<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: For Your Pleasure</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ryeberg.com/curated-videos/for-your-pleasure/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.ryeberg.com/curated-videos/for-your-pleasure/</link>
	<description>Curated Videos</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 06 Jan 2012 02:00:23 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Mary Gaitskill</title>
		<link>http://www.ryeberg.com/curated-videos/for-your-pleasure/comment-page-1/#comment-6515</link>
		<dc:creator>Mary Gaitskill</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 22 Mar 2011 19:25:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ryeberg.com/?p=5067#comment-6515</guid>
		<description>It sounds maybe ridiculous to say, but I&#039;m humbled by your reply I guess because its so passionate.  I particularly love what you say about how fashion doesn&#039;t have to do with beauty, but rather with power--I&#039;m not sure it&#039;s entirely true that it has *nothing* do to with beauty, but it is certainly very much about power.  That difference as you defined it very much describes the difference between fashion and art, a difference I always find myself stumbling to explain when someone asserts that they are one and the same.  I also love what you say about beauty being braided together with endurance and survival.  

However I think you misunderstood my meaning slightly, probably because I wasn&#039;t clear enough.  I wasn&#039;t saying fashion=beauty or talking exactly about fashion in the usual sense of the term.  I meant the complicated way in which essential qualities find different shapes during different eras of time; its weirder than fashion, and gets expressed very much in popular arts.  I was wrong to use the word &quot;ugly&quot; but what I mean is that a mode of expression that makes total sense in one era is just inexplicable in another.  I remember as a kid seeing clips of people dancing the Charleston and being just utterly baffled that anyone could find this attractive--but it expressed something essential in its moment, albeit something minor that I could not recognize *in that form*.  I agree that the cave drawings and Homer will always speak to people.  But as much as I love Roxy Music, I don&#039;t think they are on that sublime level or even close.  When I showed the Remake, Remodel video to a young girl I know she said about Andrew McKay &quot;He looks like an insect trying to have sex,&quot; and frankly, I could see what she meant!  But he didn&#039;t look that way to me when I was her age.

Really I just think I wrote too much on this.  I wanted to just post the videos but once I started writing, I couldn&#039;t stop. Anyhow, thanks.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It sounds maybe ridiculous to say, but I&#8217;m humbled by your reply I guess because its so passionate.  I particularly love what you say about how fashion doesn&#8217;t have to do with beauty, but rather with power&#8211;I&#8217;m not sure it&#8217;s entirely true that it has *nothing* do to with beauty, but it is certainly very much about power.  That difference as you defined it very much describes the difference between fashion and art, a difference I always find myself stumbling to explain when someone asserts that they are one and the same.  I also love what you say about beauty being braided together with endurance and survival.  </p>
<p>However I think you misunderstood my meaning slightly, probably because I wasn&#8217;t clear enough.  I wasn&#8217;t saying fashion=beauty or talking exactly about fashion in the usual sense of the term.  I meant the complicated way in which essential qualities find different shapes during different eras of time; its weirder than fashion, and gets expressed very much in popular arts.  I was wrong to use the word &#8220;ugly&#8221; but what I mean is that a mode of expression that makes total sense in one era is just inexplicable in another.  I remember as a kid seeing clips of people dancing the Charleston and being just utterly baffled that anyone could find this attractive&#8211;but it expressed something essential in its moment, albeit something minor that I could not recognize *in that form*.  I agree that the cave drawings and Homer will always speak to people.  But as much as I love Roxy Music, I don&#8217;t think they are on that sublime level or even close.  When I showed the Remake, Remodel video to a young girl I know she said about Andrew McKay &#8220;He looks like an insect trying to have sex,&#8221; and frankly, I could see what she meant!  But he didn&#8217;t look that way to me when I was her age.</p>
<p>Really I just think I wrote too much on this.  I wanted to just post the videos but once I started writing, I couldn&#8217;t stop. Anyhow, thanks.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: W. Alice Stevens</title>
		<link>http://www.ryeberg.com/curated-videos/for-your-pleasure/comment-page-1/#comment-6487</link>
		<dc:creator>W. Alice Stevens</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 11 Mar 2011 03:24:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ryeberg.com/?p=5067#comment-6487</guid>
		<description>These is a beautiful series of sentences, but I completely disagree:

The effluvia that helped form it, the thousands of bright tiny pieces that form social life, won’t mean anything anymore. The expression may still be identifiable, but vaguely, like a rubbed-away face on an ancient painting or a bodily gesture recognizable as, say, one of aggression towards or desire for something no longer visible. What was beautiful is now ugly, what seemed profound is trite. 

