The Duke,the Raphael,the National Gallery and the Offer
maureen
Raphael's Madonna of the Pinks is big news.
With stock markets as they are, and so few works by historic big
names in Art coming on the market , prices have shot to record
highs. The Getty Museum offered $35 million for Raphael's ,Madonna of
the Pinks., but the National Gallery in London, where the painting is
on loan, is trying to stop the painting going to yet another of the
transatlantic raiders of its works.
Last year they lost another painting, Rubens ,The Massacre of the
Innocents, a masterpiece loaned from a private collection .
It was s snapped up for a record £49m by Lord Thomson, the Canadian
tycoon.
Here's what The National Gallery is trying to do to try to stop the
owner of the painting, The Duke of Northumberland, from selling it to
the Getty Museum:
Fiachra Gibbons and Maev Kennedy
Thursday July 24, 2003
The Guardian
The Duke of Northumberland, one of the richest landowners in Britain,
a man not often seen queuing with his lucky numbers on a Saturday
night, yesterday hit the national lottery jackpot.
Its heritage fund has agreed to give the National Gallery £11.5m to
try to stop him handing over the most expensive few square inches of
oil paint in the world - Raphael's Madonna of the Pinks - to the Getty
Museum in California for £35m.
(Insert) ** The gallery has just over a month to convince Ms Jowell
that the £21m it can now offer is a match for the Getty's £35m bid
after the duke's capital gains tax is taken into account. **
While the gallery celebrated last night, the arguments about whether
the painting, barely nine inches square, was worth saving for the
nation raged on.
Even Liz Forgan, chair of the heritage lottery fund, admitted that she
was "in some ways quite surprised" by her trustees' decision.
The Guardian has also learned that at least one of the fund's special
advisers thought the Raphael, one of nine on show at the gallery -
whose experts authenticated the painting after it had long been
written off as a copy valued at little more than £6,000 - was not
worth such a high price.
With stock markets on the slide, and so few works by the big names of
historic high art coming on the market, prices have shot to record -
and some commentators insist - unsustainable levels.
Ms Forgan confirmed that the largest grant ever made by the heritage
fund to acquire a work of art was only agreed after a two-hour debate.
The previous record, the £8.2m given to the National Gallery for
Whistlejacket, a horse portrait by Stubbs, was to buy a work seen as a
key moment in the development of British art. No such argument can be
made for the Raphael.
The tranquil miniature - believed to have been painted by the young
artist soon after he arrived in Florence for an aristocratic nun who
had taken vows of poverty - has provoked bitter and passionately
conflicting opinions since the day the duke informed the gallery that
it had been sold off their walls to the Getty.
In a further ironic twist, the gallery is using £5m from an endowment
fund the super-rich Getty family gave it in the late 1980s to keep the
painting in London.
With its almost unlimited resources, the Getty Museum may have gambled
that by paying an "astronomical" £35m for a painting which until
recently was of mostly specialist interest, and before 1992 languished
in a dark corridor in Alnwick Castle, it could trump any appeal to
stop it going abroad. If that was so, its bid backfired.
Visitors to the gallery, many outraged at the duke, a scion of a once
notoriously Machiavellian aristocratic line, whose seat is often
called the "Windsor of the north", dropped £60,000 into a collection
box set up next to the painting in the Sainsbury wing in a matter of
months.
The 12th duke, who inherited a large collection of Old Master
paintings, and whose land assets alone are worth more than £800m,
denied that the cash will be used to pay for a £9m Italianate garden
his wife is designing at Alnwick as a part of what he calls a "public
regeneration project".
Nor he insists, did he renege on a family agreement to give the
gallery the first option to buy the Raphael. With 132,000 acres to
look after, and agriculture on the slide, he said he had to sell to
preserve the "British heritage" he holds in trust.
For the National Gallery's new director, Charles Saumarez Smith, the
lottery grant is a line in the sand against transatlantic raiders.
Last year his predecessor, Neil McGregor, could only wring his hands
as Rubens' The Massacre of the Innocents, a true masterpiece loaned
from a private collection was snapped up for a record £49m by Lord
Thomson, the Canadian tycoon.
If the gallery does manage to hang on to the Raphael - and that is up
to the duke, the taxman and ultimately the culture secretary Tessa
Jowell - it will come at a price. For the grant comes with strings -
and a sting in the tail.
Firstly, the picture must be sent on regular loans to regional
museums, in perpetuity. The sting is the fund's rejection of a
separate application from the gallery for almost £6m for the east wing
project, designed to open the first ground level entrance into
Trafalgar Square.
Yesterday Mr Saumarez Smith denied that he had mortgaged the gallery's
long-term interest for a bauble. The heritage lottery fund later
confirmed it would welcome a second bid for the money. "We had really
little option; we had to act very quickly or we would have lost [the
Raphael]," Mr Saumarez Smith said.
The gallery has just over a month to convince Ms Jowell that the £21m
it can now offer is a match for the Getty's £35m bid after the duke's
capital gains tax is taken into account.
