It's SHOWTIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Sun Nov 28, 2004 10:07 am

I feel Faint........Whoa.......my knees are starting to buckle.

jimmason actually apologized to me in a PM.

I feel about .....to.....pass......out.

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Sun Nov 28, 2004 10:27 am

Ok, this is it.

jimmason and I gotta get some sleep.

Everything will be alright later.

ok everybody?

(please say ok so we can move on.)

Tancorix · Post by **Tancorix** » Sun Nov 28, 2004 10:40 am

Absolutely NO!

But get some sleep anyway.

natthebat · Post by **natthebat** » Sun Nov 28, 2004 10:46 am

Samtzu,
If you think rhetoric is cheap you should try using some. It's an art form worthy of funding. In fact the first definition of rhetotic is "the art of speaking and writing effectively." What does your dictionary say? When I read your post about how arrogant pontificators are condecending, I only heard a lot of Larry Harvey ass-kissing. Was that the purpose of your post? To take Jim Mason down? Good fucking luck. Had you used some rhetoric I would not be in question about the purpose of your post or if you even had a point. You seem so bussy using big words that you missed the entire point of the proposal. Jim is an artistic communicator. I undersdand what he's tring to say because says it well. And if it were not for his efforts you might not have cared enough to stick your e-foot in your e-mouth on the e-playa.

Tancorix'
You sould feel threatened. I take that personally. It implies that you are afraid to share power. Thankyou for admiting it. Don't worry, it won't hurt too bad. Just relax. Power must be shared. The people must take some power back. Or we the people are damned to be drunken "yahoos" not participating.

Love Nat

Badger · Post by **Badger** » Sun Nov 28, 2004 12:41 pm

Sweet post PapaBear.

LadyBee:Jim, why do you need to divide the community over the irrelevant issue of art vs. community? There's no need to make the art more important than the other elements of Burning Man. It's pointless.

I think like any one of us who looks at the event through the filters (and blinders) of our individual experences, Jim's view is very much invested with a lot of who he is. At this point I see his frustration - and the frustration of many others - as being anchored more in the idea that the art issue is symptomatic of a larger malaise of what the event has become to a good number of people. That they just seem to keep whittling at the idea that 'art' is the sick patient here is part of my own frustration with the whole imbroglio but that speaks more to my own frustration and perception.

Personally, I think its a broader and much larger issue that sits in the room like the 700 lb gorilla.

Still trying to wrap my feeble thoughts around it but at this point my simplified version of the illness is related to the following:

1) SIZE. The event has grown too large to sustain the concept of a single, collective community. The event represents a commons and their is a tragedy happening to it.

2) CULTURE. There are too many people who're coming to the event for purposes of being entertained. Call 'em spectators, vacationers, yahoos, etc. With that attitude comes the unrealistic expectation that they should be provided for. That the event is there for their consumption

3) COMMUNITY. The idea of community is being diluted by numbers completely unfamiliar with the history of the event and with so much that it represents to people who've been around it for a few years. Acculturation to the idea of just what this community is (or was) has never effectively been promoted and all but the vaguest of attempts seems to have been made in perpeptuating and sustaining it. Examples that still do remain are Death Guild, HeeBee GeeBee, Gigsville and a few others. Interesting in what they seem to do to make their relatively large group function is that they seem to break themselves down into smaller, functioning neighborhods with intimacy and genuine interaction is still possible.

<just a few thoughts to chew on for now. I need to sit back and clarify a lot of this before I go diving into the topic further>

samtzu · Post by **samtzu** » Sun Nov 28, 2004 2:24 pm

jimmason wrote:

mr samtzu, how can you read the above ALL CAPS committement to not wanting the money or the role and then say we want the money or the role? we are proposing RADICAL DEMOCRACY, without us at the center. how does that then put us in the center? we don't want to start another event. we like this one.

baffling . . .

