Rooney Disses Modern Art on 60 Minutes
Electric Nachos
(CBS) The following is a weekly 60 Minutes commentary by correspondent Andy
Rooney.
Rooney: When Did This Become Art?
"When did bright-colored plastic cows, pigs and rabbits get to be art? I don
’t like most of the stuff passing for art, and it's everywhere."
There are a lot of know-nothing boobs who don’t appreciate the modern art
being put up in public places in our cities.
I know this is true because I’m one of those know-nothing boobs. When did
bright-colored plastic cows, pigs and rabbits get to be art?
I don’t like most of the stuff passing for art and it's everywhere.
Seattle. Chicago. Sure, Chicago. Hog butcher to the world.
San Diego. Bloomington, Ill., for goodness sake!
Cincinnati. The people looking were better looking than what they were
looking at.
Kansas City. Washington D.C. It makes as much sense as the politicians.
Plainview, Texas. Another culture center. Providence, R.I.
Memphis, Tenn. This was done to honor Martin Luther King. It's called "I've
Been To The Mountain." I'm an admirer of everything Martin Luther King stood
for, but I don't think he would have stood for this.
In New York, Lincoln Center has the best opera, the best ballet, and the
best symphony orchestra. Is this Mickey Mouse sculpture out front really in
an artistic league with what goes on inside?
One piece is named "Two Indeterminate Lines." I may not understand art, but
I understand the English language, and that's pretentious nonsense.
Does every open space have to be filled in? Is anything better looking than
nothing would be? I don’t think so.
Sculptor Richard Serra's work called "Tilted Arc" was put up at a cost of
$175,000. It's a leaning slab of rusting metal.
There was a war in New York between people who hated it and people who
accused them of being culturally deprived. "Tilted Arc" was taken down, cut
in three pieces and stored. Take that, arty arc.
A writer ought to be able to write simple sentences before he tries to be a
poet. I want to see something traditional that a sculptor has done -
something I can understand - before he gets a license to do this.
Picasso earned the right to do anything he wants. His work is art whether I
think so or not.
Whoever did one particular painting suffers either from a functional
disorder of the mind or he's putting us on.
What beneficial effect does this have on our brains that makes it worth
putting in a public place?
I understand perfectly well that good art is always ahead of public taste.
Most of this stuff is certainly ahead of my taste. I don’t like it. If I’m
wrong, I’m sure you’ll correct me.
By Andy Rooney © MMV, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.
just....@gmail.com
Dallas Museum of Art had this giant rope at an angle from the ceiling
to floor, just a giant rope. Am i supposed to feel as though im
ignorant because i do not find some deep meaning in a giant rope? They
also had the big shiny metal rusted slabs, i thought at first they were
contructing a new wing or something until i saw the display with its
titel, the display held more artistic value to me than the metal slab.
I would feel ashamed if i were to try to pass this off as 'art', who
has hijacked the definition? is this intended to make the world of art
more inclusive? even to those who are not making art? shouldnt art be
something that people in general can relate to? shouldnt people be able
to walk by it and stop and feel something stir within from their past?
what of a giant rope or metal slab is there to relate to? unless your a
pretentious philosopher. bullocks ... a friend told me of a visit to a
museum in france were they laid bricks in a row, lol hysterical, this
is art? so fucking rediculous, im no expert but bricks? metal slabs?
im rambling now.
Electric Nachos
just....@gmail.com wrote in message
<1104729206.1...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>...
>Good for him, ive seen some of this shite. When I was in Dallas the
>Dallas Museum of Art had this giant rope at an angle from the ceiling
>to floor, just a giant rope. Am i supposed to feel as though im
>ignorant because i do not find some deep meaning in a giant rope?
Take care to acknowledge that many have the same reaction to portraits
and/or still life subjects. Surely you can admit that the fascination over
Da Vinci's "Mona Lisa" is beyond comprehension??
>shouldnt art be
>something that people in general can relate to?
This is a question to be answered through the artwork that YOU produce.
>shouldnt people be able
>to walk by it and stop and feel something stir within from their past?
Again, this is a question to be answered through the artwork that YOU
produce.
>what of a giant rope or metal slab is there to relate to?
More than likely, nothing more than there is to relate to "Whistler's
Mother" (esp. for BLACK FOLKS!!!!)
Not to imply any racial undertones or anything but really!! What the fuck is
a black woman (such as myself) supposed to trip off a white woman in a
rocking chair for?!
I'm going to repeat that I am NOT implying racial undertones - for my
subject matter is interracial, my marriage is interracial, my kids are
interracial, and probably those damn dogs of mine are interracial too!
But uh,... since you asked the question of "relating" to something - as you
can see, there ain't a damn thing about that old woman that I can "relate"
to. And it's supposedly "good art."
>unless your a
>pretentious philosopher. bullocks ... a friend told me of a visit to a
>museum in france were they laid bricks in a row, lol hysterical, this
>is art? so fucking rediculous, im no expert but bricks? metal slabs?
>im rambling now.
So am I. My apologies. I'm hungry.
Clem Mattis
>But uh,... since you asked the question of "relating" to something - as you
>can see, there ain't a damn thing about that old woman that I can "relate"
>to. And it's supposedly "good art."
I don't know why you chose Whistler's Mother for
your example, but you imply that the work would
only be worthy of being called art if the mother
were black! "Racism" isn't exclusively for "whites only"
as you've proven.
Electric Nachos
Clem Mattis wrote in message <41d9...@nntp.zianet.com>...
I chose Whistler's Mother as an example because it is a famous painting. The
point is that this old fart in a rocking chair has no significance to me. It
IS, as a matter of fact, as POINTLESS as a Rope Hanging From A Ceiling.
Unfortunately, people give this painting more value than the rope - and fail
to accept that their precious art isn't beloved by ALL.
IF the mother were black - it *might* have significance to me. And then it
*might* NOT have significance to you.
Does the fact that because the black mother *might* have significance to me,
and NOT to you make the painting a masterpiece - and make you a fool for not
worshipping it??
Does the fact that because the black mother *might* have significance to me,
and NOT to you make the painting a masterpiece - and make you a racist for
pointing out the fact that you have nothing in common with the subject??????
If your thinking processes are in order, you can now see that all realist
art does NOT have significance to everyone and isn't necessarily "good art".
Some might actually prefer the rope.
Thur
"Electric Nachos" <aint_...@chew.foo> wrote in message
news:10tj8lf...@corp.supernews.com...
:-)
Thur
Electric Nachos
Thur wrote in message ...
So humor me. What is it that I don't understand?
zeno
Electric Nachos wrote:
> http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/20/60minutes/rooney/main662013.shtml
>
> (CBS) The following is a weekly 60 Minutes commentary by correspondent Andy
> Rooney.
>
> Picasso earned the right to do anything he wants. His work is art whether I
> think so or not.
His work is art whether I
think so or not.
HIS WORK IS ART WHETHER I THINK SO OR NOT.
The discussion should start here.
