Stewart Lane Ellington's
I saw your new page for me and I was extremely blown away. I wish
you could have contacted me initially to tell me you didn't appreciate
I will be happy to post your response, although I see it as only
corroborating with what I've said already.
Here, I'll show you.
of all I don't contact people to tell them that I don't appreciate
their jokes or that I find their humor unfunny. You see, if I told
you that, you'd tell me that you thought it was funny and
you'd explain to me why it was or what you meant... and I don't
care. Instead what I do is post it and let it speak for itself (as
well as offer up my viewpoints). That's what I do here. It's no
I really enjoy your site and your artwork. I won't go too in depth
trying to justify my work - appropriating images is a common practice
now, and yes, I can also create my own images when I want to.
you for not going into depth justifying your work to me. I've already
been through that link and I've seen how much you like to talk about
your art. As I've said, it seems to be the reason that you do art;
to not let it speak for itself.
I understand that you can create your own images when you want to.
I simply don't agree with your method of "creating" those images.
|It's too bad
you can't discuss spirituality with someone objectively, you must
have had a painful experience with it, you allude to that a couple
of times (being in therapy, etc.).
am at the point in my life where I choose NOT to have discussions
(debate an issue like spirituality or art) with people that
I do not respect, and I think you now know where I stand with
you. But one thing you hit on the nose was how I've been hurt by spirituality.
That is why it is such a touchy subject for me. Because of how much
spirituality has hurt me. You really got me there.
|When you react
to people like me the way you do, it suggests you might be as angry
and dogmatic as all of the people you condemn on your site. I'm not
someone you need to be doing this to.
only thing you've done that angers me is your "found images" that
you call your own. Common practice or not, I see little talent in
using other people's images, especially after 7 years of schooling...
and they're teaching you to do that!
My site is as full of
irony and humor as yours. The picture of me in shades is not serious,
and isn't much different than the picture of you on your front page.
I'm a real fan, and yes
I would have liked a link under different circumstances. You link
to a lot of people and I just thought maybe you'd link to me. Maybe
you feel like I was insulting your intelligence with the nun letters?
Didn't mean to, I was just trying another way to open a dialogue
with you after you didn't answer my initial letter. I also didn't
know you would be offended by a request for a link. Let me respond
to you a little:
say that your site is full of irony and humor. I saw none. But I've
linked you up so that people can see for themselves. By the way, I
didn't realize that that portrait of you was a joke. Either way, I
described it as it was and provided the link so people can see for
themselves. Where's the foul there?
"Your front page is
a resume followed by a descriptive account of all of the wonderful
things that I was about to experience here."
The front page is a very
brief, simple description of my site, and not self-congratulatory.
point was that each of your pages was very uninteresting, from your
introduction to the page of banner ads. I considered the immediate
listings of your credentials (without anything to show for them) a
very humorous thing. I have consciously done the opposite on my pages.
"You have humbly described
your collection as "addressing the ideas of language, spirituality
and consciousness as well as addressing the concept of language
as a cognitive to which determines identity."
You have misquoted me
here, and in the process you've created a grammatically incorrect
sentence, something for which you criticise your hatemailers so
I misquoted you I do not know how. I've read through what you've said,
and I thought that my run-on sentence summed up your wordy ramblings
rather well. But again, the link, the people can see.
"Not only are you
taking other people's art, but you're taking the same pieces again
and again! This car image showed up in 3 of your projects! Not your
car image, someone else's car image. Most of your pieces are slight
manipulations of other people's stuff!"
The car images are taken
from photos I took of my own car. All of the images in my paintings
are either taken from photographs I've found or taken myself, or
they are created by me. You use a lot of found photos on your site.
And I wasn't aware there is a rule in art that you can only use
an image one time.
would never display anybody else's image in my portfolio. I do not
call other people's images my own work. If you're suggesting that
I take credit for the vintage photographs that I've posted, let me
say it now to the world: The vintage photographs displayed on my site
are not photos that I've shot and/or developed. They have nothing
to do with my art. They are posted only for comedic value, not as
Now you say it.
let me begin by saying that whenever someone starts talking about
"spirituality", my mind goes to work contriving a list of excuses
to run very fast. I've done the "imaginary bumble bee chase" and "left
cake in oven dash. I find the word "spirituality" to be pretentious
and silly. I am an atheist Stew. To me "spirituality" is the equivalent
to faith healers, psychics and alien abductions."
Fine, I respect your
beliefs. Couldn't you tell me about it privately and try to find
out what I'm really about before you lambaste me and my art on your
site? I undertsand spirituality makes you want to "run" because
it's a painful subject for you, personally. I'm sure it makes you
feel better to have a site where you are in full control of the
content and where you can express your feelings. I give you credit
for posting a lot of the intelligent comebacks to your ideas, along
with the less intelligent ones. I doubt I can talk you in to removing
the page on me, but please at least post this letter so other people
will have a better basis by which to judge me.
I've heard this condecendance before, "this must be a painful
subject for you, someone must have hurt you real bad in the past"
(I like to read that sentence aloud in a baby-talk voice). If an
idea is silly, calling it silly doesn't have to derive from a history
of pain. It's an argument as unoriginal as everything else I've
seen from you.