David, that is very good.
I am interested in the nitty gritty, as exposed in my second blogpost, Brainstorm 2.
The length of the debates is an important issue, as is the plasticity of whatever structure we decide on . Also, a “shouting match about say, the merits of Duchamp” sounds like an awesome idea, this should be one of the topics, verbatim.
The essay thing is a good idea, or we could use a recent show in Chelsea or some museum as a jumping off point.
The blog right now is just for us, if there was ever the suggestion that other people were looking at it we’d have to do a serious job with the graphics, typography, etc., as I think you expressed yourself under “winning friends and influencing people.” For this task I believe the best we can do is start a real website, maybe co-hosted on one of our own personal site servers. (I do not have a website right now)
As with any club or society, it is important for there to be a semi-private list of people’s names with no specific title, so that if discovered it cannot be determined whether these are the ins or the outs. Therefor I think it prudent to begin such a list, and allow you to jump to the appropriate conclusions.
A List of People’s Names
- EW
- LT
- AA
- ST
- MG (no, not her/him, the other one)
- my friend NC
- my friend CN
- GB
I can’t think of that many people. Of the eight I mentioned it would be remarkable if more than 50% would show up plus me and you. Perhaps a little Facebook canvasing will be in order.
Categories: Uncategorized
Tagged: duchamp, response, shouting match
Other random ideas:
- tape meetings and post highlights on youtube. This will provide free publicity as these could be pretty funny/interesting.
- invite famous art bloggers who live in New York (Winkleman, Paddy Johnson) or bloggers of more political persuasions. These people love to talk, so why not in real life? Also, we could steer away from the shit they talk about every day (who reads that? dorks) and ask idiotic questions that perhaps are more interesting.
- invite atendees to brainstorm new debate topics and submit them at the end of the meeting. Then we choose the best one for the next week ad infinitum.
- 2 topics per night. One of a serious nature, one of a less serious nature. (45mins-break-30mins of silly argument) I have no idea what those times should actually be.
How much time do people want to spend arguing? If there is no formal structure then how do we decide when its over? Does one of us become a master moderator like Big Tim in the Sky that coaxes the argument to a satisfying conclusion? Or do we say “okay shut up go home.”
So I have a couple questions regarding structure, but those are purely academic compared to the task we have of coming up with some topics. I think we can use this blog to write down a ton of these whenever they come to us, and then edit them down gradually until we find something we like. Once we have some cool (interesting, fleshy) topics (3 or 4), it makes sense to begin actually planning the first event.
also
how we gonna find people with different views than us? Or at least with views different enough to make things sexy?
Categories: Uncategorized
Tagged: balls, coffee, Tim Russert