Zeno
zeno
zeno wrote:
Rooney is here admitting that he would accept the validity of art he does not
understand. His beef appears to be with what he suspects is bad art by
"unqualified" artists that finds its way to public display or even public
financing, although his essay was lazy because he made no distinction between
the amateur or otherwise not very good art on display and competent pieces by
Serra and Mark Di Suvero and perhaps others. It was one of Rooney's more stupid
and revealing essays, and he is not informed enough to know why he really put
his foot in his mouth because his whining is in contradiction to his usual
politics, he is aligning himself with the same anti-art elements that one sees
in the religious right which wants to hid nude statues etc. If he has any sense
he should issue a correction or retraction of this ultra conservative
pro-fascist whining.
Rooney is like many on this forum who cannot make distinctions between good work
and bad and automatically dismiss anything that isn't obvious to a naive eye.
The problem with those who want to dismiss and censor is they are cutting their
own throats without realizing it. Culture light or heavy is better than war.
Freedom better than......
Zeno
Nerd Gerl
You are so damn silly! But I am fine. And you?
------
"Electric Nachos" <aint_loo...@chew.foo> wrote:
> IF the mother were black - it *might* have significance to me. And
then
> it *might* NOT have significance to you.
If it were a black drag queen I might get aroused. How you doin', kid?
palmer....@sbcglobal.net
Electric Nachos wrote:
> just....@gmail.com wrote in message
> <1104729206.1...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>...
> >Good for him, ive seen some of this shite. When I was in Dallas the
> >Dallas Museum of Art had this giant rope at an angle from the
ceiling
> >to floor, just a giant rope. Am i supposed to feel as though im
> >ignorant because i do not find some deep meaning in a giant rope?
>
> Take care to acknowledge that many have the same reaction to
portraits
> and/or still life subjects. Surely you can admit that the fascination
over
> Da Vinci's "Mona Lisa" is beyond comprehension??
Not at all. It remains a fascinating painting.
>
> >shouldnt art be
> >something that people in general can relate to?
>
> This is a question to be answered through the artwork that YOU
produce.
> >shouldnt people be able
> >to walk by it and stop and feel something stir within from their
past?
>
> Again, this is a question to be answered through the artwork that YOU
> produce.
>
> >what of a giant rope or metal slab is there to relate to?
>
> More than likely, nothing more than there is to relate to "Whistler's
> Mother" (esp. for BLACK FOLKS!!!!)
>
> Not to imply any racial undertones or anything but really!! What the
fuck is
> a black woman (such as myself) supposed to trip off a white woman in
a
> rocking chair for?!
I don't think it is a matter of race. In
fact, in my view "Whistler's Mother" is
a rather boring, much overvalued work of
art. Though Whister was an artist of
immense talent, I much prefer other works
by him, such as "Old Battersea Bridge."
Further, I totally agree that many artists
contemporary with Whistler were doing far
more interesting things when he painted the
popular picture of his mother. Of course,
there is much in 19th century realism I
do care for. After the great Romantic/Realist
Hudson River School, I think the most captivating
realistic work was done by U. S. artists
generally considered illustrators -- though
they were often also fine art painters -- such
as Frederick Remington. I'll take "Wolf in
the Moonlight" or "Evening on a Canadian
Lake" over "Whistler's Mother" any day --
unless I am in need of a soporific. (Though
the latter two paintings did come a couple
of generations later than "Whistler's Mother.")
>
> I'm going to repeat that I am NOT implying racial undertones -
You may not be "implying them," but you
are certainly interjecting them. By
way of contrast, I would argue that
Donald Rollar Wilson's great portrait
of (I may have the title wrong, because
I don't have the picture in front of me)
-- is it "Betty" -- the black lady
sitting in a chair singing at a pickle
which is floating by in the air -- is
a far more intriguing picture than
"Whistler's Mother," but this really
has nothing at all to do with the race
of the respective human figures in the
two pictures. Wilson's wonderful
portrait of Betty has the humor, the
mystery, and the general fascination
with humanity which Whistler's famous
work lacks.
for my
> subject matter is interracial, my marriage is interracial, my kids
are
> interracial, and probably those damn dogs of mine are interracial
too!
Well, it seems to me you are thinking in
a very shallow way when you talk about
"a white woman in a rocking chair." That
sounds like something one would expect
to hear in a puerile, cheesy sitcom. Get
over it and grow.
>
> But uh,... since you asked the question of "relating" to something -
as you
> can see, there ain't a damn thing about that old woman that I can
"relate"
> to. And it's supposedly "good art."
Of course it is good art. But I repeat
that I will agree it has been over-valued,
apparently for sentimental reasons relating
to the age when it was painted, and I
maintain that other Whistler paintings
are far more interesting.
>
> >unless your a
> >pretentious philosopher. bullocks ... a friend told me of a visit
to a
> >museum in france were they laid bricks in a row, lol hysterical,
this
> >is art? so fucking rediculous, im no expert but bricks? metal
slabs?
> >im rambling now.
>
> So am I. My apologies. I'm hungry.
You need to laarn more about art. You
come off as shallow and sophomoric.
[By the way, as to the original article,
while I agree with Rooney somewhat, I
fail to see how his opinion's should
have much import in this group. He
is no art expert, and basically does
little more than echo the opinion of
the Average Joe about modern art --
though the fact remains that the Average
Joe is often right about a lot of things.
Frankly I too am weary of some of the
detestable rubbish which is pawned off as
art these days. Yet, I have to wonder
how Rooney would view the work of authentic
artists such as Flack and Cottingham...
Basically he's just a non-art person
calling a junk heap a junk heap but what
only someone with no appreciation of
art would write such an article without
saying who he thinks is doing real art
these days...One has to assume he has
never troubled himself to find out.
Mr. Palmer
Room 314
palmer....@sbcglobal.net
That is an incredibly shallow way to
view art. It seems to me you are
bringing your racial hang-ups into
what is supposed to be a fine arts
group. If you weren't so hung up,
you would be able to pinpoint why
"Whistler's Mother" strikes you as
a dull picture, and you could do
that without dragging race into the
equation. Your remarks sound like
what one might expect to hear in a
inner city middle school art class:
ignorant, biased race-based views.
Try to get beyond that. There is
nothing at all wrong with attacking
an over-blown art icon like "Whistler's
Mother," -- but you are doing so for
the wrong reasons. I think you
would learn more about art if you
you went back and studied "Whistler's
Mother" again and asked yourself --
"Leaving race out, what is it that
I don't like about this painting?"
I will tell you what *I* don't
like about it: It puts me to
sleep. (Not so with Whistler's
"Old Battersea Bridge.")
Mr. Palmer
Room 314
>
> Does the fact that because the black mother *might* have significance
to me,
> and NOT to you make the painting a masterpiece - and make you a fool
for not
> worshipping it??
>
> Does the fact that because the black mother *might* have significance
to me,
> and NOT to you make the painting a masterpiece - and make you a
racist for
> pointing out the fact that you have nothing in common with the
subject??????
Again, you sound puerile.
