6/20/05

Lizzy Newman

Mir 11
11th Floor 522 Flinders Lane (Kings Carpark) Melbourne, May 2005
LNewman

Lizzy Newman's work was made for MIR11, but it seemed less concerned with the abstraction offered by art-space, and more interested in camping out in the concrete. The work presented itself up as an aggregate of furnishings, producing a doubly real and imaginary waiting room complete with water cooler. The supply of water was sucked completely dry by the time of the opening, and the fountain sat strangely empty for the duration of the show, kept company by a bin full of plastic cups at its foot. It imparted the work with a slightly depressing ambience, edged by lack, and absence; and of a dissapointment that you get when arriving too late.

Arresting the free-flow of sweaty couriers and well dressed architects between the ARM architectural offices and the lift well, the work hooked into the context of it’s foyer; creaming together the corporate with the abstract and offering itself up, almost masochistically, as a zone of service provision.

That the work was banished from the space, (without the artist's knowledge), by the ARM architects while hosting the arrival of “some important clients” (but replaced by a painting for the occasion!); convinces me of the potency of this work. It’s indeterminate nature worked to playfully unsettle, and activate the latent and forceful politics of its’ place.
Bianca Hester

30 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

I would have thought that architects, of all people - because they are engaged in culture making to some extent and cultural discourse, would have the desire to broaden the audience for contemporary art not protect people from it as these guys did by taking the show down momentarily. The idea that clients wouldn't like this show or understand it and needed to be protected from it is bizzar. If ARM felt embarrassed, and that is what we are talking about here, who are they feeling embarrassed on behalf of? Why not say to the clients "Oh this is an art project, isn't it fantastic, we are offering a space for emerging artists to try things out in a sympathetic environment. Aren't we cool".!!!

8:10 AM  
Anonymous Virginia Waite said...

am I understanding this correctly?
what was actually the reason that someone took the work down?

12:21 PM  
Anonymous Bianca Hester said...

The work was taken down twice in the middle of the exhibition period, for a few days while ARM hosted guests. From what I've been told, the first time the work was removed remained unknown to Lizzie Newman and she only found out when she came in to photograph the installation. Also, a few people went to see the work, but there were signs up stating that the work was temporarliy closed. They were perplexed at this, becasue there was a replacement painting put in the foyer (a painting that had been chosen by ARM as a suitable/better replacement of what was already there).

This action reeks of an attitude to art-work as foyer decoration - or is it more about product placement? Viewed at in this light, since MIR11 opened at the start of 2004, artists have provided ARM with a contemporary ambience (through art product) that no doubt aids in providing their corporate image with a sharper (art-ier) edge than their competitors. ARM conveniently and perhaps unwittingly reap the fringe benefits provided by this contemporaneous-ness. It's pretty frustrating that they fail to support those who provide something that assists in the production of their cultural and commercial fortune.

3:30 AM  
Blogger jeremy the said...

yep. this is the sort of behaviour that can sometimes make me feel awkward, embarrassed even about being an architect. misunderstandings about art, the production of art, and its function in society are rife amongst architects. it is symptomatic of the separation today between the spheres of practice maintained by art and architecture. i think what is really highlighted by the MIR11 situation is the nature of the relationship that was established to begin with. the "landlords" have made only too transparent their attitudes towards what art should be, the parameters of their involvement in MIR11, and the contrast between what they stand to gain, against what they are prepared to stand for. the problem lies not so much in that they should consider reaping some sort of benefit from handing over the space to artists (all space has numerous stakeholders) but it is shameful that they should be pretending to harbour important, artistic, cultural production, whilst secretly engaging in a sort of aesthetic censorship. the irony is that architects - particularly in melbourne - are the sort that never stop whinging about the censorship exercised over their own work by clients, planning authorities, neighbours and the like. morons.

8:20 AM  
Blogger jan van schaik said...

Lizzy Newman's work for Mir11 was removed from the Gallery for one day because it was poorly considered, conceptually sloppy, and badly maintained. It was replaced by large tape drawings on board, a rather unconventional medium, and not a painting, as spuriously described by Bianca Hester, in her review.

Accepting veto from its sponsors is, and always has been, a condition of exhibiting at Mir11. That Newman sought written approval from the sponsors before hand is evidence that she was aware of this. The show she described in this initial letter described an 'office foyer' to be created in the gallery. The work, in the form in which it was installed, falls a long way from this description. This shortfall is part of what lead to the works temporary removal.

