Steve Bell, the Guardian cartoonist...
ROBBIE
ROBBIE
"ROBBIE" <johnny_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c58jvb$2qhrgv$1...@ID-200782.news.uni-berlin.de...
> ...thinks I'm simple.
>
>
And when the spat is over, I'll paste.
Tom Mason
who's bested a few shitheads in a few pub arguments and thinks he's
Chomsky. What you in fact are is Adrian Mole on benefits.
ROBBIE
"Tom Mason" <durham...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1ae6ec98.04041...@posting.google.com...
> That's because you are. You really are
I REALLY REALLY AM?
. You're a very lazy thinker
> who's bested a few shitheads in a few pub arguments and thinks he's
> Chomsky
I would never aspire to be a cunt like that.
. What you in fact are is Adrian Mole on benefits.
The only cultural reference in Tom's head marked 'Diarist'. Thank you for
criticism.
Pete Bayle
> That's because you are. You really are. You're a very lazy thinker
> who's bested a few shitheads in a few pub arguments and thinks he's
> Chomsky.
Now if you're saying Chomsky is a "very lazy thinker who's bested a
few shithits in a few pub arguments", I agree with you.
But if you think Robbie wants to be Chomsky then it must be you who is
the "very lazy thinker who's bested a few shitheads in a few pub
arguments and thinks he's Chomsky."
Or else maybe you're one of the few shitheads Chomsky bested.
Your call. Makes no difference to me.
Tom Mason
don't get me wrong. I like reading what you have to write, but
your opinions often seem to be based on an uneasy blend of intuition
and gin and it makes you very hard to take seriously.
> . You're a very lazy thinker
> > who's bested a few shitheads in a few pub arguments and thinks he's
> > Chomsky
>
> I would never aspire to be a cunt like that.
Well you argue a lot like one. I disagreed with the palpably absurd
suggestion that reading "the story of art" could teach you more than a
three year Fine Art degree and I was immediately branded a 'cunt' who
was 'barking a load of old shit'. It's undoubtedly a very good book,
but as such it will feature somewhere on the 1st year reading list of
almost any worthwhile art degree. It represents a small part of the
reading for a small part of the degree. In fact, it was required
reading for my girlfriend's Art History A level. To suggest that it is
in itself unqestionably superior to the product of three or four years
of study and continuous assessment (in which it will itself feature)
is just wrong, no?
Now I happily concede that many people who complete fine art degrees
emerge knowing less about art than someone of average intelligence who
has read Gombrich's book attentively. But that's not the point you
made.
> What you in fact are is Adrian Mole on benefits.
>
> The only cultural reference in Tom's head marked 'Diarist'. Thank you for
> criticism.
Not true. What prompted the comparison was the truly absurd posting
"steve bell thinks I'm simple". Clearly the middle aged equivalent of
a 'rejection letter from the BBC'.
And Pete, if you're reading this and getting all pink in the face
because you think I'm knocking Robbie then before you tap out a
contribution have a quick re-read of the posting from you that appears
in this thread. To quote the man himself, words and meaning have
almost parted company.
ROBBIE
> don't get me wrong. I like reading what you have to write, but
> your opinions often seem to be based on an uneasy blend of intuition
> and gin
Reduction and minimizing by caricature; it is the way of this newsie.
>and it makes you very hard to take seriously.
And if I was an academic with a cockamamy degree and a weblog that revealed
nothing about myself you'd take me seriously?
>
> > . You're a very lazy thinker
> > > who's bested a few shitheads in a few pub arguments and thinks he's
> > > Chomsky
> >
> > I would never aspire to be a cunt like that.
>
> Well you argue a lot like one. I disagreed with the palpably absurd
> suggestion that reading "the story of art" could teach you more than a
> three year Fine Art degree
Why is palpably absurd?
and I was immediately branded a 'cunt' who
> was 'barking a load of old shit'.
To me you looked like you had an axe to grind.
It's undoubtedly a very good book,
> but as such it will feature somewhere on the 1st year reading list of
> almost any worthwhile art degree. It represents a small part of the
> reading for a small part of the degree. In fact, it was required
> reading for my girlfriend's Art History A level. To suggest that it is
> in itself unqestionably superior to the product of three or four years
> of study and continuous assessment (in which it will itself feature)
> is just wrong, no?
No it isn't wrong because if one thought about the book instead of speed
reading bits of it it would be more useful and informative than reading
Baudrillard when you haven't read the new testament; that's the point I'm
making.
>
>
> Now I happily concede that many people who complete fine art degrees
> emerge knowing less about art than someone of average intelligence who
> has read Gombrich's book attentively. But that's not the point you
> made.