Why do you have to have something
in common with a subject in order
to appreciate a work of art? For
instance, I think that Gustave
Moreau's "Hercules and the Lernaean
Hydra" (1876) is a fascinating
painting. But I would be hard-
pressed to explain what I have
"in common with the subject."
In fact, I would consider such
an idea daunting, to say the
least.
>
> If your thinking processes are in order, you can now see that all
realist
> art does NOT have significance to everyone and isn't necessarily
"good art".
Who would be fool enough to argue otherwise?
the_...@yahoo.com
Electric Nachos wrote:
>
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/20/60minutes/rooney/main662013.shtml
>
> (CBS) The following is a weekly 60 Minutes commentary by
correspondent Andy
> Rooney.
> I know this is true because I'm one of those know-nothing boobs.
When did
> bright-colored plastic cows, pigs and rabbits get to be art?
>
> Sculptor Richard Serra's work called "Tilted Arc" was put up at a
cost of
> $175,000. It's a leaning slab of rusting metal.
> By Andy Rooney © MMV, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Rooney is actually talking about two separate genres of contemporary
ruling-class art in the U.S.
One is the silly cartoon stuff by people like Keith Haring, Jeff
Koons, and Niki St. Westphal. The other is the minimal stuff that
evolved from abstract expressionism. The cartoony stuff is for people
who do not think deeply, the minimal stuff promotes a dehumanized
elitist aesthetic.
Both styles are devoid of concrete social relevance or even emotion
because the affluent classes in America, who sponsor them, do not want
to be reminded of the social injustice upon which their wealth is
based.
The closest they came to real feeling was Basquiat, and that was
only because he criticized the economic system of colonial Jamaica,
which was far enough removed from the fat cats in New York that it did
not hurt their consciences.
the sarp
the_...@yahoo.com
drivel.
the sarp
palmer....@sbcglobal.net
The tragic thing is, many of our
public schools foster the same sort
of close-mindedness suggested by what
the person posts. Her problem --
I strongly suspect -- has a lot to
do the disease of multi-culturalism:
One culture is as valid as another,
they are taught. It is therefore
wrong to teach things which don't have
some immediate connection with the
ethnicity of the student. The effect
of this approach is that the school
systems turn out new generations of
students even more confused than were
previous generations. Sadly, the
poster in question is another typical
product of many contemporary school
systems. The result of multiculturalism
as an educational philosophy is only to
make her more narrow and restrictive in
her outlook. In her mind, what she does
not "relate to" is bad, not worth learning
about. Of course, the reality is that the
more ignorant the mind, the less it does
relate to...
Mr. Palmer
Room 314
the_...@yahoo.com
palmer....@sbcglobal.net wrote:
Your remarks sound like
> what one might expect to hear in a
> inner city middle school art class:
> ignorant, biased race-based views.
> Try to get beyond that.
Any less informed than a middle school art class in a white suburb? And
since inner-city is a code-word for Black, now who's being biased and
race based?
You should have stayed in Room 314, as I told you.
the sarp
the_...@yahoo.com
zeno wrote:
Culture light or heavy is better than war.
> Freedom better than......
>
> Zeno
Oh hum, and I thought you might have had something until you began
flapping away.
the sarp
Mani Deli
>
>[By the way, as to the original article,
>while I agree with Rooney somewhat, I
>fail to see how his opinion's should
>have much import in this group. He
>is no art expert, and basically does
>little more than echo the opinion of
>the Average Joe about modern art --
Does one have to be an expert to dis what one doesn't like?
>though the fact remains that the Average
>Joe is often right about a lot of things.
>Frankly I too am weary of some of the
>detestable rubbish which is pawned off as
>art these days.
Are you an expert?
> Yet, I have to wonder
>how Rooney would view the work of authentic
>artists such as Flack and Cottingham...
>Basically he's just a non-art person
>calling a junk heap a junk heap but what
>only someone with no appreciation of
>art would write such an article without
>saying who he thinks is doing real art
>these days..
Because he simply addressed what he didn't like.
>.One has to assume he has
>never troubled himself to find out.
>
How do you know?
palmer....@sbcglobal.net
Mani Deli wrote:
> On 4 Jan 2005 21:25:11 -0800, palmer....@sbcglobal.net wrote:
>
>
> >
> >[By the way, as to the original article,
> >while I agree with Rooney somewhat, I
> >fail to see how his opinion's should
> >have much import in this group. He
> >is no art expert, and basically does
> >little more than echo the opinion of
> >the Average Joe about modern art --
>
> Does one have to be an expert to dis what one doesn't like?
No, but my point was that Rooney
didn't really say anything that
Archie Bunker, were he still around,
would not have said just as -- or
perhaps more -- "eloquently."
While I basically agreed with
Rooney in many respects, I did not
he had said anything new or original,
and -- after all -- he is getting paid
a ton of money to say things, so he
should try to do more than publicly
chew his cud.
>
> >though the fact remains that the Average
> >Joe is often right about a lot of things.
> >Frankly I too am weary of some of the
> >detestable rubbish which is pawned off as
> >art these days.
>
> Are you an expert?
That depends on what you mean. While
I don't claim to have any scholarly
credentials in art, I have at least
spent quite a bit of time in a number
of great museums and have read many
books on art. So, while that does
not make me an expert, it has given
me a respect for art which requires
that if I want to publicly attack some
trends in art, I should show my sincere
art appreciation by coming up with
the names of a couple of rend-bucking
artists who are worthy of positive
mention in the same article.
>
>
> > Yet, I have to wonder
> >how Rooney would view the work of authentic
> >artists such as Flack and Cottingham...
> >Basically he's just a non-art person
> >calling a junk heap a junk heap but what
> >only someone with no appreciation of
> >art would write such an article without
> >saying who he thinks is doing real art
> >these days..
>
> Because he simply addressed what he didn't like.
>
> >.One has to assume he has
> >never troubled himself to find out.
> >
> How do you know?
Because if he had a genuine feeling for
art he would be inspired to praise a few
artists who are not part of the trend he
deplores. Frankly, I doubt if Rooney
has heard of either Cottingham or Flack,
and I am not sure he would appreciate
their work any more than the work of
those he is grumbling about.
I strongly suspect Rooney for the sort of
"art critic" who thinks real artists
should be doing pictures like the one
who painted the poker-playing doggies...
Mr. Palmer
Room 314
palmer....@sbcglobal.net
the_...@yahoo.com wrote:
> palmer....@sbcglobal.net wrote:
>
>
> Your remarks sound like
> > what one might expect to hear in a
> > inner city middle school art class:
> > ignorant, biased race-based views.
> > Try to get beyond that.
>
> Any less informed than a middle school art class in a white suburb?
Okay. How's this? ANY school where students
are allowed to wriggle out of learning art
appreciation by saying they can't relate to
pictures of people of other races is doing a
very bad job teaching.
Please let me be more specific, Sarpy.
IF in a white suburban middle school the
students are -- as part of their art
class -- shown a reproduction of Homer's
powerful watercolor, "The Gulf Stream," and
if they start jabbering like a bunch of
lousy little bigoted jackasses that they
"can't relate" to the picture because
the man lying in the boat is a different
race than their own, then I think it is
the duty of the teacher to teach them about
the universal qualities of great art. If
the teacher does not take that challenge,
then he or she is pandering to racism.