There are cases where work has been removed from galleries for political reasons. The removal of "Piss Christ" be Andres Cerano, from the NGV is one such incident. This does not mean, however, that all work removed from galleries is removed for political reasons. Sometimes, as in the case of the temporary removal of Newman's work from Mir11, the work is just embarrassingly bad.

In order for a review to be taken seriously, especially one making such strong political inferences as Bianca Hester's review of Lizzy Newman's work, it is reasonable to expect that observations made be at least reasonable accurate.

Jan van Schaik

10:31 AM  
Blogger jan van schaik said...

Bianca, in response to your claim that the work was removed without Lizzy Newman being informed:

The directors of Mir11 were informed in advance that the work was to be removed. That they neglected to inform Newman of this is unfortunate.

In response to your claim that the Mir11 sponsors

In response to your claim that Mir11 sponsors "fail to support those who provide something that assists in the production of their cultural and commercial fortune"

Mir11 sponsors pay rent on Mir11 floor space, they provide Mir11 with an office, a computer, an email address and internet access. They fund 50% of all incidental purchases for the gallery such as paint light bulbs etc. They house flyers for Mir11 and Kings and UN Magazine in their own office lobby (which is separate to the gallery). They proved tables etc. for the serving of drinks on at openings. They provide storage for art work not on display.

Furthermore, in all the shows held at Mir11 to date, only one show has been vetoed, Newman's, and even then, only temporarily.

Your claims are VERY far fetched.

10:45 AM  
Blogger jan van schaik said...

J, in response to your comment

"but it is shameful that they should be pretending to harbour important, artistic, cultural production, whilst secretly engaging in a sort of aesthetic censorship"

The right of veto by sponsors is outlined by Mir11 to all artists before exhibiting. This veto is a condition of the existence of Mir11, which has existed since its conception.

Your claim is inflamatory and just plain wrong.

10:49 AM  
Anonymous Geoff Lowe said...

It’s clear that ARM’s architecture has made an important contribution to culture in Melbourne. By calling Newman’s work ‘poorly considered, conceptually sloppy, and badly maintained’ you seem to be missing the slacker absence or ambience in the work. The work is like a kind of rumpled absent version of a foyer. Maybe even the used banal foyer that most contemporary designed foyers try to cover up and eliminate. It’s one foyer inhabiting another and the water cooler suggests some sort of shared social space that is almost too familiar.
If ‘the work is just embarrassingly bad’ that may be just the point, to look at the ‘bar’ or threshold to what’s bearable in an artwork. As an artist Newman consistently points to the remainder that’s not included in an artwork and our looking at it.
Compared to this, for me, Serrano seems like an operatic faux distraction that just deals with all the ways we know the world through the big media. This issue here is not a beat-up it appears to be something genuinely important between us.

1:43 AM  
Anonymous Scott said...

Jan, there's a lot to respond to here, I'll try to be brief (I'm sure this comment list will fill up pretty quickly).

You described Lizzy's work as "poorly considered, conceptually sloppy, and badly maintained". I would say that my opinion of the work is the polar opposite. In fact if I was to briefly describe Lizzy's work I would probably use statements like "highly considered" and "conceptually strong". But it doesn't surprise me that our opinions differ, such is the nature of opinions. What does surprise me is that firstly, you appear to believe it is appropriate for your opinions to author the contemporary art space you hosted and secondly, you do not see this as political.

As you pointed out, the sponsors of MIR11 provided numerous forms of support for this (essentially) artist run initiative. In return the sponsors received public recognition for their support and a continually updated, contemporary foyer. You may believe that this exchange is unbalanced, that the support provided outweighed any financial and cultural returns; perhaps you believe the decision to sponsor MIR11 was based largely on generosity and public spirit. If so, I can understand how you may feel victimised by the response you have received from the Newman event. But I think in understanding the political aspect of this you need to question the initial intentions for supporting MIR11 and ask yourself how the actions that were taken towards Lizzy's work may have undermined these intentions.

4:04 AM  
Blogger jan van schaik said...

Scott, the sense of victimisation in my responses comes from the criticisms levelled at ARM and at architects. The sponsors of Mir11 are an architect, a graphic designer, a landscape architect, and an industrial designer.

The description of Lizzy's work as 'conceptually sloppy' is a description of the vast gap between what she promised the show to be, and what it ended up being.

This enormous gap between what Newman proposed, and what was eventually installed, gives grounds for Mir11 and its sponors to have removed the show entirely, however we were prepared to overlook this, with the exception of one day.