Yes, I think I was right about you...
>
> > What you in fact are is Adrian Mole on benefits.
> >
> > The only cultural reference in Tom's head marked 'Diarist'. Thank you
for
> > criticism.
>
> Not true. What prompted the comparison was the truly absurd posting
> "steve bell thinks I'm simple"
Emails and newsgroup postings have no tone of voice; we struggle to give
them that. The intention was humorous, and many members of this newsgroup
struggle with the recognition of humour.
.> Clearly the middle aged
Middle aged? 40 is the new 30, which makes me 23.
equivalent of
> a 'rejection letter from the BBC'.
I don't quite know what you're on about here.
Tom Mason
tedious and humourless, and there's quite enough of that sort of thing
around here already. But you are out and out wrong on this point, and
I'd be pleased to see you admit it.
>I disagreed with the palpably absurd
> suggestion that reading "the story of art" could teach you more than a
> three year Fine Art degree
>Why is palpably absurd?
Palpably absurd because, as I went on to explain, an attentive and
thoughtful reading of the book is supposed to be a component part OF a
fine art degree, and is accompanied by continual assessment, lectures,
discussion and (depending on the instituion) one to one tuition from
some of the most intelligent people concerned with the subject working
in the world today. So no, looking at it on your own in your living
room is not and almost certainly can not be equal to, let alone better
than completing the degree. There isn't an academic institution in the
world that would encourage students to 'speed read bits of it'. (well,
maybe DeMontfort)
Just as when you read the book on your own, the amount you get out of
it will be in direct proportion to what you bring to it, the same is
true of studying Art at degree level. The main difference is in the
potential rewards, which are of course much greater in the better
organised, broader and generally more effective environment of a
degree course.
If you had more experience of higher education you might be, if not
less dismissive of it, at least a bit more insightful about it.
ROBBIE
> tedious and humourless, and there's quite enough of that sort of thing
> around here already. But you are out and out wrong on this point, and
> I'd be pleased to see you admit it.
>
But I'm not and no amount of your academic snobbery and pedagoguery will
make it so.
> >I disagreed with the palpably absurd
> > suggestion that reading "the story of art" could teach you more than a
> > three year Fine Art degree
>
> >Why is palpably absurd?
>
> Palpably absurd because, as I went on to explain, an attentive and
> thoughtful reading of the book is supposed to be a component part OF a
> fine art degree, and is accompanied by continual assessment, lectures,
> discussion and (depending on the instituion) one to one tuition from
> some of the most intelligent people concerned with the subject working
> in the world today.
HAAAAAAA! I have conversed with many art tutors in my time; I studied fine
art myself. The best of them were pretty wolly and only in academe for the
beer vouchers. The ones I have met now through visiting shows and so forth
are some of the most dreary, unintelligent spoon-fed postmodernists with a
shocking misanthropy towards the history of art. Take this from my journal
last year; the academic it concerns is now in charge of Fine Art at College
of Art in the West Country:
where we were supposed to helping Vicky's old art tutor-- now teaching in
the west country-- with an art project. I wasn't prepared for the
frightening banality of this piece of publicly funded art. Outside Allders
in North End Croydon, 3 people, watched by four others and being filmed by
V's former tutor were holding 350 balloons which were grouped in colours of
the rainbow. Children were encouraged to take a free balloon from one girl--
the others held their balloons as storage. The cluster of balloons she was
giving away began entirely red and then as one red was given away, it would
be replaced by the next colour in the rainbow; thus over a period of time
the balloon cluster held by the girl giving the balloons away changed
through the colours of the rainbow. Wow eh?
Naturally the smell of marijuana smoke wafted briefly through this event--
North end is windy-- and I began to realise (I was pretty hungover) that I
was in the middle of the very worst kind of ecstasy generation banality-art.
Afterwards all concerned repaired to the Dog and Bull in the market and soon
I was talking to 'the artist'. I already guessed what his schtick would be
but eventually it surprised even V, who has a great tolerance for
post-modern art. It started off somehow on politics and I said:
Me: if it goes on like this, I'll end up voting tory
Tutor: you can't do that. You can NEVER do that.
Then,
Me: What was today about?
Tutor (soft northern accent): It's about getting art out there really y'know
cutting out the whole 'purity' thing of artist showing off in a fucking
gallery. Y'know, everyone getting something out of it.' *Communal* that's
the idea.
Me: What did those kids today get out of it?
Tutor: A balloon!
Me: Don't you think the piece might also be a kind of handy metaphor for the
downside of socialism?