Just imagine how insulting to Winslow
Homer's memory it would be to whine, "I
can't relate to that man in the boat. Maybe
if he were white I could relate to him."
Just stop and think what a pathetic,
contemptible sentiment that would be.
Well, that is EXACTLY what the other person
is doing, and you don't have the spine to
challenge that sort of lazy (and racist)
thinking. You are part of the problem,
Sarps.
And by the way, Sarpy, you are not fooling
anyone with your pathetic two-line cheap
shots. I have been in Usenet long enough
to know people like you for what you are.
Having little writing ability, and less
thinking ability, you sit back and wait
for your intellectual and creative betters
to express themselves. Then you take
your two-line zinger attemps, trying to give
the impression you know far more than your
pitiful jabs would suggest. You don't,
of course. In Usenet, you are what you
write, and in your case that's not much.
Mr. Palmer
Room 314
Electric Nachos
palmer....@sbcglobal.net wrote in message
<1104904776....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>...
>There is
>nothing at all wrong with attacking
>an over-blown art icon like "Whistler's
>Mother," -- but you are doing so for
>the wrong reasons.
You must have balls as big as the largest tomato in Texas to TELL ME that
**I** don't like something for the **wrong** reasons!! LMAO
Damn, you and Keith would make purrrrrrfect bedfellows!
>I think you
>would learn more about art if you
>you went back and studied "Whistler's
>Mother" again and asked yourself --
>"Leaving race out, what is it that
>I don't like about this painting?"
I'm not into OLD WOMEN SITTING IN ROCKING CHAIRS & STARING IN TO SPACE WHILE
WAITING TO DIE. The bitch is depressed, overly-dressed, and probably boring
as hell to talk to. She looks about as flavorful as the bland-assed bisquits
she baked. So overall, I'd say she's rather skank.
Any more dumb questions???
Electric Nachos
palmer....@sbcglobal.net wrote in message
<1104906153.5...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>...
Wow - How enlightening white of you. Might I suggest that you take your
white philosophies and your white theories of your white education and shove
them up your superficial intellectual white ass!
>Mr. Palmer
>Room 314
>
Electric Nachos
palmer....@sbcglobal.net wrote in message
<1104910256.0...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>...
>
>the_...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> palmer....@sbcglobal.net wrote:
>>
>>
>> Your remarks sound like
>> > what one might expect to hear in a
>> > inner city middle school art class:
>> > ignorant, biased race-based views.
>> > Try to get beyond that.
Try to get beyond the fact that **I** DON'T HAVE to like anything for ANY
REASON I CHOOSE.
>> Any less informed than a middle school art class in a white suburb?
>
>Okay. How's this? ANY school where students
>are allowed to wriggle out of learning art
>appreciation by saying they can't relate to
>pictures of people of other races is doing a
>very bad job teaching.
Just like ANY school where students are allowed to wriggle out of learning
art appreciation by saying they can't relate to abstract art is doing a very
bad job teaching???
>Please let me be more specific, Sarpy.
>IF in a white suburban middle school the
>students are -- as part of their art
>class -- shown a reproduction of Homer's
>powerful watercolor, "The Gulf Stream," and
>if they start jabbering like a bunch of
>lousy little bigoted jackasses that they
>"can't relate" to the picture because
>the man lying in the boat is a different
>race than their own, then I think it is
>the duty of the teacher to teach them about
>the universal qualities of great art. If
>the teacher does not take that challenge,
>then he or she is pandering to racism.
>Just imagine how insulting to Winslow
>Homer's memory it would be to whine, "I
>can't relate to that man in the boat. Maybe
>if he were white I could relate to him."
>Just stop and think what a pathetic,
>contemptible sentiment that would be.
If it's that compelling of an issue for you, then answer why almost
***ALL*** the subjects of MASTERPIECES white?
Can your tiny assed brain fathom that NON-whites might get sick and tired of
seeing the same shit over and over and over? When a person makes a comment
about it - your tight little drawers get in a bunch and you want to call
"US" dumb???
F.U.C.K.
Y.O.U
>Well, that is EXACTLY what the other person
>is doing, and you don't have the spine to
>challenge that sort of lazy (and racist)
>thinking. You are part of the problem,
>Sarps.
>
>And by the way, Sarpy, you are not fooling
>anyone with your pathetic two-line cheap
>shots. I have been in Usenet long enough
We know who you are too. And you've been told by several people to get lost
in the past. You didn't impress anyone then, and you aren't doing it now.
Go BACK to your room!!
palmer....@sbcglobal.net
Okay, forget it. I am not going
to waste any more time trying to
argue with a racist.
>
> >Mr. Palmer
> >Room 314
> >
Electric Nachos
palmer....@sbcglobal.net wrote in message
>Okay, forget it. I am not going
>to waste any more time trying to
>argue with a racist.
Woe is me.
Peter H.M. Brooks
> palmer....@sbcglobal.net wrote in message
> <1104904776....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>...
>
>
the body bends forward at the wasit, and the knees are raised and the
hands claw the air in time to the beat. 'Skank' is music used for
'Skanking'.
A liberal dose of lysergic acid diethylamide might give you the
impression that Whistler's mother is an afficionado of skanking, or of
skank, but I doubt that any rational process will get you there.
--
'When I use a word,' HUmpty Dumpty said ina rather scornful tojne, 'it
means just what I choose it so mean - neither more nor less' - Alice in
Wonderland, Lewis Carrol
* TagZilla 0.057 * http://tagzilla.mozdev.org
Electric Nachos
the subjects? Black? White? Are the subjects in the "masterpieces" in your
country (which happens to be in the midst of black countries) white? Are
they mostly black? Or does the collection of them portray a mixed ratio?
What is your estimation of the percentage?
I find it hypocritically telling that politically correct pussies like
Palmer underhandedly want to uphold the elitist unspoken rule, "If it aint
white, it aint right." - Especially in the "fine arts."
Dumb fuckers.
If you want true and absolute appreciation of the arts from ALL - then PUT
ALL OF US IN THERE!!
Peter H.M. Brooks wrote in message ...
Peter H.M. Brooks
> Sure would like to know what your country upholds as a master-work! What are
> the subjects? Black? White? Are the subjects in the "masterpieces" in your
> country (which happens to be in the midst of black countries) white? Are
> they mostly black? Or does the collection of them portray a mixed ratio?
> What is your estimation of the percentage?
>
reggae dancer.
You've never had anybody accuse you of a 'non sequitur' have you, by any
chance?
--
Politics are not an instrument for effecting social change; they are
the art of making the inevitable appear to be a matter of wise human
choice. -Quentin Crisp, 'Resident Alien'
Electric Nachos
Peter H.M. Brooks wrote in message ...
