Part II
Stewart Lane Ellington's response
...and mine.
Hey Bob,
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 my joke.

Stewart,
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.

First 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 secret.

It's true 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.

Thank 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.

And 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.). I 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. The 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:

You 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.

My 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 much.

If 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.

I 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 portfolio pieces.
Now you say it.
"So 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.

Sorry,
Stew

Stew, 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.

No apologies,
Bob


Part III
Stewart Lane Ellington's final response