Tutor: Howja mean?
Me: Well a lot of the kids let go of their balloons straight away-- y'know,
easy come easy go?
Tutor: heh heh
Me: You don't like painting?
Tutor: We discourage it on the fine art degree I'm teaching unless the
person seems to have a unusual background. We've got a drag queen on the
course who we let on because he's a drag queen and we thought that
interesting we certainly din't let him on because of his shitty sub-picasso
doodlings. Also we've got a Maori painter- didn't let him on because he's a
painter but because he's a maori and he might have something to say.
Me: So if you interviewed someone who you thought was talented but, say,
didn't share your political ideas?
Tutor: We wouldn't let 'em in.
Me: Spozing the most interesting and talented painter you'd interviewed for
years came along but he was non-left wing?
Tutor: No, I wouldn't let him in.
Me: So you're a fascist?
Tutor: Heh heh
Me: what do you think of the idea that it might prove ultimately destructive
to the richness of people's lives if, instead of asking them to 'come up' as
it were to Art, the artist and his proselytizing academic tutors elect to
'come down', perhaps 'dumb down' to the people?
Tutor: Ah yeah but we don't think it *is* coming down.
Then the conversation got derailed but I could see that V was disturbed by
this friendly fascist. His collaborator-- 'all art that I find interesting'
said the tutor 'is collaborative'-- then somehow, apropos of the word
fascist and the fact he'd lived in Germany for five years, managed to get
the conversation on the the liklehood of a Hitler phenomenon happening here
in the 30s. So hostile was he to the English people and the 'idea of
England' (and the fact there are apparently no lager louts in Germany) that
he thought it 'very likely' that fascism could have taken off here in the
30s. 'Yes, but it didn't', 'yes,' persisted this Phd in robotics ' but it
really could have.'
He so wanted to believe it; this was interesting. I said I thought the
British then were in no way capable of doing a Hitler routine for a whole
variety of reasons.
"Ah yes," he said grandly, "but did you know the the British *invented* the
concentration camp?"
"Actually yes I did but we didn't invent the gas chamber as a form of social
engineering."
The tutor, that arch-social engineer, was very sociable and friendly and
kept buying drinks from the funding money so it made it difficult for me to
really put my boot on his neck. He made frequent use of certain words: 'too
much 'purity' in art' 'everything thing needs to be more communal' etc. When
I asked him about his art career he told me about 'trying to make the big
time, west end galleries etc. One day I met a guy from Belfast, very
politicised, who said 'who are you doing all this for?' and I realised I was
trying to become a bourgeoise artist, y'know, selling my stuff to people
with loads of money'
'Who' I thought 'weren't buying it. Could this be the reason you decided
galleries are 'too pure' and 'not communal enough'?
For an academic like yrself, this will be water off a duck's back to you;
that's as maybe. Your statements about academics are a laugh mate: why are
graduates so lame at spelling, punctuation and grammar for example? The
editress of the mag I work for is a BA, MA and Phd and on her own admission
cannot string a sentence together.
So no, looking at it on your own in your living
> room
Yes but I didn't. You frequent recourse to your hasty caricature of me will
not serve you well
is not and almost certainly can not be equal to, let alone better
> than completing the degree. There isn't an academic institution in the
> world that would encourage students to 'speed read bits of it'.
They all do it.
(well,
> maybe DeMontfort)
>
> Just as when you read the book on your own
How do you not read a book on your own? Only time I did was when we shared
textbooks between three at comprehensive; a socialist system administered,
Squeers-like, by tories.
, the amount you get out of
> it will be in direct proportion to what you bring to it
and yes...is this Bleeding Obvious Week at ABGO *again*!!??
, the same is
> true of studying Art at degree level. The main difference is in the
> potential rewards, which are of course much greater in the better
> organised
I know a few a graduates who would refute you there; you're obviously a
satistified--and not a little smug-- customer. Good for you!
, broader and generally more effective environment of a
> degree course.
The silliest people I know are all graduates.
>
> If you had more experience of higher education
I've been in higher edcuation O speed reader of my blog. Like I say, your
quick caricature won't serve you well.
you might be, if not
> less dismissive of it, at least a bit more insightful about it.
It's full of tossers is good enough for me.
Tom Mason
> make it so.
I'm not a snob, you're just wrong. Your argument essentially boils
down to "I've met some academics and loads of graduates, and by and
large they were a bunch of cunts". Who's stating the bleeding obvious
now? That doesn't change the fact that people who have studied a
subject know more about it than people who haven't, and that studying
a subject in an academic environment always has the *potential* to
yield greater rewards than studying it on your own. And if you expect
a degree in art or more or less any other subject besides English to
do much in the way in improving the fundamentals of grammar etc,
you've got a very strange idea of what goes on in these courses.