>> Sure would like to know what your country upholds as a master-work! What
are
>> the subjects? Black? White? Are the subjects in the "masterpieces" in
your
>> country (which happens to be in the midst of black countries) white? Are
>> they mostly black? Or does the collection of them portray a mixed ratio?
>> What is your estimation of the percentage?
>>
>This is a fascinating defense of your claim that Whistler's Mother was a
>reggae dancer.
>
>You've never had anybody accuse you of a 'non sequitur' have you, by any
>chance?
No more than anyone accusing you of being an 'eventus refugio' !!
Now Good Night!!!!!!!!
Peter H.M. Brooks
> Peter H.M. Brooks wrote in message ...
>
>>Electric Nachos wrote:
>>
>>>Sure would like to know what your country upholds as a master-work! What
>
> are
>
>>>the subjects? Black? White? Are the subjects in the "masterpieces" in
>
> your
>
>>>country (which happens to be in the midst of black countries) white? Are
>>>they mostly black? Or does the collection of them portray a mixed ratio?
>>>What is your estimation of the percentage?
>>>
>>
>>This is a fascinating defense of your claim that Whistler's Mother was a
>>reggae dancer.
>>
>>You've never had anybody accuse you of a 'non sequitur' have you, by any
>>chance?
>
>
> No more than anyone accusing you of being an 'eventus refugio' !!
>
you imagine that anybody could be such a thing?
Your questions bore no relation whatsoever to your bizarre claim that
Whistler's mother was a reggae dancer - or that her portrait indicated
that she was such. Thus your questions were indeed a non sequitur.
Your sentence above appears to be another.
Is it a lack of debating skills that leads you into these or is there
another reason?
--
It is an unalterable law that people who claim to care about the human
race are utterly indifferent to the sufferings of individuals - Quinten
Electric Nachos
Peter H.M. Brooks wrote in message ...
>Electric Nachos wrote:
>> Peter H.M. Brooks wrote in message ...
>>
>>>Electric Nachos wrote:
>>>
>>>>Sure would like to know what your country upholds as a master-work! What
>>
>> are
>>
>>>>the subjects? Black? White? Are the subjects in the "masterpieces" in
>>
>> your
>>
>>>>country (which happens to be in the midst of black countries) white? Are
>>>>they mostly black? Or does the collection of them portray a mixed ratio?
>>>>What is your estimation of the percentage?
>>>>
>>>
>>>This is a fascinating defense of your claim that Whistler's Mother was a
>>>reggae dancer.
>>>
>>>You've never had anybody accuse you of a 'non sequitur' have you, by any
>>>chance?
>>
>>
>> No more than anyone accusing you of being an 'eventus refugio' !!
>>
>I don't believe you! How would you translate 'eventus refugio'? How do
>you imagine that anybody could be such a thing?
>Your questions bore no relation whatsoever to your bizarre claim that
>Whistler's mother was a reggae dancer - or that her portrait indicated
>that she was such. Thus your questions were indeed a non sequitur.
Your labeling that bag-of-bones as a reggae dancer is about as relevant as
me labeling your elephant hard-ons as art. If seeing women's bottoms bounce
up and down disgusts you, I suggest you sit on on the dicks of the elephants
you paint and tell us what you *really* feel.
>Your sentence above appears to be another.
>
>Is it a lack of debating skills that leads you into these or is there
>another reason?
I rather think you're just a victim of your own deflated witticisms.
Mani Deli
>
>Mani Deli wrote:
>> On 4 Jan 2005 21:25:11 -0800, palmer....@sbcglobal.net wrote:
>>
>>
>> >
>> >[By the way, as to the original article,
>> >while I agree with Rooney somewhat, I
>> >fail to see how his opinion's should
>> >have much import in this group. He
>> >is no art expert, and basically does
>> >little more than echo the opinion of
>> >the Average Joe about modern art --
>>
>> Does one have to be an expert to dis what one doesn't like?
>
>No, but my point was that Rooney
>didn't really say anything that
>Archie Bunker, were he still around,
>would not have said just as -- or
>perhaps more -- "eloquently."
>While I basically agreed with
>Rooney in many respects, I did not
>he had said anything new or original,
After reading 40 years of praise for artwork much of it no better than
that of a Chimpanzee. Even a peep from the other side makes some
people rage.
>and -- after all -- he is getting paid
>a ton of money to say things,
So are hundreds of critics and bullshitters along with no-nothing
teachers who are creating a population of failures.
>so he
>should try to do more than publicly
>chew his cud.
>>
>> >though the fact remains that the Average
>> >Joe is often right about a lot of things.
>> >Frankly I too am weary of some of the
>> >detestable rubbish which is pawned off as
>> >art these days.
So is he, so what are you complaining about.
>> Are you an expert?
>
>That depends on what you mean. While
>I don't claim to have any scholarly
>credentials in art, I have at least
>spent quite a bit of time in a number
>of great museums and have read many
>books on art.
So has Rooney.
> So, while that does
>not make me an expert, it has given
>me a respect for art which requires
>that if I want to publicly attack some
>trends in art, I should show my sincere
>art appreciation by coming up with
>the names of a couple of rend-bucking
>artists who are worthy of positive
>mention in the same article.
He was talking about what he doesn't like.
>>
>> > Yet, I have to wonder
>> >how Rooney would view the work of authentic
>> >artists such as Flack and Cottingham...
Send him an Email.
>> >Basically he's just a non-art person
>> >calling a junk heap a junk heap
and it upsets you!
>> >but what only someone with no appreciation of
>> >art would write such an article without
>> >saying who he thinks is doing real art
>> >these days..
>>
So someone who doesn't like what you like has no appreciation etc.
>> Because he simply addressed what he didn't like.
>>
Like most art critics who simply address what they like.
>> >.One has to assume he has
>> >never troubled himself to find out.
Why?
>> >
>> How do you know?
>
>Because if he had a genuine feeling for
>art he would be inspired to praise a few
>artists who are not part of the trend he
>deplores. Frankly, I doubt if Rooney
>has heard of either Cottingham or Flack,
Ho do you know?
>and I am not sure he would appreciate
>their work any more than the work of
>those he is grumbling about.
I couldn't blame him.
>I strongly suspect Rooney for the sort of
>"art critic" who thinks real artists
>should be doing pictures like the one
>who painted the poker-playing doggies...
>
I strongly suspect that is about all you know about the art you don't
happen to like.
Mani Deli
<aint_...@chew.foo> wrote:
>Try to get beyond the fact that **I** DON'T HAVE to like anything for ANY
>REASON I CHOOSE.
>
So do I.
Mani Deli
<aint_...@chew.foo> wrote:
>Wow - How enlightening white of you. Might I suggest that you take your
>white philosophies and your white theories of your white education and shove
>them up your superficial intellectual white ass!
>
-shows that bigotry isn't just confined to whites.
Peter H.M. Brooks
> Peter H.M. Brooks wrote in message ...
>
>
pointed out, 'skanking' means a style of West Indian dancing to reggae
music.
I did no labelling. You did. I asked if you had got it right - you added
a non-sequitur.