Owners who sell to a national collection benefit from a remission of
taxes. The gallery's argument is that the base figure should be the
£6,000 insurance valuation for the picture when it was regarded as a
copy - which would make almost the entire sale price capital gains.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lottery/story/0,7369,1004661,00.html
Ward Stewart
>
>Raphael's Madonna of the Pinks is big news.
>
>With stock markets as they are, and so few works by historic big
>names in Art coming on the market , prices have shot to record
>highs. The Getty Museum offered $35 million for Raphael's ,Madonna of
>the Pinks., but the National Gallery in London, where the painting is
>on loan, is trying to stop the painting going to yet another of the
>transatlantic raiders of its works.
The controversy - and fund raising - were going on at full blast when
we were there a few months ago. The picture is small and rather
lack-luster -- one cannot suppose that all the experts are wrong and
that it is not a Raphael -- however, even Raphael had his off days and
this was one of them. The feet of the child are, quite simply, a
botch and a scream!
if you are interested, look in on:
The thing is also small indeed, about 8X10 inches. Trafalgar Square
was plastered with posters exhorting all to "SAVE OUR BRITISH
HERITAGE." Exactly how this was to be achieved by retaining a bit of
ITALIAN HERITAGE, snaffled out of Italy long ago, was not entirely
clear to me.
ward
---------------------------------------------------
"A black man voting for the Republicans, makes about
as much sense as a chicken voting for Colonel Sanders."
"Buddy" Watts JC's father
---------------------------------------------------
maureen
<wste...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 15:26:09 GMT, m...@wmdsaga.can (maureen) wrote:
>
>>Raphael's Madonna of the Pinks is big news.
>>
>>With stock markets as they are, and so few works by historic big
>>names in Art coming on the market , prices have shot to record
>>highs. The Getty Museum offered $35 million for Raphael's ,Madonna of
>>the Pinks., but the National Gallery in London, where the painting is
>>on loan, is trying to stop the painting going to yet another of the
>>transatlantic raiders of its works.
>
>The controversy - and fund raising - were going on at full blast when
>we were there a few months ago. The picture is small and rather
>lack-luster -- one cannot suppose that all the experts are wrong and
>that it is not a Raphael -- however, even Raphael had his off days and
>this was one of them. The feet of the child are, quite simply, a
>botch and a scream!
>if you are interested, look in on:
>
>http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/cgi-bin/WebObjects.dll/CollectionPublisher.woa/wa/largeImage?workNumber=L582&collectionSection=work
>
I thought one foot of the child was a hoot. The other one was
passable, but the ankles were so thick. . The Madonna looked worn
out. It certainly isn't one of the world's greatest paintings.
Raphael has so many Madonna and Child paintings and a few of the
children have strange feet. Check out:
http://cgfa.sunsite.dk/raphael/p-raphae29.htm
>The thing is also small indeed, about 8X10 inches. Trafalgar Square
>was plastered with posters exhorting all to "SAVE OUR BRITISH
>HERITAGE." Exactly how this was to be achieved by retaining a bit of
>ITALIAN HERITAGE, snaffled out of Italy long ago, was not entirely
>clear to me.
>ward
That is so funny! But it must warm the cockles of an Italian in
London's heart to know that a picture, painted by Raphael in Italy
500 years ago, was considered part of the British heritage.
I worked a few blocks away from Trafalgar Square for a number of
years, and spent many, many lunch times in The National Gallery
enjoying the wonderful paintings there.
maureen
Gordon
>
>The controversy - and fund raising - were going on at full blast when
>we were there a few months ago. The picture is small and rather
>lack-luster -- one cannot suppose that all the experts are wrong and
>that it is not a Raphael -- however, even Raphael had his off days and
>this was one of them. The feet of the child are, quite simply, a
>botch and a scream!
>
>if you are interested, look in on:
>
>http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/cgi-bin/WebObjects.dll/CollectionPublisher.woa
>/wa/largeImage?workNumber=L582&collectionSection=work
>
>The thing is also small indeed, about 8X10 inches. Trafalgar Square
>was plastered with posters exhorting all to "SAVE OUR BRITISH
>HERITAGE." Exactly how this was to be achieved by retaining a bit of
>ITALIAN HERITAGE, snaffled out of Italy long ago, was not entirely
>clear to me.
>
>ward
>
The campaign hasn't reached Manchester yet....
I spent quite a few days looking round art galleries with my previous
girl friend, and we both agreed that the majority of paintings kept on
display in our galleries are dull and dismal. The stylised
presentation of Lords and Ladies of the aristocracy clearly bore little
resemblance to real people, and as for the horses depicted.......
The Rokeby Venus - now that's another story........
--
Gordon
Ward Stewart
wrote:
Get her to drag you through the National Gallery and there observe the
Rembrandt self portraits, the Caravaggio (death of the virgin) and the
best of all, Seurat. bathers at "Asnieres."
http://www.abcgallery.com/S/seurat/seurat33.html
There is more to the National than the Rokeby Venus:
MUCH more!
ward
------------------------------------------------
"In our democratic republic the default MUST BE
that the citizen is free to live his life in any
harmless way that he chooses."
