>i really don't understand which human approach you can rely on to dare to
>express calls like >>>>>>>>>> "Arti- Smoking", art for a smoke-free world
>project. <<<<<<<<<<<<
>i really ask myself whether such plain moralistic attitude is the right
>basis to give to children or which is worse - to die from lung cancer
>through smoking or to spend a whole life in such a moralistic attitude, thus
>imposing strange rules on others how the world should be - actually we are
>talking about highly sensitive and at the same time political issues, and me
>personally, i cannot see how i could ever go along with such attitudes being
>proposed by the arti-smoking project. i am sorry.
>
>http://www.kanonmedia.com/portfolio/sp01.htm


i agree with kanonmedia. (full disclosure: i'm a smoker.)

the history of tobacco, in america esp., is simply not as black &
white as the anti-smoking moralists would like us to believe.

it's probably quite easy to get public funding for art pushing an
anti-smoking agenda.

one won't get it for this sort of art:
http://www.mteww.com/number100/00to02mtaa


–
<twhid>
http://www.mteww.com
</twhid>

"the history of tobacco, in america esp., is simply not as black &
white as
the anti-smoking moralists would like us to believe."

So, smoking won't kill me, because it has had a varied and rich impact
on American Culture? Let's look at it this way; tobacco companies have
aimed at hollywood stars and films, trying to get them to smoke- any
brand, just to smoke, period- because it increases the chic factor of
smoking. Artists who smoke accomplish the same thing. They are making
tobacco out to be "hip" and so inadvertently sell the image that art =
smoking in black turtlenecks. The idea that people would be upset about
an artist challenging this stereotype- a stereotype that helps to sell
cigarettes
and the faux "rebellion" that cigarettes represent- is just as weird as
people
complaining about a show for young artists being "exclusive." [Wasn't
"net.ephemera" limited only to New York based artists? I didn't see GH
declare "I guess there's no-one outside of NYC that could possibly have
any good ideas."]

Smoking is a major health issue. Why would anyone have a problem with
this fact being represented, when all the rest of the information about
tobacco
comes from the tobacco companies? I guess if you are really pro corporate
then you could have a right to disagree, but encouraging people not to
become
addicts to one more spoke in the capitalist bullshit machine is
certainly not
reprehensible?

As for Moralism- I'm not sure if avoiding tobacco is presented all too
often
as "the high road" or some path to God; from the works I've seen it's
pretty
much been a straightforward message: Smoking is a suicidal act; increases
your risk for cancer, turns your teeth yellow, gives you bad breath, makes
you smell bad, etc. Best case scenario is lung problems in your old age.
It's
unhealthy, and the effects of not being healthy far outweigh the effects of
"looking cool". Smoke if you want, but don't complain that someone is
making
a statement that barely even balances the major impact that tobacco has
had,
up to very, very recently, on our culture. It's got less to do with
"morals" -
morals being an idea of "right and wrong"- and more to do with "ethics" and
whether health is more important than image.

I don't see how encouraging people to be healthy is suddenly fascist; nor do
I see why artists with a point of view- "imposing strange rules on
others of
how the world should be" - is any different or more dangerous than a mass
media marketing campaign that convinces kids to smoke? Anything that is
seen as "rebellion" that is actually a way of killing yourself or making
complacency
easier deserves a strong reaction from artists. Unfortunately, they're
usually
mired in these attitudes and would not for a second be honest enough to
question the very faux-rebellion they have fallen for themselves.