While my opinions are strong, Mir11 and its sponsors were still prepared to host the work for the entire advertised duration, with the exception of one day.

The issue of wether the work is political or not is, as you say, debatable, however, the reason it was temporarily removed is not. It was not political. I can say this absolutely, as I was part of, and party to, the decision to remove it.

The Mir11 sponsors do not consider their support of Mir11 and its artists to be overly generous. The Level 11 Lobby space has been a gallery for 5 years. The decision to use this space as a gallery was, as you point out, not done out of charity, it was done to bring art, and those involved in it, to our working environment. The commercial advantage to the sponosrs of this gallery is negligable. The tenants of Level 11 do not rely on a commercial street prescence to attract clients. Conversly, the commercial advantage to the artists showing at Mir11 is significant, as many ARM, VIVID, RWA and CHARLWOOD directors and staff members have purcahsed art from Mir11 shows

Jan

2:37 AM  
Blogger Callum Morton said...

The Bad Mother Fucker of the Arts

Like Pat and Kain’s show it is an act that has initiated the responses here not an object, and in a sense it is also a type of theft, a temporary hole that I am sure Lizzie might normally find interesting if it hadn’t happened to her.

Perhaps acts are easier to talk about than objects these days. Objects often close things down. They can so resolved, complete and virtuous that there is no way of feeling a part of them except as some mute witness, shuffling around the edges of the machine as it goes to work. Case in point, not one person has commented on Ricky Swallow’s Venice show on this blog and that is all about the OBJECT and the machine around it. Sure they might be great things, but when there is that much fame and power surrounding something, it quickly moves into a type of untouchable terrain where the only people invited are either the famous or the sycophantic, precisely because they will do the right thing and keep the wheels greased.

Perhaps this is what Jan means when he talks about Lizzie’s work as ‘poorly considered’ or ‘conceptually sloppy and badly maintained’. Lizzie’s work is precisely these things because she knows that to deliver a complete image means that there are no openings for us to enter. If she delivered Jan’s image of an office foyer (whatever that is) then nothing would have happened. But the proof that it approached something of what a foyer could is illustrated by ARM’s actions. Were they worried that important visiting guests might have the impression that this was actually their foyer and so think, shit they’re not that good lets go to LAB? If so perhaps it underlines how untenable it is for architects offices to house art projects of any description, and perhaps it is a good thing that MIR11, as I understand it, no longer exists.

But it is a little surprising coming from ARM of all people. I was always interested in their appropriative strategies. It suggested a type post modern irreverence that was anti institutional and critical. When they designed RMIT Gallery, pretty much everyone in the art community I spoke to considered it to be the height of architectural arrogance (and hubris) to impose on artists like that, but I had faith in the argument that they were being critical of the white cube and certain modernist paradigms of art production and consumption. I thought it was playful.

But it turns out that the rather Oedipal world of Australian Architecture so often looks for ways to generate new forms and not ideas. When they do consider ideas they are often so abstracted, cunning or mind numbingly boring (how you move me through space, how I cannot sleep on that parkbench) that no one really listens.

4:37 AM  
Blogger jan van schaik said...

The Mir11 space is two things simultaneuosly. A gallery AND an office lobby. Within this type simultaneous existence there is always a risk of a clash of interests. A system was set in place to deal with this risk. This system involved the curators of Mir11 informing the exhibitors of the gallery that the businesses who used the lobby to run their business had veto over all the work.

This system failed to protect Lizzy Newman because the Mir11 curators neglected to comunicate this to her. Further to this, before the work was removed, the Mir11 curators were instructed that Lizzy Newman be informed. This they neglected as well.

While the discussion of the political nature of space, the impenetrable nature of object based art, and the shortcoming of the design proffessions to engage meaningfully with the art world, any criticism leveled at ARM or RWA or VIVID or CHARLWOOD is entirely unwarranted in this instance, and the unfortunate way that Lizzy Newman came to learn of the removal of her work lies squarley on the shoulders of the Mir11 curators for their inability to comunicate to her the conditions under which Mir11 artists exhibit.

The removal of this work was due to a perceived inability of a particular potential client to understand the conceptual nature of the work, and not because of the sponsors own inability of the same, my own opinions not withstanding. Once the potential clients had left, the show was re-installed.