> How do you not read a book on your own? Only time I did was when we shared
> textbooks between three at comprehensive; a socialist system administered,
> Squeers-like, by tories.
Don't fuck about. No time for being wilfully obtuse.
> , the same is
> > true of studying Art at degree level. The main difference is in the
> > potential rewards, which are of course much greater in the better
> > organised
> I know a few a graduates who would refute you there; you're obviously a
> satistified--and not a little smug-- customer. Good for you!
Take issue and umbrage, like you, yes (and as you say, the silliest
people you know are graduates, so such a move would be entirely in
character). Refute? No. Because I'm right.
> > If you had more experience of higher education
>
> I've been in higher edcuation O speed reader of my blog. Like I say, your
> quick caricature won't serve you well.
I've only been aware of the existence of your Blog for a month or two,
and haven't had time to dip into the Aladdin's cave of your back
issues. You haven't mentioned your degree experience in that time, as
far as I can remember, but I am interested. What did you study, where,
and did you complete the course?
> you might be, if not
> > less dismissive of it, at least a bit more insightful about it.
>
> It's full of tossers is good enough for me.
Britain is full of tossers, and yet is good enough for you. Sitting
back and sneering at formal education just because getting a result
out of it is fucking hard work and involves rubbing shoulders with
some real pond life is just another way of giving up. So, I might add,
is dedicating so much time to maintaining your position as enfant
terrible of several yahoo newsgroups. You don't work (in the sense
that a *moron* at the job centre would recognise), you aren't raising
a family, so your character largely centres around what you do. To
contemplate the idea that your output is (or at least for the few
months I've been watching has been) scarcely worthwhile must be to
stare into the abyss. Eliot, Larkin, Orwell, Trollope, Proust etc etc
all held down jobs and got still found time for actual work. If you
know so much and have a measure of talent, get off your lazy arse and
produce something. And never mind fucking around with guitars and
paintbrushes, unless (like Butler) you're having a day off. In
Aspidistra (I'm paraphrasing) Comstock laments the ad executive
willing to sell his immortal spirit one pint at a time. Spending so
much time on internet newsgroups telling people that they're cunts and
complaining to the beeb, steve bell et al is roughly equivalent to
mixing yours with an equal measure of piss and dashing it in peoples
faces for a laugh.
Paul Stables
Have you pasted it yet (in which case I've missed it) or is it ongoing?
Paul Stables
(Who hasn't read Steve Bell for years, in general liked him, but also
remembers him as someone who could go up a blind alley for a long long long
way. A bit like our ROBBIE actually!)
ROBBIE
"Paul Stables" <psa...@i-cable.com> wrote in message
news:407d0fe2$1...@rain.i-cable.com...
Howja mean?
I'm waiting for Bell to reply, but I don't think he will.
>
Henry
> > > If you had more experience of higher education
> >
> > I've been in higher edcuation O speed reader of my blog. Like I say, your
> > quick caricature won't serve you well.
>
> I've only been aware of the existence of your Blog for a month or two,
> and haven't had time to dip into the Aladdin's cave of your back
> issues. You haven't mentioned your degree experience in that time, as
> far as I can remember, but I am interested. What did you study, where,
> and did you complete the course?
I hope ROBBIE replies to these questions. He told us here once that he
left school with one O level and I have consequently always interpreted
his comments and analyses as those of an auto-didact.
cheers,
Henry
ROBBIE
> > make it so.
>
> I'm not a snob
No you're a ranting student who lost his temper because I've criticised the
system you're in.
, you're just wrong. Your argument essentially boils
> down to "I've met some academics and loads of graduates, and by and
> large they were a bunch of cunts"
I didn't say cunts, though many are; I said 'silly' and badly educated with
strange and often apalling gaps.
. Who's stating the bleeding obvious
> now? That doesn't change the fact that people who have studied a
> subject know more about it than people who haven't, and that studying
> a subject in an academic environment always has the *potential* to
> yield greater rewards than studying it on your own. And if you expect
> a degree in art or more or less any other subject besides English to
> do much in the way in improving the fundamentals of grammar etc,
> you've got a very strange idea of what goes on in these courses.
>
>
> > How do you not read a book on your own? Only time I did was when we
shared
> > textbooks between three at comprehensive; a socialist system
administered,
> > Squeers-like, by tories.