Well, since you posted while I was writing my post, and I posted my piece without seeing yours, I missed it. Now that I see it, it still doesn't do anything for me: what your petition appears to be is a power grab, plain and simple. I'm commenting on that, the petition, and, as far as I know, you still haven't withdrawn it. That is what I am commenting on. Get some sleep.

Natthebat wrote:

Samtzu,
If you think rhetoric is cheap you should try using some. It's an art form worthy of funding. In fact the first definition of rhetotic is "the art of speaking and writing effectively." What does your dictionary say? When I read your post about how arrogant pontificators are condecending, I only heard a lot of Larry Harvey ass-kissing. Was that the purpose of your post? To take Jim Mason down? Good fucking luck. Had you used some rhetoric I would not be in question about the purpose of your post or if you even had a point. You seem so bussy using big words that you missed the entire point of the proposal. Jim is an artistic communicator. I undersdand what he's tring to say because says it well. And if it were not for his efforts you might not have cared enough to stick your e-foot in your e-mouth on the e-playa.

Ya' got me there: I wasn't using rhetoric; I was using insult, abuse, and harsh language. I don't want to sway anyone's opinion, I was only stating my own. But, I am not trying to get people to sign a petition, either. If I was I would hope that I wouldn't be as condescending as Jim was. If Jim wants people to sign the petition, don't you think that he would want to try to use a more pursuasive tone, and not treat people as if they were stone ingnorant? Guess not.

I have never met Larry Harvey, or his ass, and I wouldn't want to kiss it even if I did. I haven't kissed ass in a long time, and I doubt if I will want to kiss one at this late a date. Even Larry's.

I'm not taking Jim down... hell, I couldn't even get a lasso around his ego. I'm just a little mosquito who's poking and jabbing at him; annoying but harmless. I know that nothing I say will in any way, shape, or form alter Jim's course of action. But, this being a democracy (don't you love that word? Democracy? Has a nice ring to it, don't you think?) and they allow us (how nice of them) to set up boards like this to post whatever we want to on them, I think I will do just that: I will post. And right now I am posting my opinions and observations on jimmason. It's not a threat to him, unless of course what I am posting is true, and other's read my posts and agree, then it will pretty much take the wind out of his sails. But, that is just my opinion.

As for Jim being a great artistic communicator, I don't know. I am not a qualified art critic (but who listens to those guys, anyway?) but I am a human being with many years of experience watching other human beings behave. Jim is behaving like a little kid trying to get Mom and Dad to hand him the cookie jar. Sorry... I don't believe he has communicated anything else. His art may be one thing, but his rhetoric (which is what he is attempting to use) sucks. And I don't need his help in sticking my e-foot in my e-mouth on the eplaya: I do it all the time all by myself.

natthebat · Post by **natthebat** » Sun Nov 28, 2004 3:20 pm

Well done Samtzu, now assume the position.

To start, an example of Jim Mason's rhetoric; At the begining of this thread you will recall the words, "First of all I'd like to thank all of you for giving a shit enough to stir it up with me." This is rhetoric because it effectively communicates the whole intention of this proposal. that is your involvement and desire to participate. How much more clear could it be?

Samtzu you claim that the peition is what you're comenting on, yet you admit to use abusive and harsh language while condeming Jim for doing the same. A more "persuasive tone" you sugest. I care not about tone. Do we really have time to get our feelings hurt? Comon' you guys. We work together so well when we decide to. BM's only 9 months away. That's barely enough time to have a baby.

This is not a Democracy as you say it is because people like you believe "nothing" you say can alter any course of action. If Jim Mason is acting like a spoiled child who wants the cookie jar then I'm inspired to want it too. I like cookies. Why should Mom and Dad have all the controll of the cookies, Don't they know I can take responsibility for my own cookie intake. I don't see Jim as having selfish intentions. I see him as having the balls to represent me and others like me who don't want to have to kiss ass to get in. That's not a Democracy. All I should have to do to get in is want to participate and be accountable for my actions and commitments.