-e.







t.whid wrote:

>> i really don't understand which human approach you can rely on to
>> dare to
>> express calls like >>>>>>>>>> "Arti- Smoking", art for a smoke-free
>> world
>> project. <<<<<<<<<<<<
>> i really ask myself whether such plain moralistic attitude is the right
>> basis to give to children or which is worse - to die from lung cancer
>> through smoking or to spend a whole life in such a moralistic
>> attitude, thus
>>
>>imposing strange rules on others how the world should be
>>
>> - actually we are
>> talking about highly sensitive and at the same time political issues,
>> and me
>> personally, i cannot see how i could ever go along with such
>> attitudes being
>> proposed by the arti-smoking project. i am sorry.
>>
>> http://www.kanonmedia.com/portfolio/sp01.htm
>
>
>
> i agree with kanonmedia. (full disclosure: i'm a smoker.)
>
> the history of tobacco, in america esp., is simply not as black &
> white as the anti-smoking moralists would like us to believe.
>
> it's probably quite easy to get public funding for art pushing an
> anti-smoking agenda.
>
> one won't get it for this sort of art:
> http://www.mteww.com/number100/00to02mtaa
>
>

Odd though that every smoker surely knows that smoking is a lousy
gamble. I'm sure every smoker knows may even agree with you but will
get fed up and find fault with this stuff anyway. But seems like it's
all pretty standard grade school education stuff. Points everyone
has heard since they were kids. But has no final effect on some. It
woiuld make logical sense that it completely obliterated smoking but
for some reason people still do it.


The odd thing is that there is no REAL benefit to smoking. The only
good effects that exist are the result of addicts convinced by their
addiction. The ADDICTION says it calms you (but actually, not having
a smoke, makes addicts tense, that's just how addictions work, the
first puff is a relief) Even if you still entertain doubt about the
medical conclussions, nobody actually doubts there is some pretty
heavy evidence.

So, what seems odd is that in the face of such overwhelmingly
horrendous evidence, smokers still choose to abuse themselves for no
apparent reason. they call cigarettes "cancer sticks" and light up
anyway. Doesn't make any logical sense but hey whatever turns you
on…

what makes people CHOOSE to do what they know is bad?

That'd be fine but then they are also making that choice for everyone
around them. If it was self-contained, who cares. Chew 20 packs of
nicotene gum at a time. But smoking is just rude like walking up to
a stranger and making a small cut. Argue that once is probably not
going to kill the person. But IT's STILL RUDE. smoke, don't smoke.
who cares. But do it in your own bathroom, like giving yourself an
enema. Keep it to yourself. Just don't make the people who happen
to be around take part.