--
Politics are not an instrument for effecting social change; they are
the art of making the inevitable appear to be a matter of wise human
choice. -Quentin Crisp, 'Resident Alien'
Electric Nachos
palmer....@sbcglobal.net
Now let's step back for a minute here and see
if we can't let common sense prevail. Frankly,
I think it was a mistake to interject race into
this discussion in the first place. That sort of
thing is far more indicative of a person's personal
hang-ups than anything else.
As far as Whistler's famous portait of his
mother, the ironic thing is that it is one of
his least interesting pictures, though by far
his best known. I have already mentioned his
"Old Battersea Bridge," which is well worth
your taking a look at for both your enjoyment
and your edification. A couple of other Whistlers
(of the many very worthy of consideration) are
"The Lagoon, Venice," a nocturne of 1789-80,
and a daylight "A Venetian Canal," 1879-80 also.
Frankly, a person would likely have to be a
veritable clod not to thrill to those works.
As far as teaching art, yes, I will even
agree that a good way to turn most students
off regarding Whistler would be to show them
only Whistler's Mother, rather than some of
the artist's awe-inspiring land- and city-scapes.
[By the way, as far as a couple of half-informed
twits with tweaked beaks telling me to get lost,
I might add that I have a contributing member of
this forum FAR longer than either of them. In
fact, I believe it was in 1995 that I first
posted my Symbolist bibliography, which was
more than a mere list of books, but in fact
contained helpful descriptions of each
volume listed.]
Turning for a moment to Realism with a
capital "R", I am not in general a big fan.
The Hudson River School artists awe and
inspire me, but they are generally considered
Romanticists rather than Realists. Even
so, something that intrigues me involves
the point where the romantic and real
seem to meet, as in Winslow Homer's "Gulf
Stream," which is arguably both a work
of great realism and yet contains many
powerful elements of romanticism.
Anyway, I think we should all remember
that the best of Usenet is about minds
not about races as we continue to explore
and discuss many fascinating topics
relating to the fine arts.
Mr. Palmer
Room 314
palmer....@sbcglobal.net
the artist's least interesting pictures, though
by far his best known. I have already mentioned
his "Old Battersea Bridge," which is well worth
your taking a look at for both your enjoyment
and your edification. A couple of other Whistlers
(of the many very worthy of careful study) are
"The Lagoon, Venice," a nocturne of 1789-80,
and a daylight "A Venetian Canal," 1879-80 also.
Frankly, a person would likely have to be a
veritable clod not to thrill to those works.
As far as teaching art, yes, I will even
agree that a good way to turn most students
off regarding Whistler would be to show them
ONLY Whistler's Mother, rather than some of
the artist's awe-inspiring land- and city-scapes.
Turning for a moment to Realism with a
Electric Nachos
palmer....@sbcglobal.net wrote in message
<1104967378.1...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>...
I'd say it's indicative of racial exclusion. We have a society glorifying
over 10,000 "master" works of art - and maybe .005% of them feature
non-white human subjects.
And ***I'm*** the one with the hang up??
LOLOL
>As far as Whistler's famous portait of his
>mother, the ironic thing is that it is one of
>his least interesting pictures, though by far
>his best known. I have already mentioned his
>"Old Battersea Bridge," which is well worth
>your taking a look at for both your enjoyment
>and your edification. A couple of other Whistlers
>(of the many very worthy of consideration) are
>"The Lagoon, Venice," a nocturne of 1789-80,
>and a daylight "A Venetian Canal," 1879-80 also.
>Frankly, a person would likely have to be a
>veritable clod not to thrill to those works.
Any reason why you didn't acknowledge his "Symphony No. 1: The White Girl",
and "Symphony No. 2: The Little White Girl"?? I mean in context of this
conversation, that's some funny shit!!!!!!
Technically, Whistler doesn't meet my standards. Neither do your opinions or
recommendations so I'm sorry I don't even know why I bothered loading up my
browser for this foolishness.
>As far as teaching art, yes, I will even
>agree that a good way to turn most students
>off regarding Whistler would be to show them
>only Whistler's Mother, rather than some of
>the artist's awe-inspiring land- and city-scapes.
>
>[By the way, as far as a couple of half-informed
>twits with tweaked beaks telling me to get lost,
>I might add that I have a contributing member of
>this forum FAR longer than either of them. In
>fact, I believe it was in 1995 that I first
>posted my Symbolist bibliography, which was
>more than a mere list of books, but in fact
>contained helpful descriptions of each
>volume listed.]
Hey, Weren't you the one claiming a while back that you're some kind of
"genius" or something? Wha' happened?
>Turning for a moment to Realism with a
>capital "R", I am not in general a big fan.
>The Hudson River School artists awe and
>inspire me, but they are generally considered
>Romanticists rather than Realists. Even
>so, something that intrigues me involves
>the point where the romantic and real
>seem to meet, as in Winslow Homer's "Gulf
>Stream," which is arguably both a work
>of great realism and yet contains many
>powerful elements of romanticism.
>
>Anyway, I think we should all remember
>that the best of Usenet is about minds
>not about races as we continue to explore
>and discuss many fascinating topics
>relating to the fine arts.
Who the fuck is *we*?
I think *You* need to remember that the fine arts are NOT on usenet, but are
in the ***real*** world, promoting ***real*** attitudes about the population
of this planet. How you intend on having a conversation about ***real*** art
while pretending that it's not skewed only slants everything that comes out
of your biased mouth. But isn't that how you "color-blind" folks do it
anyway?
Psshhhht. Talk to the hand.
>Mr. Palmer
>Room 314
>
Paul Mesken
<aint_...@chew.foo> wrote:
> We have a society glorifying
>over 10,000 "master" works of art - and maybe .005% of them feature
>non-white human subjects.
Ah, is that why some call the whites the "master race"? ;-)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Mesken, feared administrator of www.nellarteforum.com
Electric Nachos
Paul Mesken wrote in message <1i5pt05emn39mqrm0...@4ax.com>...
>On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 17:13:18 -0800, "Electric Nachos"
><aint_...@chew.foo> wrote:
>
>> We have a society glorifying
>>over 10,000 "master" works of art - and maybe .005% of them feature
>>non-white human subjects.
>
>Ah, is that why some call the whites the "master race"? ;-)
Who in the world does that??
Peter H.M. Brooks
> Get a damn dictionary.
>
My advice to you would be to get a good dictionary. Your 'damn'
dictionary has obviously failed you. The definition of 'skanking' that I
have given you is from the OED (Oxford English Dictionary) in 20 volumes.
--
It may be objected, that many who are capable of the higher pleasures,
occasionally, under the influence of temptation, postpone them to the
lower. But this is quite compatible with a full appreciation of the
intrinsic superiority of the higher. Men often, from infirmity of
character, make their election for the nearer good, though they know it
to be the less valuable; and this no less when the choice is between two
bodily pleasures, than when it is between bodily and mental.-- J.S.Mill
chapter II, Utilitarianism
just....@gmail.com
saying shes nasty or rank. maybe you'd be good to put down that wine
glass, stop twisting the ends of your mustache plotting the destruction
of the next topic and go rent you a good movie.