I'm glad you don't kiss ass Samtzu.
Much love, Natalie

diode · Post by **diode** » Sun Nov 28, 2004 4:13 pm

After reading the petition, the counter-arguments and the responses I was prompted to reread a book about the decision making process ("How Great Decisions Get Made" by Don Maruska).

The book is about how be an agent of change. One of its tenets is that the standard discussion format for meetings typically leads to hardened positions where people fire verbal volleys back and forth without ever leading to optimal solutions. Sound familiar?

It's easy to see how the artist petition has formented discussion and that the resulting conversation quickly degenerates into endless arguing and debate.

The book proposes a process whereby small and large groups share their hopes and find common ground before embarking on finding solutions and implementing change. It's a structured process that works. It can scale upward to large communities by using working groups that report back and get feedback from the larger group. Same process, just takes a little longer.

Whatever people's take is on this petition, or on the larger issue of participation or on the nature of BM, all concerned share an overall desire to see the event prosper. Each individual has their own hopes for what that means and why.

When the petition writers say they want more and better art, and others say they want community, and others say they want more participation, these are all hopes expressed about the future at BM. None are exclusive of the other.

If these people, or a representative sample came together as a group and ran a process designed to lead them to problem resolution based on their shared hopes rather than one promoting endless debate, something positive might come of this.

IMHO, the current process is doomed. The main stakeholders have put forth mutually exclusive propositions and there's a fair amount of denial, denigration and testosterone being flung about. Naught will come of it unless it sparks an attempt to reconstruct the process whereby such concensus is reached.

As a burner, I hope to feel the magic. Whether that's coming from great art, or cool people, or radical inclusion/democracy/self-reliance, still it's the magic I want. That's my hope. The reason I want to feel the magic is because it transforms my life in positive ways.

If people want radical positive change, then they're going to have to change the way they go about discussing and finding solutions. This one ain't working.

Bob · Post by **Bob** » Sun Nov 28, 2004 4:44 pm

AFAIK, I don't think a date has been set for the table phase.

Badger · Post by **Badger** » Sun Nov 28, 2004 5:06 pm

Loved this:

it is because people like you believe "nothing"...

The chasm of divisiveness cracks just a bit wider.

What next? The use of 'you people?'

samtzu · Post by **samtzu** » Sun Nov 28, 2004 5:27 pm

Let the pissing contest begin (all emphasis mine)

natthebat wrote:Well done Samtzu, now assume the position.

Be gentle... I've never done it this way before...

To start, an example of Jim Mason's rhetoric; At the begining of this thread you will recall the words, "First of all I'd like to thank all of you for giving a shit enough to stir it up with me." This is rhetoric because it effectively communicates the whole intention of this proposal. that is your involvement and desire to participate. How much more clear could it be?

Again, I was commenting on the petition, not the "It's SHOWTIME!" thread. And, for a petition, it is still lacking in rhetoric. Having reread it since you posted this, however, it does have more pursuasivness than I originally observed. On the other hand, it still looks like a money grab to me. For one thing, all the 'projected' art is to be displayed in SF? What about the rest of the Nation (or World, for that matter)? We don't get to see what we are expected to vote on? Who's idea was that, Carl Rove? It sounds like the voting will be rigged (it's happened before) and that the 'artistes' in SF will have the edge over everyone else. As far as the 'guest curator' idea goes, will this, too, be by popular vote. Sorry... I see more exclusion in this than in just leaving it in the hands of Larry and company. At least with them it's 'the crooks you know, not the crooks you don't know'.

Samtzu you claim that the peition is what you're comenting on, yet you admit to use abusive and harsh language while condeming Jim for doing the same. A more "persuasive tone" you sugest. I care not about tone. Do we really have time to get our feelings hurt? Comon' you guys. We work together so well when we decide to. BM's only 9 months away. That's barely enough time to have a baby.