>
> Don't fuck about. No time for being wilfully obtuse.
It isn't being obtuse. How do you not read a book on your own? Listen Mr
Busy, if you ain't got the time, don't get involved. Too many cuntish people
have come here and suddenly announced their presence as a favour. Martha
Bridegam was doing just that last in an email.
>
>
>
> > , the same is
> > > true of studying Art at degree level. The main difference is in the
> > > potential rewards, which are of course much greater in the better
> > > organised
>
> > I know a few a graduates who would refute you there; you're obviously a
> > satistified--and not a little smug-- customer. Good for you!
>
> Take issue and umbrage, like you, yes (and as you say, the silliest
> people you know are graduates, so such a move would be entirely in
> character). Refute? No. Because I'm right.
Well, I know there's no point in future argument with you then. Thanks for
alerting me early with the above sentence. This is exactly what the lamented
(or not as the case may be) Ms Bridegam did, only she had the guile not to
*say* it.
>
>
> > > If you had more experience of higher education
> >
> > I've been in higher edcuation O speed reader of my blog. Like I say,
your
> > quick caricature won't serve you well.
>
> I've only been aware of the existence of your Blog for a month or two,
> and haven't had time to dip into the Aladdin's cave of your back
> issues. You haven't mentioned your degree experience in that time, as
> far as I can remember, but I am interested. What did you study, where,
> and did you complete the course?
I was taught Fine Art in a sort of pre degree course at Croydon--which,
though I thought it was crap-- had a very good rep. I was taught painting by
a professional artist whose ego exploded just the time I was there when he
was lauded by the Observer. Postmodernism and conceptual art was very much
in the ascendancy then and painting was very much the poor cousin. I left
intending to go elsewhere; financial and domestic exigencies dictated
otherwise unfortunately.
>
>
> > you might be, if not
> > > less dismissive of it, at least a bit more insightful about it.
> >
> > It's full of tossers is good enough for me.
>
> Britain is full of tossers, and yet is good enough for you
I have no choice at present, *obviously*...
. Sitting
> back and sneering at formal education just because getting a result
> out of it is fucking hard work
Rubbish. You've spent so much time swilling coffee and revising you've
become bad tempered and self pitying.
and involves rubbing shoulders with
> some real pond life is just another way of giving up
Careful, you're running off at the mouth. Get some kip.
. So, I might add,
> is dedicating so much time
It's funny, another person recently seemed to think my life revolves around
newsgroups; it certainly doesn't. It must take you fucking ages to do
anything if you think that.
to maintaining your position as enfant
> terrible of several yahoo newsgroups. You don't work (in the sense
> that a *moron* at the job centre would recognise
The people at my jobcentre are moronic, yes. I haven't worked for four
years. I worked the previous fifteen in many different jobs. My doctor has
diagnosed me with chronic panic disorder; a therapist I saw seemed to think
it was PTSD. I don't know. My life has not been easy. The governemnt decrees
I am fit for work and I no doubt will. Don't you start getting all huffy
about it--you'll look like one of those right on virgin students who
suddenly espouse Thatcherism when they pay tax for the first time aged 25;
anyway dear; I have the feeling you don't know anything much about the real
world but are absolutely convinced of your brilliance in debate. Martha was
the same.
), you aren't raising
> a family, so your character largely centres around what you do
Interesting view...
. To
> contemplate the idea that your output is (or at least for the few
> months I've been watching has been) scarcely worthwhile must be to
> stare into the abyss.
Depends what *you* mean by worthwhile really. I will say only one thing,
that you're assuming that what you see of me on the internet is the full
extent of my 'output'. I can tell you that it is a mistaken assumption.
Eliot, Larkin, Orwell, Trollope, Proust etc etc
> all held down jobs and got still found time for actual work.
<smiles>
If you
> know so much and have a measure of talent, get off your lazy arse
<laughs at the student proselytizer of the work ethic>
you'll never forget revision for your finals, you'll bore your kids on the
subject.
and
> produce something.
Ah but see above. You have assumed incorrectly, but that is the great parole
of academe...
And never mind fucking around with guitars and
> paintbrushes
Yes dad! LOL
, unless (like Butler) you're having a day off. In
> Aspidistra (I'm paraphrasing) Comstock laments the ad executive
> willing to sell his immortal spirit one pint at a time. Spending so
> much time on internet newsgroups
But I don't spend so much time on internet newsgroups. I put my two pennorth
in and why not? You are using this as a stick to beat me with because I have
annoyed you and you can see no other way of venting your anger.
telling people that they're cunts and
> complaining to the beeb, steve bell et al is roughly equivalent to
> mixing yours with an equal measure of piss and dashing it in peoples
> faces for a laugh.
