Wednesday, August 17, 2016
1. Art-O-Mat informs and reminds children that they can get away with obtaining and using tobacco product. It does not inform and remind them of anything else whatsoever and I am NOT wrong about this. Take a close look at what this is. It's a cigarette machine, which advertises the tobacco industry's history and continued success, by cleverly pretending to distribute ART!
2. Tobacco companies are now focused on the countries where they can get away with it, and marketing directly to children. If you need citation on this just type Indonesia Smoking Kids into YouTube or view this video specifically: How Indonesian Kids Are Getting Hooked On Cigarettes https://youtu.be/fM9t3hub6yg
3. Convincing hundreds of people to play along with an abusive mind game involving children is disrespectful to say the least, and donating a quarter of your personal profit margin to an elementary school doesn't compensate. If this guy had any integrity he would donate all of it, and abandon the activity immediately.
4. Art is just another vice. If you're having trouble understanding and agreeing with this, remind yourself of the source. Where did you get it? A vending machine? That in itself requires no further inquiry, such as why and wether it's because someone else did it and you heard the cellophane crinkle.
5. Demoting yourself by saying you hope your activity doesn't backfire shows that it both will and should. Someone who says that makes it obvious they're not where they need to be.
6. Throwing gang signs isn't showing that you own your power. It doesn't even show that you're a mature adult. Get out of my art gallery with that garbage. Go to where people do that and do it there
7. Art-O-Mat was not created by it's current manager in response to a Pavlovian reaction to a snack wrapper. It was created by a cigarette addicted minor experiencing Pavlovian calls to actual cigarette wrappers, as a bad joke and sting on capitalism while under the influence of the illegal psychedelic drug psilocybin, with help from a cocaine addicted illegal Mexican immigrant who got the cocaine he was high on when he and the kid shook hands on this idea directly from Klaus Nomi and David Bowie who happened to be in town. The date this occurred was new year's eve of 1992. These two individuals names are Sebastian Matias and Emmanuel Teijeiro, who created both Art-O-Mat and Artists In Cellophane by name, before altering his own name to match that of the owner of Beef Burger Corporation in New Jersey so that the guy who manufactured and distributed meat to every fast food chain you can think of no longer owns the monopoly on his own identity.
8. Clark reported that some children pointed out that there were still cigarettes in his vending machines to a dj on npr. He is in fact aware of the truth of this, but he thinks he's "in on it"
Unwind one of the five hundred copper wire scorpions he paid me to manufacture and ship to him to reveal a length of copper wire that can loop someone's neck and kill them instantly with very little effort, placed in the hands of children, and tell me how that translates. Not only do these machines still vend cigarettes but also contraband, pornography (Dino Adkins http://www.artomat.org/gallery/dino-adkins/ ) and occult paraphernalia (voodoo dolls, mojo bags, various charms http://www.artomat.org/gallery/pam-gonzales/ , http://www.artomat.org/gallery/ruth-ipsan-brown/ , http://www.artomat.org/gallery/kelly-rush/ , http://www.artomat.org/gallery/paul-lake/ , http://www.artomat.org/gallery/dewitt-young/ )
1 in 50 Indonesian children start smoking at age 4. Support our cause by sharing this message with at least one person to spread awareness and force an asap Art-O-Mat shutdown.
9. Anyone else notice how Art-O-Mat media is closed to outside input like open comment threads? You can't hide from the internet, chump. And we can all see you on the street.
10. The preceding nine points explain why Clark doesn't actually own Art-O-Mat or anything else for that matter. No one does, and the merchandise is all dross influence draining the energy of anyone possessing it.
It wouldn't matter, following that, if new vendors not containing cigarette merchandising history were constructed for art, because vending and commerce in and of themselves are an equivalent hoax and invalid pursuit. If you want to share art with each other, learn how to actually do that. There is a way. The things in those machines are not art, and the mat is you.
Jeff Wagg (collegeofcuriosity.com) says: I don't see the connection, and Art-O-Mat markets to adults, not children. If you want to fight the tobacco industry I suggest you choose a more appropriate target because Art-O-Mat doesn't contain cigarettes.
Everything is connected, like your palm to your dick while you spank it to that photo of the pretty skinny girl in blue jeans standing in front of the CIGARETTE MACHINE pretending to vend art to CHILDREN that as a result start smoking at age four in Indonesia. Just because you lack the integrity to acknowledge your awareness of this connection doesn't mean someone else won't. Nice try.
Let's look at some pictures now to clear up what smarty at curiosity college here just said about Art-O-Mat not marketing to children and dig a deeper hole for him. Remember now, again, as you're looking at these, that you know all of our names. We are NOT hiding. This is ALL in plain view.
Art-O-Mat pornography. Dino Adkins
Hmm, what's this about?