Point one; I didn't condem Jim (now that's rhetoric!), I mocked him for his choice of language. The word 'condem' has a built in tone of finality about it, and I hardly ever 'condem' people. I will 'sneer' at them, but rarely condem. Jim's safe with me. By the way, this Summer he can come to my art and 'sneer' at it all he wants... but I sure hope he doesnt' condem it. And since you 'don't care about tone' this sneering shouldn't bother you, right? And since when is trying to take ten percent away from a corporation that puts on such a great event every year 'working together'? Is that what Butch Cassidy and the Hole in the Wall gang did; 'Worked together'? It's still ripping off someone else's money. Again, it is their event, they can do what they want with the money (I hear an echo in here)

This is not a Democracy as you say it is because people like you believe "nothing" you say can alter any course of action. (I'm sorry. I've reread this sentence several times and it still doesn't make sense) If Jim Mason is acting like a spoiled child who wants the cookie jar then I'm inspired to want it too. I like cookies. Why should Mom and Dad have all the controll of the cookies, Don't they know I can take responsibility for my own cookie intake. I don't see Jim as having selfish intentions. I see him as having the balls to represent me and others like me who don't want to have to kiss ass to get in. That's not a Democracy. All I should have to do to get in is want to participate and be accountable for my actions and commitments.

I really don't understand the first sentence, but I think I understand the rest of the paragraph. Greed is greed. I'm not real big on paternalism, but I am big on fiscal responsibility. The fewer hands we have dipping into that cookie jar, the greater the chance that the cookies will be distributed fairly. And the last people I want in charge of the cookies are people who really like cookies (okay, you didn't say 'really', but it was implied). And since Jim is a 'big art' artist he probably thinks he deserves more cookies than 'small art' artists, and that is a big objection. Again, I am bringing my own art which I am paying for out of my own pocket. If Jim can't do that, and can't get an art grant, then he might want to consider bringing smaller art, too. That is, if he really wants to bring art.

I'm glad you don't kiss ass Samtzu.

Well.... I don't kiss ass, in that way... but on romantic occasions, I have been known to lovingly nuzzle a few.

Much love, Natalie

And much love from me, too... Sam

natthebat · Post by **natthebat** » Sun Nov 28, 2004 7:36 pm

I'm having trouble posting, let me try this.

buckethead alien · Post by **buckethead alien** » Sun Nov 28, 2004 8:13 pm

Badger's point about the villages put into focus something I had been thinking about, that it is the nature of a metropolis to organize itself into neighborhoods.

Christopher Alexander's "Pattern Language" talks about how people organize themselves into groups in their living arrangements, which may be a bigger part of the future for BRC. I'll have to pull out my copy tomorrow as it may have something valuable to add to the discussion.

As Brian Doherty put it in his recent book, the man rise, burns, and rises again so we have an excuse to get together.

(Sorry if this post is lacking, my head is fried.)

natthebat · Post by **natthebat** » Sun Nov 28, 2004 8:22 pm

OK it worked.

Badger why don't you people see that I'm on your side? Yes, "the chasm of divisiveness cracks just a bit wider." Are you blaming me for the disunity and dissension? You're welcome to if it makes you feel better but I believe the divisivness is a deep and looming fog where we all, at some point, fail to see that while there are two sides to the coin, there is only one coin. I liked what Diode had to say, a call to action. A perspective offered that there is a common thread. I believe that is our shared love for Burning Man. I think when Larry Harvey decides to negotiate he should call his thread "the common thread"

Samtzu,
Loved your good natured attempt to defend yourself. Here's what I see; You say you still think it's a "money grab." You refer to Harvey as a crook and sugest that Mason is after the money. Hell, you think I'm after the money with your interpretations of the cookie jar analogey. You are wrong about everyone. Larry Harvey is not a crook or a greedy man. That Information is in print, I believe it to be true. Jim Mason contributes big and has already said that he woud not take any grant money on principal. Do more research Sam. I still think of the cookie jar as an analogy for voting rights. Not something I'm happy to let others have controll of.