Electric Nachos
----------
The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language: Fourth Edition.
2000.
skank
PRONUNCIATION:
skngk
NOUN:
1. A rhythmic dance performed to reggae or ska music,
characterized by
bending forward, raising the knees, and extending the hands.
2. Disgusting or
vulgar matter; filth. 3. One who is digustingly foul or
filthy and often considered
sexually promiscuous. Used especially of a woman or girl.
INTRANSITIVE
VERB:
Inflected forms: skanked, skank·ing, skanks
To dance the skank.
http://www.bartleby.com/61/43/S0444350.html
2 entries found for skank.
skank ( P ) Pronunciation Key (skngk)
n.
1.A rhythmic dance performed to reggae or ska music, characterized by
bending forward, raising the knees, and extending
the hands.
2.Disgusting or vulgar matter; filth.
3.One who is digustingly foul or filthy and often considered sexually
promiscuous. Used especially of a woman or girl.
intr.v. skanked, skank·ing, skanks
To dance the skank.
[Of Jamaican origin.]
skanky adj.
[Download or Buy Now]
Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth
Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
skank
n 1: any substance considered disgustingly foul or unpleasant [syn: filth,
crud] 2: a rhythmic dance to reggae music performed by
bending forward and extending the hands while bending the knees
Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=skank&db=*
4 entries found for skank.
Entry:
defile
Part of Speech:
verb
Definition:
violate
Synonyms:
abuse, adulterate, befoul, besmirch, contaminate, corrupt,
crud up, crumb up, debase, deflower,
degrade, desecrate, dirty, discolor, disgrace, dishonor,
filthify, hurt, maculate, make foul, mess up,
molest, muck up, pollute, profane, rape, ravish, seduce,
shame, skank, sleaze up, smear, soil, stain,
sully, taint, tar, tarnish, trash, vitiate
Antonyms:
clean, cleanse, honor, purify, sanctify
Source:
Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus, First Edition (v
1.1.1)
Copyright © 2005 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights
reserved.
Entry:
dirty
Part of Speech:
adjective
Definition:
unclean
Synonyms:
bedraggled, black, contaminated, cruddy, crummy, defiled,
disarrayed, dishabille, disheveled, dreggy,
dungy, dusty, filthy, foul, fouled, greasy, grimy, grubby,
grungy, icky, lousy, messy, mucky, muddy,
mung, murky, nasty, pigpen, polluted, raunchy, scummy,
scuzzy, skank, slatternly, slimy, sloppy,
slovenly, smudged, smutty, sooty, spattered, spotted,
squalid, stained, straggly, sullied, undusted,
unhygienic, unkempt, unlaundered, unsanitary, unsightly,
unswept, untidy, unwashed, yucky
Antonyms:
clean, hygienic, immaculate, sanitary, sparkling, spotless,
sterile, unsoiled, washed
Source:
Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus, First Edition (v
1.1.1)
Copyright © 2005 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights
reserved.
Entry:
disgusting
Part of Speech:
adjective
Definition:
sickening
Synonyms:
abominable, awful, beastly, cloying, creepy, detestable,
distasteful, foul, frightful, ghastly, gross,
gruesome, hateful, hideous, horrid, horrific, icky,
loathsome, lousy, macabre, monstrous, nasty,
nauseating, nerdy, noisome, objectionable, obnoxious, odious,
offensive, outrageous, repellent,
repugnant, repulsive, revolting, rotten, satiating,
scandalous, scuzzy, shameless, shocking, skank,
sleazeball, sleazy, stinking, surfeiting, vile, vulgar,
yecchy, yucky
Antonyms:
appetizing, attractive, charming, delightful, pleasant,
pleasing
Source:
Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus, First Edition (v
1.1.1)
Copyright © 2005 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights
reserved.
Entry:
ill-mannered
Part of Speech:
adjective
Definition:
misbehaved
Synonyms:
bad-mannered, boorish, cheap, churlish, coarse, discourteous,
disrespectful, galoot, ill-behaved,
ill-bred, impertinent, impolite, insolent, loud,
loud-mouthed, loutish, raunchy, raw, rough, roughneck,
rude, skank, sleazeball, tacky, uncivil, uncouth, ungracious,
unmannerly, unrefined, vulgar
Source:
Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus, First Edition (v
1.1.1)
Copyright © 2005 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights
reserved.
http://thesaurus.reference.com/search?q=skank
Maybe you should trade in those 20 books for one good up-to-date concise
word list. "More" isn't necessarily "better."
Now Good Night!!!!!!!
Peter H.M. Brooks wrote in message ...
Peter H.M. Brooks
> Boy Peter, you really know how to take the fun out dissin' someone's momma.
>
I see that you quote Yank dictionaries - that agree with the English
definition.
I do also see that you've used a more recent slang introduction from
that side of the pond. Presumably you also mis-pronounce van Gogh to
rhyme with 'go' instead of with 'cough'.
--
A young lady who faints, must be recovered; questions must be
answered, and surprizes be explained. Such events are very interesting,
but the suspense of them cannot last long. A few minutes made Emma
acquainted with the whole. - Emma, Jane Austen
Electric Nachos
Peter H.M. Brooks wrote in message ...
>> Boy Peter, you really know how to take the fun out dissin' someone's
momma.
>>
>I do my best...
>
>I see that you quote Yank dictionaries - that agree with the English
>definition.
>
>I do also see that you've used a more recent slang introduction from
>that side of the pond. Presumably you also mis-pronounce van Gogh to
>rhyme with 'go' instead of with 'cough'.
Absolutely.
[absolutely: (1) completely and without qualification; used informally as
intensifiers. (2) totally and definitely; without question]
Peter H.M. Brooks
> Peter H.M. Brooks wrote in message ...
>
>>Electric Nachos wrote:
>>
>>>Boy Peter, you really know how to take the fun out dissin' someone's
>
> momma.
>
>>I do my best...
>>
>>I see that you quote Yank dictionaries - that agree with the English
>>definition.
>>
>>I do also see that you've used a more recent slang introduction from
>>that side of the pond. Presumably you also mis-pronounce van Gogh to
>>rhyme with 'go' instead of with 'cough'.
>
>
> Absolutely.
>
but at least you don't frighten the horses.
--
Politics are not an instrument for effecting social change; they are
the art of making the inevitable appear to be a matter of wise human
choice. -Quentin Crisp, 'Resident Alien'
st...@mimosa.csv.warwick.ac.uk
"Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> writes:
...
>I see that you quote Yank dictionaries - that agree with the English
>definition.
>
>I do also see that you've used a more recent slang introduction from
>that side of the pond. Presumably you also mis-pronounce van Gogh to
>rhyme with 'go' instead of with 'cough'.