While there are some cross-overs between an art practice, and an achitecture practice, a major difference is the way in which ideas inherrent within a piece of work are discussed with the patrons of that work. While an artists may describe the intent in a piece of work to a patron, architect is often required to run two sets of ideas in parralell. The first set being conceptual, the second being the ideas that will be used to present work to the client. These two ways of thinking about a work are often at complete odds with each other, and necessarily so. This cultural difference in methods of practise is at the root of the innability of an artists to understand how firm, like ARM, which appears to have a high conceptual content to its work, could do something as hideous as curate their own image for the purpose of attracting clients.

P.S. Mir11 does still exist, however, the curators who were responsible for all shows up until the begining of August, have resigned without notice or explanation. New ones are currently being interviewed.

7:07 PM  
Blogger Callum Morton said...

Who perceived the potential clients inability to understand the work ?

Artist's in the main do not have to explain the intent of a piece to a patron because often the patron is either invisible, disinterested or absent.Artists can not explian at all quite comfortably and it changes nothing.

Arts uselessness gives it a certain power to engage with a greater range of ideas and emotions, something architecture cannot afford to do, simply by it's nature. Given this system it is often exraordinary when something great happens in Architecture.

Why do you think Jan that the curators resigned without notice or explanation? Surely that must be obvious.Why would artists want to show there if everyone on the floor had veto over it? Best you have architects show their work in it, that way you will get an appreciative crowd who all speak the same language.

But it is also obvious that on this you are intractable, and your committment to your employees is truly admirable.

12:39 AM  
Blogger jan van schaik said...

Directors of two of the sponors of Mir11 percieved the potential clients' inability to understand the work in terms of the image they were trying to portray to them. I beleive, knowing these clients, that this was an accurate perception.

It seems we agree that about the difference between art and architecture. I hope you did not think that I was expecting the work at Mir11 to deal with the same constraints that achitecture does. As you say, it is liberation from these constraints that makes art interesting.

The reason that the curators left with out explanation is still a mystery to me. The veto held by sponsors has been clearly known to them since they were first invited to curate the gallery. Mir11 has been running for one and a half years, with this veto being exercised for only one day over that entire period. Apart from this one day, the sponors have had absolutely no involvement, or attempted to influence in any way, the content of the gallery.

In fact, at one point, one of the sponors expressed dismay at the Mir11 curatorial stlyle in general. I engaged in a complicated political conversation with this particular sponosor to ensure that his views did not affect the curation of the space.

My role on the Mir11 board is to represent the sponors to Mir11, and Mir11 to the sponosrs. In BOTH these rolls, I am very commited.

As for running an architecture gallery, I have no interest in making the architectural culture of Melbourne more insular than it already is. It is always the cross polination of ideas, working within conflict, and coloaboration that makes this world a more interesting place.

It is a pity that the recently departed Mir11 curators were unable to enage in this spirit. The silence in their departure is a remarkable display of insular behaviour that will ensure that, in their work, they will only be able to preach to the converted.

3:01 AM  
Anonymous Geoff Lowe said...

This current regime encourages people to see themselves as shareholders rather than as citizens!
Jan, this legalistic way of arguing is starting to appear like a living example of this in art.
Artists as citizens need institutions and indepenent enertprises to help them say what they want to and what isn't yet accepted. Not to be intimidated. We're currently working out of a very small pool of knowledge.

5:12 AM  
Blogger jan van schaik said...

Geoff, in no way was the removal of the show intimidatory, it was a neccessary part of the existence of the gallery, without which the show would not have been exhibited in the first place. It was done cautiously, and with repsect to the art and the artists.

The legalistic repsonses on my belhalf is simply to ensure that actions of the sponsors of the space are correctly represented. The review by Bianca Hester used a number of facts, which were accusatory and wrong, to build a case against one of the sponsors. I put it to you that the manner of my response was dictated by the spurious and inflamatory nature of these accusations.

5:47 AM  
Anonymous Bianca Hester said...

“There are no facts, only interpretations”; this implies that so-called facts are sexed-up (or stripped down) as truth. If all is interpretation, then everything is motivated. Everything is at stake. We all have vested interests and we all work for somebody.

Whatever its categorization; ‘tape on board’, put up on a wall, is a contained thing, a thing identifiable as art. To me what counts here is that this thing helped to reassure those involved, because it fortified an already established regime of what ART IS. That tape-on-board-thing gave a sense of security, of ease.

