[Milton-L] Attacks on Milton and Civility on Milton-L

[Watt, James]

Dear Mr. Lindall:

So sorry you feel defamed by Roy Flannagan. Unfortunately, your tone betrays you.  Tone, of course, is very often not explored in Surrealist Art and when it is, it rarely achieves the standards set by, for example, Raymond Queneau.  Alas, a surrealist lacking a sense of humor is rather like an architect who is weak at spatial orientation.  But enough of this quibbling; Milton has settled the issue for us long ago in his description of those fallen angels who are perfectly happy doing interior decoration in Hell.

Yours in amity enough,

Jim Watt
________________________________________
From: milton-l-bounces at lists.richmond.edu [milton-l-bounces at lists.richmond.edu] On Behalf Of Yuko Nii [wahcenter at earthlink.net]
Sent: Monday, September 29, 2008 4:23 PM
To: John Milton Discussion List
Subject: Re: [Milton-L] Attacks on Milton and Civility on Milton-L

Sorry to add another email. Roy Flannagan defames me personally and my museum. We are a not for profit organization. We do not sell art. I am opposed to the association of art and money that has lowered standards and I oppose the idiocy of the so called  “avante-garde.” Please see my essay on A New International Surrealist’s Look at Progress, Overcoming and the Irreversibility of the Avante-garde, Massurrealism and The Death of Art: http://beinart.org/info/essays/terrance-lindall-avant-garde.php
If we all got our facts straight, as scholars are REQUIRED to do if they wish to retain their reputations, we could have a civil discussion. You can attack my stated ideas. But at least find out what we are a;ll about. .

Terrance Lindall
On Sep 29, 2008, at 10:37 AM, FLANNAGAN, ROY wrote:

This is a list that I helped to found, alongside Kevin Creamer, many, many years ago, and I certainly value its usual civility and intellectual integrity.  John Leonard's suggestion to send only one message a day (which I just this minute violated) is a good one, and I admire the suggestions for moderate and cool-headed interchanges from Gardner Campbell.

When I saw the NY Times review of the Williamsburg show, I was affronted by the unjust picture of Milton put out as truth by Charles McGrath, and I admit I felt immediate distaste for what others have called the ugly sculpture that illustrated McGrath's provoking article.  I did want to go on the attack, because "our" poet was being unjustly defamed in print in an article in one of the best-respected newspapers in the country.

I continue to believe that Milton has been defamed and devalued in the process of celebrating him at a pop art birthday party in New York, and I do think it is our business at least to correct the misapprehensions that seem to be promoted by the continued publicity.  Of course we are playing into the hands of a publicity machine designed to make money for the gallery owners and the "artists" on display there, and that is a sad and fallen process, as we well know from studying Paradise Lost.

Roy Flannagan
<winmail.dat>_______________________________________________
Milton-L mailing list
Milton-L at lists.richmond.edu<mailto:Milton-L at lists.richmond.edu>
Manage your list membership and access list archives at http://lists.richmond.edu/mailman/listinfo/milton-l