You gripe and sneer at the concept of voting and the idea of guest curators. Somehow you seem to think that business, being done in SF. would lead to more exclusion. I think not. We are at our maximum exclusion factor right now. We don't get to see what we don't get to vote on. Maybe we could vote on 5 or 10 projects that are willing to be voted on. Try it out, see what happens. Maybe, just maybe, the community could see the value in having a say and appreciate the self-educating process that having a say implies. It would be of value to Democracy.

Much love and ass nuzzlings my friends
Nat

Sensei · Post by **Sensei** » Sun Nov 28, 2004 8:30 pm

Get a room, you two!

samtzu · Post by **samtzu** » Mon Nov 29, 2004 7:12 am

Natthebat wrote:

Samtzu, Loved your good natured attempt to defend yourself. Here's what I see; You say you still think it's a "money grab." You refer to Harvey as a crook and sugest that Mason is after the money. Hell, you think I'm after the money with your interpretations of the cookie jar analogey. You are wrong about everyone. Larry Harvey is not a crook or a greedy man. That Information is in print, I believe it to be true. Jim Mason contributes big and has already said that he woud not take any grant money on principal. Do more research Sam. I still think of the cookie jar as an analogy for voting rights. Not something I'm happy to let others have controll of.

There, now that's rhetoric... very good! It is misdirected and distorted, but most good rhetoric is. My statement was a quote from some political pundint from the last century "It's better to stay with the crooks you know than the crooks you don't know". I implied that Larry is a crook ("Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely", another quote) but I didn't state it as gospel. There is a difference, however minor. I know neither Jim nor Larry, but I do know politics (and revolution) and this is politics; a grab for power. I don't like it and I am suspicious of everyone who makes a play like this. I will fight this power grab because I see it as weakening the fabric of the current organization and it has the potential of bringing down the entire Burning Man organization. There are very few revolutions that succeed without destroying the fabric of that society that is caught in the middle of it (The United States Revolution, and the Polish Revolution of the 1980's spring to mind as ' successful' revolutions).

I see this money grab as detrimental to the survival of Burning Man. I like Burning Man the way it is, and I would like to see what it will evolve into. Evolution, not revolution. By the way, how much more research would you like me to do, and in what direction? I'm curious.

Sensei: We'll see... but don't hold your breath.

Bob · Post by **Bob** » Mon Nov 29, 2004 7:44 am

A Revolutionary War may preserve all sorts of abhorrent institutions.

If anything, Jim's proposal may be more of a Shay's or a Whiskey Rebellion.

samtzu · Post by **samtzu** » Mon Nov 29, 2004 7:52 am

Bob wrote:A Revolutionary War may preserve all sorts of abhorrent institutions.

If anything, Jim's proposal may be more of a Shay's or a Whiskey Rebellion.

Which were both doomed due to their leadership and goals.

Bob · Post by **Bob** » Mon Nov 29, 2004 8:25 am

Neither rebellion failed entirely.

Rian Jackson · Post by **Rian Jackson** » Mon Nov 29, 2004 8:32 am

Wow. I didn't think that we were going to get to the point of TRULY pulling rank because we disagree.

Jim, i made art. I brought art. Both years. Musical and visual. I was mentored in by a 7 year burner. I have mentored others.

But alas, my art is not big. Nor expensive. Nor dangerous. Does that mean that it does not equal your acheivements?

Perhaps. My problem with this is that it reproduces the default world: where only the most impressive (yet not always the most meaningful) efforts are 'worth' anything, where it's all about flash, where there are set rankings within our society. Now, i'm not sayin' that everyone ends up as 'equals' in the BM community - god knows that we have those who have been elevated for one reason or another, by action or perceived status or their own overinflated sense of importance.

But this is out of control.

Do you want to recreate a traditional society? (This is where 'respect your elders' seems to be most alive in the world.) Or do you want to create something radically new?

The choice is up to all of us, isn't it? Not just our 'elders'.

I respectfully disagree with your petition. I applaud your ability to get conversation rolling. I dismiss your egocentric dismissal of all of us.

AND PLEASE STOP STARTING NEW THREADS. (It would behoove you to have some respect for us if you want us to have any for you.)