The correct pronunciation is more like a hough
(the ancient Scottish art of throat-clearing):
http://www.vangogh-nuenen.com/audio/vincent van gogh.wav
--
J.E.H.Shaw [Ewart Shaw] st...@uk.ac.warwick TEL: +44 2476 523069
Department of Statistics, University of Warwick, Coventry CV4 7AL, UK
http://www.warwick.ac.uk/statsdept http://www.ewartshaw.co.uk
3 ((4&({*.(=+/))++/=3:)@([:,/0&,^:(i.3)@|:"2^:2))&.>@]^:(i.@[) <#:3 6 2
Peter H.M. Brooks
> In article <criqnr$6ge$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net>,
> "Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> writes:
> ...
>
>>I see that you quote Yank dictionaries - that agree with the English
>>definition.
>>
>>I do also see that you've used a more recent slang introduction from
>>that side of the pond. Presumably you also mis-pronounce van Gogh to
>>rhyme with 'go' instead of with 'cough'.
>
>
> The correct pronunciation is more like a hough
> (the ancient Scottish art of throat-clearing):
>
--
It is an unalterable law that people who claim to care about the human
race are utterly indifferent to the sufferings of individuals - Quinten
Crisp, Resident Alien
st...@mimosa.csv.warwick.ac.uk
"Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> writes:
>st...@mimosa.csv.warwick.ac.uk wrote:
>> In article <criqnr$6ge$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net>,
>> "Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> writes:
...
>>>rhyme with 'go' instead of with 'cough'.
>>
>>
>> The correct pronunciation is more like a hough
>> (the ancient Scottish art of throat-clearing):
>>
>Absolutely! It does, however, rhyme with cough.
No more than it rhymes with go [though it almost rhymes with lough].
I meant literally "more like a hough" rather than "more like 'hough'".
The .wav file I mentioned can be found via
http://www.vangoghgallery.com/misc/faq.html
Peter H.M. Brooks
> In article <crj1t9$l38$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net>,
> "Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> writes:
>
>>st...@mimosa.csv.warwick.ac.uk wrote:
>>
>>>In article <criqnr$6ge$1...@ctb-nnrp2.saix.net>,
>>> "Peter H.M. Brooks" <pe...@new.co.za> writes:
>
> ...
>
>>>>that side of the pond. Presumably you also mis-pronounce van Gogh to
>>>>rhyme with 'go' instead of with 'cough'.
>>>
>>>
>>>The correct pronunciation is more like a hough
>>>(the ancient Scottish art of throat-clearing):
>>>
>>
>>Absolutely! It does, however, rhyme with cough.
>
>
> No more than it rhymes with go [though it almost rhymes with lough].
> I meant literally "more like a hough" rather than "more like 'hough'".
>
--
Secretly I have always held the opinion that it would be less depressing
to be alcoholic than to be anonymous- Quinten Crisp, Resident Alien
Thur
<st...@mimosa.csv.warwick.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:crj678$s5d$1...@wisteria.csv.warwick.ac.uk...
Please don't use the "ough" to explain pronunciation, since there are at
least seven ways
to pronounce it. I suggest as examples."off" or "uff", or "oh".
I wonder if Mr.Mesken can provide a simplified sound that English speakers
can
reproduce?
Thur
Peter H.M. Brooks
don't even try.
Probably, as mentioned above, the best is to listen to a sound file with
the correct pronunciation and try to copy it.
It may not help though. If you've never been exposed to certain sounds
when growing up then it can be difficult to even hear them. This is
where the famous 'flied lice' pronunciation comes from - there isn't an
'r' in Chinese, so, when learning English, Chinese people don't even
hear the sound.
--
Secretly I have always held the opinion that it would be less depressing
to be alcoholic than to be anonymous- Quinten Crisp, Resident Alien
Paul Mesken
>I wonder if Mr.Mesken can provide a simplified sound that English speakers
>can reproduce?
I've listened to this link that was posted and this is the way the
Dutch pronounce "Vincent van Gogh" :
http://www.vangogh-nuenen.com/audio/vincent van gogh.wav
It's not that hard (at least, not for the Dutch). It's just a
"scraping" sound (or snoring) you make in the back of your throat.
Peter H.M. Brooks
> On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 14:24:28 GMT, "Thur" <no-per...@z.com> wrote:
>
>
>>I wonder if Mr.Mesken can provide a simplified sound that English speakers
>>can reproduce?
>
>
> I've listened to this link that was posted and this is the way the
> Dutch pronounce "Vincent van Gogh" :
>
> http://www.vangogh-nuenen.com/audio/vincent van gogh.wav
>
> It's not that hard (at least, not for the Dutch). It's just a
> "scraping" sound (or snoring) you make in the back of your throat.
>
Paul Mesken
<pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
>Paul Mesken wrote:
>> On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 14:24:28 GMT, "Thur" <no-per...@z.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I wonder if Mr.Mesken can provide a simplified sound that English speakers
>>>can reproduce?
>>
>>
>> I've listened to this link that was posted and this is the way the
>> Dutch pronounce "Vincent van Gogh" :
>>
>> http://www.vangogh-nuenen.com/audio/vincent van gogh.wav
>>
>> It's not that hard (at least, not for the Dutch). It's just a
>> "scraping" sound (or snoring) you make in the back of your throat.
>>
>It's not so hard for the English, Scotch or Irish either.
The Germans have a bit of trouble with it though. In WW2 the
resistance used passwords with lots of g's or ch's (same sound) in it.
Germans couldn't reproduce it correctly. "De schapenscheerder uit
Schevening scheert alle schapen kaal" is a famous one (the sheep
shaver from Scheveningen shaves all sheep bald).
The Arabian speaking people use the 'g' a lot. It seems their entire
language evolves around it ;-)
Peter H.M. Brooks
> On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 18:23:54 +0200, "Peter H.M. Brooks"
> <pe...@new.co.za> wrote:
>
>
>>Paul Mesken wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 06 Jan 2005 14:24:28 GMT, "Thur" <no-per...@z.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I wonder if Mr.Mesken can provide a simplified sound that English speakers
>>>>can reproduce?
>>>
>>>
>>>I've listened to this link that was posted and this is the way the
>>>Dutch pronounce "Vincent van Gogh" :
>>>
>>>http://www.vangogh-nuenen.com/audio/vincent van gogh.wav
>>>
>>>It's not that hard (at least, not for the Dutch). It's just a
>>>"scraping" sound (or snoring) you make in the back of your throat.
>>>
>>
>>It's not so hard for the English, Scotch or Irish either.
>
>
> The Germans have a bit of trouble with it though. In WW2 the
> resistance used passwords with lots of g's or ch's (same sound) in it.
> Germans couldn't reproduce it correctly. "De schapenscheerder uit
> Schevening scheert alle schapen kaal" is a famous one (the sheep
> shaver from Scheveningen shaves all sheep bald).
>
>
> The Arabian speaking people use the 'g' a lot. It seems their entire
> language evolves around it ;-)
>
sounds quite guttural, sung it can sound anything but.
--
Secretly I have always held the opinion that it would be less depressing
to be alcoholic than to be anonymous- Quinten Crisp, Resident Alien
Thur
"Paul Mesken" <usu...@euronet.nl> wrote in message
news:u9nqt0ts3aqei0p75...@4ax.com...
Thanks Paul.
Thur