It's a shame you picked such a shit novel to extrapolate such weak metaphor
to illustrate a point so distorted and and plain wrong. I hope you get your
exams right.
Cheersy!!
ROBBIE
"Henry" <henr...@eircom.net> wrote in message
news:1gc8ijk.1l4901b1vqtxoxN%henr...@eircom.net...
All true. See my reply to Mason.
Still I don't think auto-didactism is such a terrible thing in these days of
plummeting standards.
>
> cheers,
>
> Henry
selene1022
And I suppose Mr. Mason, whoever his elitist self is, has forgotten
that Orwell never had the benifit of "higher education." Really,
don't get me started about the herd mentality and snobism that exists
in the modern academy...I don't think I would be able to stop. Any
person who has a thirst for knowledge, and is capable of reading a
book can become just as informed and creative as a freaking Harvard
grad. Better in many cases.
JV
Pete Bayle
> Eliot, Larkin, Orwell, Trollope, Proust etc etc
> all held down jobs
YOu sure about Proust?
I know he contributed occasional reviews but AFAIK he never had
something we would all call a job. I seem to remember, and a google
search shows I'm not alone, Proust avoided having a real job. Given
his backgound, the son of a famous doctor. finding a profession would
have been relatviely easy for him had he wanted that.
Tom Mason
> that Orwell never had the benifit of "higher education." Really,
> don't get me started about the herd mentality and snobism that exists
> in the modern academy...I don't think I would be able to stop. Any
> person who has a thirst for knowledge, and is capable of reading a
> book can become just as informed and creative as a freaking Harvard
> grad. Better in many cases.
> JV
I wouldn't disagree for a second. But the point Robbie made (and has
stubbornly refused to modify or retract) is that reading Gombrich's
story of art can unquestionably yield better results than completing a
fine art degree, which as I have stressed ad nauseum, will doubtless
require you to read the self same book, as well as complete a host of
other tasks, read dozens of other books and if you're lucky work with
some eminent academics. His opinion (as expressed) was obviously false
and he just will not have it. Which doesn't do anyone any favours.
As for me being an ill-informed, puce-faced student wanker - quite a
lot of truth in that, at least when it comes to this forum. Certainly
my last few posts make me wince in places when I read them back. But
I've come to regard studenty arrogance as akin to a moderately serious
illness - unpleasant for everyone concerned whilst it lasts but not a
permanent condition. You may well find I can talk more consistent
sense when it comes to Orwell, but since he so rarely comes up in any
interesting context here, you'll have to bear with my pronouncements
on subjects I know less about.
As for Proust having a job, I'm not entirely sure. The reference is in
Clive James's third volume of autobiography and I'm pretty sure he
says that Proust was either a postman or a librarian. I'll check
tonight...
selene1022
Then why don't you post something on Orwell? Proust would be good too.
Bayle would like to put up more Camus. Sad, but I posted a John Clare
poem a while back that I was hoping someone would join me in comparing
to Orwell's themes in "Coming Up for Air," and no one
responded--except for Martha, who tried to make it a GW Bush
joke..haha.
>
> As for Proust having a job, I'm not entirely sure. The reference is in
> Clive James's third volume of autobiography and I'm pretty sure he
> says that Proust was either a postman or a librarian. I'll check
> tonight...
Let us know. I've got a huge bio on him on my shelf as well, and when
I get a little time I'll see if I can find it too.
JV
ROBBIE
> other tasks, read dozens of other books and if you're lucky work with
> some eminent academics. His opinion (as expressed) was obviously false
> and he just will not have it. Which doesn't do anyone any favours.
Obviously false... No, I should stand by my comment, even if it was a
flippant comment. You are simply very indignant that I've criticised a
system that you think is terribly worthwhile. Knowing art lecturers and
lecturers in other subjects as I've done over the years: as acquaintances,
drinking compadres, customers (for recreational drugs) I can say that you
are rather starry eyed about it all. A dedicated seeker after knowledge
*now* is liable to educate themselves better than an apathetic student being
spoonfed a curriculum dominated by the haighly partial agenda one often
finds today. That's what I think and you can foam away as much as you like.
Don't blame me for the decline in academic standards! How do you think I
feel when I see fly on the wall programmes about how brilliant it is that
black women (*for example*) are now in Oxford Uni and then they turn out to
be pretty dim but with rich parents (extra tuition etc. as Victor Lewis
Smith said in the Standard: the only colour in this country that's important
is the colour of yer moolah), crap A level standards and a lefty interviewer
hung up on demographics and the left wing cultural revolution. They'll
proably end up chairmen of the BBC. Me, I thought it was easier when you had
to be full-stop clever to go there.