Enough with this art grant process. Let's try BM without it again. Let's have smaller art. Let's have everyone scrap to get it together. Let's experiment again. The big projects can wait.

Let's turn this shit on its head and see what happens.

samtzu · Post by **samtzu** » Mon Nov 29, 2004 8:41 am

Bob wrote:Neither rebellion failed entirely.

True. Shays Rebelion, while unsuccessful as a rebelion, succeeded in getting the Articles of Confederation thrown out and the Constitution of the United States getting writen. Not bad. And the Whiskey Rebelion led to a lack of enforcement on the whisky tax on small farmers, which was unjust and unfair. Still, it failed as a rebelion.

Perhaps Jim can shake up Burning Man in such a way that the granting of money (it is about the money) is more open, but I still disagree with his stated aims. Shay's Rebelion and the Whiskey Rebelion led to evolution (which is something I don't mind) not revolution (which is always messy, and is what the petition is all about).

Bob · Post by **Bob** » Mon Nov 29, 2004 8:43 am

Bullshit. Larry has funded art for years, with grants and budgets large and small. Not only isn't he going to stop, he's committed to funding more. Next complaint?

Bob · Post by **Bob** » Mon Nov 29, 2004 8:46 am

(Was reply to "Wow....my art is not big....")

Rian Jackson · Post by **Rian Jackson** » Mon Nov 29, 2004 8:46 am

natthebat wrote:Well done Samtzu, now assume the position.

To start, an example of Jim Mason's rhetoric; At the begining of this thread you will recall the words, "First of all I'd like to thank all of you for giving a shit enough to stir it up with me." This is rhetoric because it effectively communicates the whole intention of this proposal. that is your involvement and desire to participate. How much more clear could it be?

Samtzu you claim that the peition is what you're comenting on, yet you admit to use abusive and harsh language while condeming Jim for doing the same. A more "persuasive tone" you sugest. I care not about tone. Do we really have time to get our feelings hurt? Comon' you guys. We work together so well when we decide to. BM's only 9 months away. That's barely enough time to have a baby.

This is not a Democracy as you say it is because people like you believe "nothing" you say can alter any course of action. If Jim Mason is acting like a spoiled child who wants the cookie jar then I'm inspired to want it too. I like cookies. Why should Mom and Dad have all the controll of the cookies, Don't they know I can take responsibility for my own cookie intake. I don't see Jim as having selfish intentions. I see him as having the balls to represent me and others like me who don't want to have to kiss ass to get in. That's not a Democracy. All I should have to do to get in is want to participate and be accountable for my actions and commitments.

I'm glad you don't kiss ass Samtzu.
Much love, Natalie

suggestion:
make your own cookies. it's more rewarding, more fun, and the batter tastes the best anyway. and you can make 'em juuuust how you want.

Rian Jackson · Post by **Rian Jackson** » Mon Nov 29, 2004 8:54 am

Bob wrote:(Was reply to "Wow....my art is not big....")

damn, i'm losing thread. was that to me?
if so, it was rhetorical. i don't need no stinkin' money.

Bob · Post by **Bob** » Mon Nov 29, 2004 9:06 am

Rian Jackson wrote:i don't need no stinkin' money.

Well, I don't need your money, meetings, consensus, golf carts, or frumious bandersnatches. Larry still has control over large amounts of money and playa real estate, and he's going to exert it. Jim's petition has to do with the how and why of that.

Rian Jackson · Post by **Rian Jackson** » Mon Nov 29, 2004 9:37 am

yes, true Bob. (still can't tell if you're yellin' at me or not...)

sometimes i wonder if the point isn't more about how much we let it effect our actions and our art and our experience. I'm not trying to posit any sort of firm stance, just picking apart the issue.

I have read Jim's petition, the 3playa discussion at length, and the relevant discussions here. Missed Tribe, 'cause i'm still holding out.

And i don't know that they're 'my' golf carts any more than they are yours.

natthebat · Post by **natthebat** » Mon Nov 29, 2004 10:14 am

Oh Sam... You're so hot when you try to take me down like that. I'll pay for the room you little hooker. I'm all turned on now. Well done on the research factor.