I understand the poetic feeling that life and the world as we see it now will disappear, &quot;like tears in rain.&quot;  I realize you&#039;re speaking to the poignant way popular music can weave bits of our lives into the gauze the songs pull across our face each time we hear them play.

But I don&#039;t think truly beautiful music becomes ugly over time.  I don&#039;t think its impact fades.    It may go out of fashion for a while, but fashion has nothing to do with beauty and everything to do with trying to assert power.  The guillotine was a popular lady&#039;s brooch in post-revolutionary France.

The beautiful ( not the &#039;beauty&#039; of fashion and trends) is braided with endurance and survival.  

The cave drawings at Lascaux thrill us.  We identify with the happiness or loneliness in a bird&#039;s song, and so did Homer.  We&#039;re made of music, the gurgling of blood in veins and arteries, the beat of the heart, the cadence of our cerebrospinal fluid -- hitting every interval, rhythm and pitch.  The way we cry out when making love.  We ARE like birds, and music is part of us.

I sing to you now, in the music of words.  It doesn&#039;t fade.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>These is a beautiful series of sentences, but I completely disagree:</p>
<p>The effluvia that helped form it, the thousands of bright tiny pieces that form social life, won’t mean anything anymore. The expression may still be identifiable, but vaguely, like a rubbed-away face on an ancient painting or a bodily gesture recognizable as, say, one of aggression towards or desire for something no longer visible. What was beautiful is now ugly, what seemed profound is trite. </p>
<p>I understand the poetic feeling that life and the world as we see it now will disappear, &#8220;like tears in rain.&#8221;  I realize you&#8217;re speaking to the poignant way popular music can weave bits of our lives into the gauze the songs pull across our face each time we hear them play.</p>
<p>But I don&#8217;t think truly beautiful music becomes ugly over time.  I don&#8217;t think its impact fades.    It may go out of fashion for a while, but fashion has nothing to do with beauty and everything to do with trying to assert power.  The guillotine was a popular lady&#8217;s brooch in post-revolutionary France.</p>
<p>The beautiful ( not the &#8216;beauty&#8217; of fashion and trends) is braided with endurance and survival.  </p>
<p>The cave drawings at Lascaux thrill us.  We identify with the happiness or loneliness in a bird&#8217;s song, and so did Homer.  We&#8217;re made of music, the gurgling of blood in veins and arteries, the beat of the heart, the cadence of our cerebrospinal fluid &#8212; hitting every interval, rhythm and pitch.  The way we cry out when making love.  We ARE like birds, and music is part of us.</p>
<p>I sing to you now, in the music of words.  It doesn&#8217;t fade.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike Hoolboom</title>
		<link>http://www.ryeberg.com/curated-videos/for-your-pleasure/comment-page-1/#comment-573</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike Hoolboom</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 08 Oct 2009 06:16:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ryeberg.com/?p=5067#comment-573</guid>
		<description>How very close the camera brings us in these videos, as if it wanted to bore into the face of the singer, and peel away that smooth painted surface, and find the source of all that talk talk talk. Instead it lingers close, so very close, as if we were not at the concert at all, but lying in bed beside him, watching him, year after year, song after song,with something like the same expression on his face. Nothing more than this. And that’s fine too.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>How very close the camera brings us in these videos, as if it wanted to bore into the face of the singer, and peel away that smooth painted surface, and find the source of all that talk talk talk. Instead it lingers close, so very close, as if we were not at the concert at all, but lying in bed beside him, watching him, year after year, song after song,with something like the same expression on his face. Nothing more than this. And that’s fine too.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