Lizzies work on the other hand didn’t stand as, or in, for art. It mocked, in a playful way, the very relation between art and the corporate foyer (and the very identification/categorization of art and the value systems contingent to it). It, and the actions it inspired, worked to demonstrate that the corporate space desires art (so badly that the work wasn’t just removed, but replaced, by something apparently more real, more factual, more art). The corporate space wants art but it can’t seem to hack it on its own terms. It can’t hack the non-art (read embarrassing) dimension of art; it’s purposeful/purposeless lameness. It’s lameness left a feeling of impotence, and its erasure was an act of assertion. (On the other hand, art wants corporate space, wants the institution and it’s value-adding power….nothing is unmotivated or outside).

Professionalism is a bureaucratic distraction imposed by a regime of control and order. Professionalism wants outcome, regulation, quantifiable knowledge. Professionalism serves the interests of a system that fears disorder, confusion and the unexpected. Professionalism masks over the embarrassment of lameness via efficacy. The unshakeable ‘right of veto’ enacted in this event was a manoeuvre to eradicate the non-professional, the embarrassing.

Removing and replacing Lizzies work was particular kind of architectural gesture (a form of building) enacted out of fear of embarrassment. Think of the city now. Think of how it’s being enhanced, style-guided, fortified. Every square inch (or whatever) of lameness is in the process of being rendered. Like this, Lizzies work was built out. “One day, one hour, painting or no”, the regime of ‘facts’ is largely irrelevant. What I think is important here is the inevitable political effects of the action in its forceful unfolding. Whether something intends to be political or not isn’t the point. Every action produces a context while summoning and enacting power relations. What could be more political?

3:07 AM  
Anonymous Gwynneth Porter said...

Hey Bianca,

I read once in this book about the dictatorship of reason in the west that professionalism has its roots in Machiavelli, and that it functions to further the ends of self-privileging elites. It was also said of these professional closed shops that they like to dismantle, clean and disinfect; to leave no place for individual characteristics to hide. A further characteristic, it seems, is to employ argument to convince rather than to discuss and explore. A lot of art is going to give professionals a rash as it will not meet the profession’s demand for tight and shiny and slick. It might be a shock to some, but not all art has to look like a used erection.

But then again, it’s kind of great how some art can be convincingly slick, and come under the radar into these décor schemes like Trojan horses, slowly emanating eroding messiness and disorder. Like how Ricky Swallow’s work might look like Chinese vegetable carving, but, because of this luxury restaurant vibe, it might also about how everything solid turns into air; or, in the case of his Venice showing, inevitably into water too?

(The “contradiction” in being complicit and resistant at the same time is maybe something like how people often don’t steal things because they want them. It could be the tactical action of a person stuck in an anaesthetizing system (even if it is post-traumatic numbness, or a neurasthenic’s “serene” decor) that wants to feel again. A nail-bomb of sorts.)

The best thing I saw in Venice, when I went there once, was a small boat called L’Eagle Tendre.

Which reminds me, there was a project in Venice in 1978 by the Italian architects Superstudio called The Wife of Lot in which the five historical stages of architecture were modeled small in salt and out on a table beside the grand canal. Water dripped onto them from a structure above demonstrating architecture’s inevitable dissolution. They were the group that notably declared in 1971 that the most logical thing an intellectual could do in this day and age is to commit suicide; preferably in public:

“The architect’s suicide and the disappearance of architecture are two equivalent phenomena… In both cases it means eliminating the formal structures connected to artificial scale of values. In this sense, our work has used the instruments of architecture in a contrary fashion, gradually, through absurdity, showing its uselessness, its falsity and its immorality.”

I thought of Lizzy’s work as I read this.

I take suicide here in the vitalist-transformative sense of the word.

There is this ridiculous situation here in pre-election NZ where the media has decided that to talk about suicide encourages people to kill themselves. Violent transformations of the self are generally discouraged; or, simply put, career suicide. I say this because I know you like to think about spiders and spit.

Sorry this is long. All I was going to say when I sat down to write was to ask the architect guy if, yes or no, he has a vested interest in art as décor.

10:22 AM  
Blogger jan van schaik said...

Bianca, what you are implying is that ANYHTING is political. If this is so, then ALL artworks are political. How then, are you able to use this to describe an individual work?

Also, if the act of removing the work was driven by fear, and a desire to assert certainty, how do you descirbe the act of allowing the work to be installed in the first place, and the act of replacing it after its removal?

3:12 AM  
Anonymous Michelle said...