Pete Bayle
> But the point Robbie made (and has
> stubbornly refused to modify or retract) is that reading Gombrich's
> story of art can unquestionably yield better results than completing a
> fine art degree,
If, and I say if, Robbie said that, he is "unquestionably" wrong. But
I don't remember him saying that. And wouldn't you concede he has a
point.
Would you concede that if a talented artist, read and really
understood Gombrich, she would be more qualified than a large number
of fine arts graduates?
> As for Proust having a job, I'm not entirely sure. The reference is in
> Clive James's third volume of autobiography and I'm pretty sure he
> says that Proust was either a postman or a librarian. I'll check
> tonight...
I'm interested in Clive James though only saw his books in Australia.
A google search on postman didn't turn up anything, though maybe the
title wasn't right.
A librarian search returned the following, which is maybe what you
were thinking about.
http://www.tempsperdu.com/chronp.shtml
1893 "Pressed by his father to decide on a career, he chooses to study
to become a librarian."
I couldn't find any job in the chronology. Maybe I missed it.
Pete Bayle
> > You may well find I can talk more consistent
> > sense when it comes to Orwell, but since he so rarely comes up in any
> > interesting context here, you'll have to bear with my pronouncements
> > on subjects I know less about.
>
> Then why don't you post something on Orwell? Proust would be good too.
> Bayle would like to put up more Camus. Sad, but I posted a John Clare
> poem a while back that I was hoping someone would join me in comparing
> to Orwell's themes in "Coming Up for Air," and no one
> responded--except for Martha, who tried to make it a GW Bush
> joke..haha.
You have come in at the end of a long argument.
But the point is still valid. There is a narrow interpretation, which
is more like literary criticism. Then there is a wider attempt to look
at the world, and the things in it that interested Orwell, in the
light of his experience and in the light of the experience we
Orwellians have gained by reading him. This can lean towards the
making of tea or judging the war in Iraq.
(There is also a third way, where high school students throw around
terms like big brother.)
Each of us have our preferences.
Most of us have been over, and fought over, the familiar ground so
often we often want to broaden the argument. I certainly do.
My main interest is to use Orwell's vision and life in the 30s and
40s, within an Anglo-American tradition, to illuminate today's issues,
by extending them not only to today, but to other periods and players
in post-Orwell history. (Hence my interest in Camus and Hungary and
Algeria). And thereby to try an understand the long strange trip we've
been on. And to learn some history.
If that isn't Orwell to you, feel free to talk about something else.
You won't find me interfering unless you make blantantly political and
partisan statements.
***
I actually think your argument with Robbie is important. On the one
hand social realism, the ultimate "academic" art, was a failure. In
other ways it's interesting today. And musicians and film makers
created what most of us would consider great art. So it would be
possible to morph the argument into the role of ideology on art,
public funding of art, control of the academy versus the quality of
art. Ditto with politics and quality. All circle around Orwellian
themes.
Tom Mason
mostly Pete's right. He was a 'disaster as a librarian, mainly because
instead of turning up late, he rarely turned up at all'. So he did
have a job, but he was about the worst example I could have chosen to
make my (I now see wide of the mark) 'Robbie is a work-shy armchair
renaissance man' rant.
Clive James is well worth a look, but particularly as autobiography.
The three volumes are 'unreliable memoirs', 'falling towards england'
and 'may week was in june'. They're all excellent, very funny indeed.
I'd always written him off as a twat when I saw him on the telly, but
he's very witty and remarkably cultured. Another (self) satisfied
customer of higher education, he can be a bit smug at times but it's
worth sticking with him. For those of you in the uk, his books are
incredibly well represented on the shelves of charity shops and you
should be able to get all three for about £1.50. And quite probably a
paperback copy of Jaws and a loud polyester tie whilst you're at it.
> Would you concede that if a talented artist, read and really
> understood Gombrich, she would be more qualified than a large number
> of fine arts graduates?
Absolutely I would. Couldn't agree more. I said exactly the same thing
in my first response to Robbie, saying that I imagined that this was
more the type of thing that he was getting at, but it definitely
wasn't what he'd said. cf.
>Now I happily concede that many people who complete fine art degrees
>emerge knowing less about art than someone of average intelligence
who
>has read Gombrich's book attentively. But that's not the point you
>made.
