell didn't quite return, but the "adult" viewing of the film made me appreciate all its nuances, and I found it still magical, even though it shows its age... but then again, so do I!

@(!) "but his gesture is a negation of art in every form," can you explain to me why you think it's a negation of art? I don't understand your statement.
@Erzacciu, and if the girl falls and splashes paint, then from vagina concettual painting it becomes action painting, in short, the famous "dripping" technique :-D

And the meanings are multiple!
First of all, let’s put at the center of the world "the Woman," as the bearer of life, ergo, and why not, also of "artistic life." If life is reproduced from the genital apparatus as an "intellectual" choice of a couple, I see no reason why a new "life-artwork" cannot emerge from the same apparatus through the same "intellectual genesis." Therefore, the use of the vagina as a "means" and not as an end to "create new forms of life."
Following this is the entire social journey of vindication and the rediscovery of the centrality of the female figure in the historically conflict-ridden man-woman relationship, where the woman can, in this instance, be (and only she can do it by nature!) a source of creation. If we consider the ’60s, where the conflict was uneven, we then understand how disruptive the social act of a "uterine brushstroke!" was within that stiff art system.
It is not the taste for art, or the intrinsic beauty of the final work that matters here, and absurdly not even THE GESTURE, but the reason why this gesture is performed. I believe this artist should be viewed and analyzed through this interpretative lens.
Forgive me for the inevitable length.

And the meanings are multiple!
First of all, let’s put at the center of the world "the Woman," as the creator of life, ergo, why not, also of "artistic life." If from the genital apparatus life is reproduced as an "intellectual" choice of a couple, I don’t see why from the same apparatus a new "life-artistic work" cannot be born through the very same "intellectual genesis." Therefore, the use of the vagina as a "means" and not as an end to "create new forms of life."
This follows the entire social journey of vindication and the rediscovered centrality of the female figure in the always conflictual relationship between man and woman, where the woman can, in this case, be (and only she can do it by nature!) a source of creation. And if we relate this to the 1960s, where the conflict was unequal, then we understand how disruptive the social gesture of a "uterine brushstroke" was in that rigid system of art at the time!
It is not the taste for art, or the intrinsic beauty of the final work that matters here; absurdly, not even THE GESTURE, but the reason why this gesture is performed. I believe this artist needs to be seen and analyzed through this interpretative key.
Forgive me for the inevitable length.

Getting serious on the subject, we’re in 1965 and women in the entire Western world are not exactly thriving in terms of their social roles, quite the opposite! The review describes women well as “angels of the hearth,” but we’re also in a time when “protest” is about to emerge socially in universities, surely (as always) preceded by artistic movements and sub-movements. The enlightening example of Piero Manzoni with his personal shit is mentioned NOT by chance. I don’t want to reiterate the importance of the work as an "artistic concept"—so the gesture that, in itself, becomes art—since that has already been discussed, but I want to closely examine the meanings that this gesture carries…

Since the "art" section opened, I've started reading the pages of DeBaser with more interest, which I have never completely abandoned. However, I must say that sometimes, as is often the case in the music section as well, differing opinions arise not from a different vision of the "works" being analyzed, but because some people manage to support their views with a critical perspective that is at least sufficiently documented (or even more so), while others go "with their gut" on the topics. Hats off to both sides, but I find myself siding with the first group 9 times out of 10.
With that said, I would like to clarify a bit on the subject. The review starts off very well in my opinion, explaining the condition of women in the years when the famous "painter of pussy" was active. Allow me a little joke: if there's the right to "reason with the cock," there's equally a right for those who paint with the pussy!

Congratulations and lots of envy for the opportunity I missed; when I decided, the tickets were already gone. What a shame!

This summer I’m only listening to Easy Star and their three albums; this one might be the best even though Airbag made by them drives me crazy!