judson




>"the history of tobacco, in america esp., is simply not as black & white as
>the anti-smoking moralists would like us to believe."
>
>So, smoking won't kill me, because it has had a varied and rich impact
>on American Culture? Let's look at it this way; tobacco companies have
>aimed at hollywood stars and films, trying to get them to smoke- any
>brand, just to smoke, period- because it increases the chic factor of
>smoking. Artists who smoke accomplish the same thing. They are making
>tobacco out to be "hip" and so inadvertently sell the image that art =
>smoking in black turtlenecks. The idea that people would be upset about
>an artist challenging this stereotype- a stereotype that helps to
>sell cigarettes
>and the faux "rebellion" that cigarettes represent- is just as weird as pe=
ople
>complaining about a show for young artists being "exclusive." [Wasn't
>"net.ephemera" limited only to New York based artists? I didn't see GH
>declare "I guess there's no-one outside of NYC that could possibly have
>any good ideas."]
>
>Smoking is a major health issue. Why would anyone have a problem with
>this fact being represented, when all the rest of the information
>about tobacco
>comes from the tobacco companies? I guess if you are really pro corporate
>then you could have a right to disagree, but encouraging people not to bec=
ome
>addicts to one more spoke in the capitalist bullshit machine is certainly =
not
>reprehensible?
>
>As for Moralism- I'm not sure if avoiding tobacco is presented all too oft=
en
>as "the high road" or some path to God; from the works I've seen it's pret=
ty
>much been a straightforward message: Smoking is a suicidal act; increases
>your risk for cancer, turns your teeth yellow, gives you bad breath, makes
>you smell bad, etc. Best case scenario is lung problems in your old age. I=
t's
>unhealthy, and the effects of not being healthy far outweigh the effects of
>"looking cool". Smoke if you want, but don't complain that someone is maki=
ng
>a statement that barely even balances the major impact that tobacco has ha=
d,
>up to very, very recently, on our culture. It's got less to do with "moral=
s" -
>morals being an idea of "right and wrong"- and more to do with "ethics" and
>whether health is more important than image.
>
>I don't see how encouraging people to be healthy is suddenly fascist; nor =
do
>I see why artists with a point of view- "imposing strange rules on others =
of
>how the world should be" - is any different or more dangerous than a mass
>media marketing campaign that convinces kids to smoke? Anything that is
>seen as "rebellion" that is actually a way of killing yourself or
>making complacency
>easier deserves a strong reaction from artists. Unfortunately, they're usu=
ally
>mired in these attitudes and would not for a second be honest enough to
>question the very faux-rebellion they have fallen for themselves.
>
>
>-e.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>t.whid wrote:
>
>>>i really don't understand which human approach you can rely on to dare to
>>>express calls like >>>>>>>>>> "Arti- Smoking", art for a smoke-free world
>>>project. <<<<<<<<<<<<
>>>i really ask myself whether such plain moralistic attitude is the right
>>>basis to give to children or which is worse - to die from lung cancer
>>>through smoking or to spend a whole life in such a moralistic attitude, =
thus
>>>imposing strange rules on others how the world should be
>>>- actually we are
>>>talking about highly sensitive and at the same time political issues, an=
d me
>>>personally, i cannot see how i could ever go along with such attitudes b=
eing
>>>proposed by the arti-smoking project. i am sorry.
>>>
>>><http://www.kanonmedia.com/portfolio/sp01.htm>http://www.kanonmedia
>>>.com/portfolio/sp01.htm
>>>
>>
>>
>>i agree with kanonmedia. (full disclosure: i'm a smoker.)
>>
>>the history of tobacco, in america esp., is simply not as black &
>>white as the anti-smoking moralists would like us to believe.
>>
>>it's probably quite easy to get public funding for art pushing an
>>anti-smoking agenda.
>>
>>one won't get it for this sort of art:
>><http://www.mteww.com/number100/00to02mtaa>http://www.mteww.com/numb
>>er100/00to02mtaa


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

PLASMA STUDII
http://plasmastudii.org
223 E 10th Street
PMB 130
New York, NY 10003

Odd though that every smoker surely knows that smoking is a lousy
gamble. I'm sure every smoker knows may even agree with you but will
get fed up and find fault with this stuff anyway. But seems like it's
all pretty standard grade school education stuff. Points everyone
has heard since they were kids. But has no final effect on some. It
woiuld make logical sense that it completely obliterated smoking but
for some reason people still do it.


The odd thing is that there is no REAL benefit to smoking. The only
good effects that exist are the result of addicts convinced by their
addiction. The ADDICTION says it calms you (but actually, not having
a smoke, makes addicts tense, that's just how addictions work, the
first puff is a relief) Even if you still entertain doubt about the
medical conclussions, nobody actually doubts there is some pretty
heavy evidence.

So, what seems odd is that in the face of such overwhelmingly
horrendous evidence, smokers still choose to abuse themselves for no
apparent reason. they call cigarettes "cancer sticks" and light up
anyway. Doesn't make any logical sense but hey whatever turns you
on…

what makes people CHOOSE to do what they know is bad?

That'd be fine but then they are also making that choice for everyone
around them. If it was self-contained, who cares. Chew 20 packs of
nicotene gum at a time. But smoking is just rude like walking up to
a stranger and making a small cut. Argue that once is probably not
going to kill the person. But IT's STILL RUDE. smoke, don't smoke.
who cares. But do it in your own bathroom, like giving yourself an
enema. Keep it to yourself. Just don't make the people who happen
to be around take part.