Jan,
Is not censorship inseparable from fear itself? As mentioned, censorship (veto) was written into the initial agreement. I doubt the past directors wrote this into the agreement, they would of, like many other artists, agreed to it, and hoped it would never happen. On the event of which it did happen, they then acted, swiftly, silently and powerfully. You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink. In such a socio-political world, every move we make is political. Isn't it a matter of investigating each one of our actions to then understand it's potent political meaning?
It does amuse me that MIR 11 ended with an exhibition by an artist turn psychoanalyst turn artist. I was impressed by the simplicity of the show and the aftermath of action that has unravelled a problematic relationship evident between art and the corporation, or art and it's sponsor, art and it's facade/foyer. Your a smart guy Jan, I'm surprised you didn't question this and investigate it before engaging in it's unravelling.

11:27 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

the person who has logged on as "Jan Van Schaik" is gonna be in trouble when the real Jan Van Schaik finds out how stupid he has been made to look.

2:40 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear Anonymous, at the very least I have the courage to take part in the discussion with name on the record. It is all too easy to sling mud from the dark. Also, please learn to spell my name properly if you intend to call me stupid. Thank you for your constructive comments. Jan

7:11 AM  
Blogger jan van schaik said...

Dear Michelle, Lizzy's show was not the last one. The recently departed curators of Mir11 put up a number of shows after Lizzy's before leaving. That they left because of the issues being discussed on this site, is pure conjecture, as they have offered no explanation. In fact, I'm not sure that they are aware of this discussion at all. If they are, they have made no comments.

Cencorship is not always based in fear. Take the example of the censorship of gratiuitous voilent sex agianst chilren, in a proposed film, by the Australian Film Censorship Board.

Are you saying that all cencorship in society should be abolished? Surely not.

Also to say that veto = cencorship is a bit of a stretch.

I did question the viability of a gallery where the sponsors had veto, and decided that it was worth proceeding as long as the issue was carefuly explained to the curators, which it was.

I wonder how many galleries, of any type, there exisit in the world where the curators, organisers, operators, patrons or sponosrs do not reserve the right to remove an artowrk if it is deemed inappropriate?

Thank you for your confidence in my intelligence, clearly I need all the help I can get.

7:36 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

could the organisers/sponsors of speech please veto jan van schaik.

8:17 AM  
Blogger jan van schaik said...

Well well well, isnt mr/mrs anonymous a smarty pants, and still.....anonymous. Coward.

Anonymity frees you from the constrainsts of accountability and consistency. And removes any need for you to declare any motives or conflicts of interest. Given this freedom you have chosen, your contribution to this page thus far is woefull in the extreme.

As for the veto of me from this site, if the possibility of being removed without notice was a published condition of using this blog, then I would gladly accept such an action. As it is not, it would say that it was act of crude and indefensible censure. Its a pity you cannot use your cloak of anonoymity to say something vaguely useful.

My point, all along, is that you can't reaaly come down of someone like a tonne of bricks for exercising conditions that you agreed to in the first place.

I was invited to comment on this page, by the organisers, in the spirit of dialogue. I have revealed all my motives, allegiances during the act of temporarily removing Lizzy Newman's show. What's your excuse? And what are your motives for wanting to close this dialogue off?

Lets see if you have the wit and dexterity to explain yourself without revealing your identity.

I wish you the best of luck with your mud slinging, and with maintaing any self respect, and I hope you are finding this as interesting as I am. I have no desire to shut you down, and look forward to your next eloquent entry.

11:34 AM  
Anonymous another anonymous said...

do you folks have jobs, families, social lives, anything better to go back to? I think this discussion needs to be put to bed, going nowhere, wake me up when you move on.

3:55 AM  
Blogger jan van schaik said...

indeed

6:22 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Jan,
You argue like Andrew Bolt. All your talk about contracts and fine print and vetos and conceptual sloppyness may be legally correct, but its morally wrong. Im sorry I slung mud at you. See how easy that was. You try.

6:53 AM  
Blogger jan van schaik said...

Anonymous (still), without negotiating with the legalities of the society we live in, either by conforming to them, or tackling them, it is not possible to achieve anything. I could always choose the moral high ground, and exist outisde of society, but I chose not to. If you are suggesting that it is immoral of me to want to take part in society, then I'm guilty as charged.

Morals are roughly definable as held beleifs, such as religious faiths, as opposed to ethics, which are argued beleifs. I have prediction to the latter. It makes for a better world.

9:46 AM  
Anonymous geoff lowe said...

Jan, I admire you and your belief in the value of speech! Under all this you believe something is worth saying.

10:58 AM  

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home