The thing is, Robbie seems to want it both ways, when his remarks are
quite ill-considered and result in inaccurate generalisations, they're
'flippant' or 'throwaway comments' but when anyone else says something
daft they're 'barking a load of shit'. I don't think it's necessary or
desirable to conduct the discussion at one level or the other as a
matter of general policy, but given that he is allowed to make
flippant remarks, I think other people should also feel free to post
without weighing every word and not be immediately branded a cunt.
Like he says, this forum isn't all we do. Post message - no preview,
that's my motto.
ROBBIE
closing time Sinatra impression: AH SAID THAT'S *LIFE*, THAT'S WHAT ALL THE
PEOPLE SAAAAY....
Pete Bayle
> mostly Pete's right. He was a 'disaster as a librarian, mainly because
> instead of turning up late, he rarely turned up at all'. So he did
> have a job, but he was about the worst example I could have chosen to
> make my (I now see wide of the mark) 'Robbie is a work-shy armchair
> renaissance man' rant.
>
Thanks. I remember something like that now. Did James say whether
Proust actually completed the training he agreed to do for his father
and then was a 'disaster' or whether his 'disaster' was during the
course? Either way, I think you were right.
LOL Ok third try. He "worked" five years, unpaid, as a favor to his
father, took a lot of leaves and was probably fired.
Who knows who was right ... lol.
(translations babelfish corrected, i hope ;-)
http://membres.lycos.fr/Marianne/imagebib.htm
A real prestige is however attached to the function in the large
libraries, Mazarine, l'Arsenal, so much so that certain positions
exist in these libraries with the definition of posistion not
remunerated. Thus Marcel Proust was a librarian in Mazarine during
five years, of 1895 to 1900, on a position not remunerated, to give
pleasure to his father or more exactly to make him believe than he had
a trade. In fact he once waited there a year to renew his appointment,
before accepting the resignation that the ministry for the state
education served notice to him at the end of five years after
investigation into his absences and vacation.
Un réel prestige est cependant attaché à la fonction dans les grandes
bibliothèques, la Mazarine, l'Arsenal, au point que certains postes
existent dans ces bibliothèques avec la définition de poste non
rémunérés. C'est ainsi que Marcel Proust a été bibliothécaire à la
Mazarine pendant cinq ans, de 1895 à 1900, sur un poste non rémunéré,
pour faire plaisir à son père ou plus exactement pour lui faire croire
qu'il avait un métier. En fait il y passait une fois par an pour
renouveler sa prise de poste, avant d'accepter la démission que le
ministère de l'instruction publique lui a signifiée au bout de cinq
ans après enquête sur ses absences et congés.
***
May 29, 1895: he stood for examination for the postion of attache not
remunerated with the Mazarine Library. Received 3rd of 3, he starts to
work in June. July, detached to the service of the registration of
copyright, with the ministry for the State education, he obtains a
first leave of two months [... ] 1899: February 9: he obtains a 4th
leave for one year from his post of librarian. 1900: he is put back on
the list to return to his position of the registration of copyright.
March 1: he is regarded as having resigned. His/her colleagues
appreciate his kindness but little his effectiveness. When he is not
sick or on holiday, he makes short appearances to consult some
invaluable bindings. Dust upsetting him, he provided himself with one
pulverizer of the eucalyptus.
29 mai 1895 : il se présente au concours d'attaché non rétribué à la
Bibliothèque Mazarine. Reçu 3ème sur 3, il commence à travailler en
juin. En juillet, détaché au service du dépôt légal, au ministère de
l'Instruction publique, il obtient un premier congé de deux mois. [ …]
1899 : 9 février : il obtient un 4ème congé d'un an pour son poste de
bibliothécaire. 1900 : il est mis en demeure de revenir à son poste du
dépôt légal. 1er mars : il est considéré comme démissionnaire. Ses
collègues apprécient sa gentillesse mais peu son efficacité. Quand il
n'est pas malade ni en vacances, il fait de courtes apparitions pour
consulter quelques précieuses reliures. La poussière l'indisposant, il
se munit d'un pulvérisateur à l'eucalyptus.
**** Another source
OK. Looks like he finished and within 6 months took leave.
http://www.ac-rouen.fr/pedagogie/equipes/lettres/cote_proust/biograph.html
1895 Reçu à la licence ès lettres (philosophie).
Juin: attaché à la bibliothèque Mazarine. Se fait mettre en congé.
My feeble translation with help of babelfish: Recieved an arts degree
(philosophy). June: attached to the Mazarine library. Is put on leave,
gave his notice, fired, quit?. (My French isn't good enough here, but
it looks like he didn't last long)