Child at The Rare Bit, restaurant vending work by Dino Adkins via Art-O-Mat
Photo of the Winston Salem "royalty" responsible for this:
Wednesday, May 11, 2016
thanks for taking the time to make a comment which I won't be approving as I don't see what right you have to say our pricing is outrageous.
I followed through to your gallery at:https://www.twenty20.com/xxima
Have a nice day
These links are helpful, thankyou.
Bonsai trees are something I've taken an interest in in an effort to obtain a fix on what exactly they are.
They're something created by and defended by the vain and selfish who find a need to posses and control something that otherwise already belongs to them: trees. Right?
No further response.
Wednesday, April 13, 2016
Haiku is a form of poetry accredited to the Japanese. It has only three rules.
2. Kigo (nature reference)
3. Syllable count. (5-7-5)
These rules are clear and traditional. If they are broken, what you have written is not haiku.
If someone starts their example with the line "on a scorching day", the reason this is wrong is because it's an incomplete thought which turns the following lines into explanatory narrative.
If someone ends their example with the line "dangling from a horn", this turns the preceding lines into precursory narrative. When I pointed out to a self claimed teacher that each line has to be a complete thought, he responded by saying "I've never heard that criteria before", after clearly stating that haiku does not contain narrative. So apparently this person did not understand the definition of narrative.
The "cutting point", change, or "surprise element" is an extension of the first rule because if this element is not present, the poem's stagnation evokes narrative.
resembling ripened chilis
sit on the table
a frog jumps in the water
SPLASH! right on her boobs
relaxing in the rowboat
listening to frogs
The kigo is also an extension of the first rule because it requires the poem to be comprehensive to it's reader. If the poem is foreign to it's reader, it's not haiku. So the nature reference also means that the subject matter must refer to the writer's personal experience in daily life. What this means is you can't just dream up a haiku, you have to have actually experienced it.
Another mistake I encountered is when someone claiming authority to talk about haiku said it's more about aesthetic than form. It's not. Haiku expresses an equal balance of both and if it doesn't, it's not haiku. The syllable count expresses the form, and the subject matter expresses the aesthetic. Haiku is the harmony between the two. If someone tells you one element is more important than the other in haiku, they're wrong and talking about another poetry form that is not haiku.
A common element I have encountered in attempted haiku instruction is introducing it with the statement that haiku is a difficult art form to master, which is wrong. To say that haiku is difficult to master is an attempt to implement narrative to haiku. That person doesn't understand the definition of narrative and therefore isn't competent or capable of even writing let alone imparting haiku to a student.
Absence of narrative is what gives haiku it's perfect harmony with nature. This is why haiku isn't an entry in a poetry contest. This is why haiku is not protected by copyright license. If you have a copyright licensed book that tells you it contains haiku, it's wrong. Whatever's in that book isn't haiku. This is why haiku is not a topic of debate. You can't argue about haiku. You can't use haiku to outsmart someone. Because those things are manifestations of narrative, which is unrelated, by definition, to haiku. There is no "modern haiku". There is no haiku "genre". There is no "published haiku", unless the content is public domain and rights are reversed instead of reserved. This is why you find these publications allegedly on the topic of haiku that tell you that eastern and western rules regarding haiku are different and the eastern rules are clear and "won't be discussed here". Really? Why not? Because haiku is something an aggressive person can't possess and control and this challenges their common comfort so in lame defense they publish defiant prattle and call it haiku. But it's not. Haiku is meritous, not difficult. If you're incapable of comprehending merit, you can't write haiku. Put this pamphlet down and forget it or embarrass yourself. It's your decision.
Absence of narrative is what makes haiku simple. Haiku is never complicated. If there is any element of complication to your poem, it isn't haiku. Also haiku doesn't contain self referencing content, because this creates narrative. This is why derogatory language or any word having negative connotation is not used in haiku.
Although each line must form a complete thought in itself, it must also enrich the understanding of the other two lines or else it creates narrative. So you can't write haiku that doesn't make sense. If the last line of your poem is refrigerator, it's not haiku.
Finally, haiku does not have an author or a title. This is because these things implement narrative, which disqualify the work as haiku. If an author tries to use the rhetoric that the rules are made to be broken, remember that although you are free to ignore the rules of haiku, what you write is not haiku if you do so.
If you're one of the rare few that is selfless and literate enough to understand what is written here, being unencumbered by the mental illness known as oppositional defiance disorder that stops the kind of person who attempts to own haiku with a copyright license from learning, you've earned your copy of the only accurate instructional text on haiku in plain English that exists.
2. Write your own haiku and share it with someone. You are not allowed to keep your own haiku. If you do, it's not haiku.
3. Print this text into a pamphlet and distribute it freely to those interested in haiku. If you do this, you have to write it yourself from scratch. You're not allowed to copy/paste it. Also, the correct method of distribution is leaving it where someone will find it, such as a cafe bookshelf. Leaving it in an inappropriate random place, such as a park bench where it is liable to be picked up and discarded to get it out of the way for sitting, is not allowed.