Someone made a point and everyone danced around it. More important than bringing up this revoultion or that rebellion, would someone PLEASE TELL ME WHAT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN REVOLUTION AND EVOLUTION IS. Please conclude your contribution with a statement on how your thoughts relate to the betterment of Burning Man.

I will start the conversation;

Revolution: a sudden radical or complete change; esp: the overthrow of one government and the substitution of another by the governed.

Evolution: a process of change from a lower to a higher state: growth

What Natalie thinks,
Revolution is fast, complex and potentially deadly. It's a political word. Revolution is when "the governed" implement a new government. Evolution is slow and we could all be dead before we have a chance to see the fruits of our labors. Evolution in a natural, organic process. I would also like to note that some species evolved themselves into extinction. At the core of all this burning passion we share, is the question of how to grow best. That is my primary concern. I'm new and I'll be damned if I caught the end of this.

I think the differences between revolution and evolution hold the key to the future of Burning Man. Too fast and we could fuck it all up. Important people with a lot to contribute could suffer. Revolution implies blood shed, the blood we waste here is our energy. Too slow and we waste our energy with no purpose. Waiting for evolution? Fuck that. I would rather participate in concious revolution. Well planned revolution.

Ohhh... that felt good.
Love Nat

Bob · Post by **Bob** » Mon Nov 29, 2004 10:23 am

Rian Jackson wrote:...i don't know that they're 'my' golf carts any more than they are yours.

We both pay for them, and the funded art. Neither are going away. You're going to see both at Burning Man next year. They're both going to be the subject of talk and BBS posts.

The org uses visuals of both to show the world what bunringman is all about. More of the art than the golf carts, of course. It's not a golf cart festival.

nesdon · Post by **nesdon** » Mon Nov 29, 2004 10:46 am

What ever Bill Clinton is, even Ken Starr ain't gonna say he's stupid, yet James Carville, an exceeding loyal minion, crafted that seminal remark about that campaign with that obviously similar epithet.

What some of the younger posters may not know, is that some of these guys on opposite sides are (were?) all pretty close friends. Some of the acid in the tone of their dialogue comes from the way familiarity breeds contempt, and intimacy can blur decorum. So as much as they should lighten up, so should we observers of this lover's quarrels.

So it is the art, dear friends. Larry accused Jim of having art as his religion, and while I certainly won't subscribe to art as a graven image; art as a type of intention, as an approach to reality, it is a pretty heavy thing. Larry has used the terms “being supreme or supreme being” to encompass the spiritual ideas most of us share. Whatever beings are collaborating to create this existence, I sure as hell hope they are artists, and not just some earnest politicians, or friendly neighbors. No, it is the art, stupid.

Art is about seeking deeper meaning within and without, about manifesting it, about communicating it. Most people don't spend much time in that powerful stance, but the idea of radical expression and inclusion welcomes them to take that stance, and promises to accept them whatever meaning they find or express.

And as I and Jim, and we thought Larry too, discovered around the phenomena of Burning Man, when such intention and approach are expanded beyond just our work, to our lives, our relations, our community, even our fucking cities, the whole equation changes.

It comes back to the art. And when its made on a grand scale, with the blood and sweat of the community supporting it, then the magic of the way a gift builds a vague commitment, happens on a grand scale, as the artists return the community's gift to them with a gift of a transcendent experience for the community. This process has married us in ways we obviously don’t fully grasp.

Experiencing art, even in the form of schlock pop music or movies, is the main collective goose bump pathway we have in modern life. Jim is right about this much for sure, this is our community’s secret sauce, and the magic that has made Burning Man not just another political, or other, party. Come on, community can be as little as a neighborhood or a fan club. This community is special, this community is magical, and it owes its soul to the artistic stance.

And, THANK YOU CHARLIE

Nesdon

It's SHOWTIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

tangentially speaking...

It's the art, stupid