judson




>"the history of tobacco, in america esp., is simply not as black & white as
>the anti-smoking moralists would like us to believe."
>
>So, smoking won't kill me, because it has had a varied and rich impact
>on American Culture? Let's look at it this way; tobacco companies have
>aimed at hollywood stars and films, trying to get them to smoke- any
>brand, just to smoke, period- because it increases the chic factor of
>smoking. Artists who smoke accomplish the same thing. They are making
>tobacco out to be "hip" and so inadvertently sell the image that art =
>smoking in black turtlenecks. The idea that people would be upset about
>an artist challenging this stereotype- a stereotype that helps to
>sell cigarettes
>and the faux "rebellion" that cigarettes represent- is just as weird as pe=
ople
>complaining about a show for young artists being "exclusive." [Wasn't
>"net.ephemera" limited only to New York based artists? I didn't see GH
>declare "I guess there's no-one outside of NYC that could possibly have
>any good ideas."]
>
>Smoking is a major health issue. Why would anyone have a problem with
>this fact being represented, when all the rest of the information
>about tobacco
>comes from the tobacco companies? I guess if you are really pro corporate
>then you could have a right to disagree, but encouraging people not to bec=
ome
>addicts to one more spoke in the capitalist bullshit machine is certainly =
not
>reprehensible?
>
>As for Moralism- I'm not sure if avoiding tobacco is presented all too oft=
en
>as "the high road" or some path to God; from the works I've seen it's pret=
ty
>much been a straightforward message: Smoking is a suicidal act; increases
>your risk for cancer, turns your teeth yellow, gives you bad breath, makes
>you smell bad, etc. Best case scenario is lung problems in your old age. I=
t's
>unhealthy, and the effects of not being healthy far outweigh the effects of
>"looking cool". Smoke if you want, but don't complain that someone is maki=
ng
>a statement that barely even balances the major impact that tobacco has ha=
d,
>up to very, very recently, on our culture. It's got less to do with "moral=
s" -
>morals being an idea of "right and wrong"- and more to do with "ethics" and
>whether health is more important than image.
>
>I don't see how encouraging people to be healthy is suddenly fascist; nor =
do
>I see why artists with a point of view- "imposing strange rules on others =
of
>how the world should be" - is any different or more dangerous than a mass
>media marketing campaign that convinces kids to smoke? Anything that is
>seen as "rebellion" that is actually a way of killing yourself or
>making complacency
>easier deserves a strong reaction from artists. Unfortunately, they're usu=
ally
>mired in these attitudes and would not for a second be honest enough to
>question the very faux-rebellion they have fallen for themselves.
>
>
>-e.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>t.whid wrote:
>
>>>i really don't understand which human approach you can rely on to dare to
>>>express calls like >>>>>>>>>> "Arti- Smoking", art for a smoke-free world
>>>project. <<<<<<<<<<<<
>>>i really ask myself whether such plain moralistic attitude is the right
>>>basis to give to children or which is worse - to die from lung cancer
>>>through smoking or to spend a whole life in such a moralistic attitude, =
thus
>>>imposing strange rules on others how the world should be
>>>- actually we are
>>>talking about highly sensitive and at the same time political issues, an=
d me
>>>personally, i cannot see how i could ever go along with such attitudes b=
eing
>>>proposed by the arti-smoking project. i am sorry.
>>>
>>><http://www.kanonmedia.com/portfolio/sp01.htm>http://www.kanonmedia
>>>.com/portfolio/sp01.htm
>>>
>>
>>
>>i agree with kanonmedia. (full disclosure: i'm a smoker.)
>>
>>the history of tobacco, in america esp., is simply not as black &
>>white as the anti-smoking moralists would like us to believe.
>>
>>it's probably quite easy to get public funding for art pushing an
>>anti-smoking agenda.
>>
>>one won't get it for this sort of art:
>><http://www.mteww.com/number100/00to02mtaa>http://www.mteww.com/numb
>>er100/00to02mtaa


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

PLASMA STUDII
http://plasmastudii.org
223 E 10th Street
PMB 130
New York, NY 10003