Ward Stewart
-------------------------------------------------
rumpelstiltskin
<justusc...@not-here.com> wrote:
>m...@wmdsaga.can (maureen) wrote:
>
>>
>>Raphael's Madonna of the Pinks is big news.
>>
>>With stock markets as they are, and so few works by historic big
>>names in Art coming on the market , prices have shot to record
>>highs. The Getty Museum offered $35 million for Raphael's ,Madonna of
>>the Pinks., but the National Gallery in London, where the painting is
>>on loan, is trying to stop the painting going to yet another of the
>>transatlantic raiders of its works.
>>
>The Getty, if not one of the world's best museums, however that's
>measured, is certainly on a short list of the most spectacular. I've
>spent many hours in the British Museum, the Louvre, and the
>Metropolitan, but I think the Getty made the greatest impression on
>me.
>
>At the risk of introducing politics into this discussion, has it ever
>occurred to you, Maureen, that none of those great museums, or their
>contents, would exist were it not for the super rich and the
>religious?
That is indeed a big risk, and a very easy view to attack.
I'll abstain, for the moment. :-)
Gordon
>>
>>With stock markets as they are, and so few works by historic big
>>names in Art coming on the market , prices have shot to record
>>highs. The Getty Museum offered $35 million for Raphael's ,Madonna of
>>the Pinks., but the National Gallery in London, where the painting is
>>on loan, is trying to stop the painting going to yet another of the
>>transatlantic raiders of its works.
>>
>measured, is certainly on a short list of the most spectacular. I've
>spent many hours in the British Museum, the Louvre, and the
>Metropolitan, but I think the Getty made the greatest impression on
>me.
>
>At the risk of introducing politics into this discussion, has it ever
>occurred to you, Maureen, that none of those great museums, or their
>contents, would exist were it not for the super rich and the
>religious?
>
Is it not also true that the bulk of great paintings are hidden from the
view of the general public in vaults, through lack of display space?
--
Gordon
Gordon
>>
>>I spent quite a few days looking round art galleries with my previous
>>girl friend, and we both agreed that the majority of paintings kept on
>>display in our galleries are dull and dismal. The stylised
>>presentation of Lords and Ladies of the aristocracy clearly bore little
>>resemblance to real people, and as for the horses depicted.......
>>
>>The Rokeby Venus - now that's another story........
>
>Get her to drag you through the National Gallery and there observe the
>Rembrandt self portraits, the Caravaggio (death of the virgin) and the
>best of all, Seurat. bathers at "Asnieres."
>
approve of me spending quality time with my 'ex'. ;-)
>http://www.abcgallery.com/S/seurat/seurat33.html
>
>There is more to the National than the Rokeby Venus:
>
>http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/cgi-bin/WebObjects.dll/CollectionPublisher.woa
>/wa/work?workNumber=NG2057
>
>MUCH more!
>
>ward
>
I suppose I was being a little tongue-in-cheek in my comment, but I was
referring to the Manchester Art Gallery, and we also looked at the one
in York, but that was disappointing compared with the other attractions
in York, notably the Yorvic Centre, a relatively recently uncovered
piece of history.
For myself, the Railway Museum has always been the main reason to go to
York, not ignoring the marvellous Cathedral, but it always seems to be
surrounded by scaffolding whenever we have visited. Rather spoils the
exterior view!... Was there any restoration work ongoing at any you
visited in the UK?
In Salisbury Cathedral many years ago, there was an enormous oak beam on
timber trestles, on which we were allowed to inscribe our names for a
princely sum of 50p, before the beam was installed somewhere in the
upper regions of the building. It gave some idea of the scale and size
of the task of building the Cathedral!
--
Gordon
maureen
>>
>>With stock markets as they are, and so few works by historic big
>>names in Art coming on the market , prices have shot to record
>>highs. The Getty Museum offered $35 million for Raphael's ,Madonna of
>>the Pinks., but the National Gallery in London, where the painting is
>>on loan, is trying to stop the painting going to yet another of the
>>transatlantic raiders of its works.
>>
>measured, is certainly on a short list of the most spectacular. I've
>spent many hours in the British Museum, the Louvre, and the
>Metropolitan, but I think the Getty made the greatest impression on
>me.
>
>At the risk of introducing politics into this discussion, has it ever
>occurred to you, Maureen, that none of those great museums, or their
>contents, would exist were it not for the super rich and the
>religious?
>
>Jeff
You imply that I'm against the super rich and the main- stream
religious, Jeffrey, when nothing could be further from the truth.
My problems with the wealthy start when they become obscenely wealthy
while the poor become correspondingly poor, and the social safety net
takes a massive hit as a consequence.
I am very happy that there are some wealthy philanthropists out there
who share with us the beauty of some priceless work in art and music.
maureeen
Gordon
>On Fri, 25 Jul 2003 15:52:06 +0100, Gordon <Gor...@g3snx.demon.co.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>Ward Stewart <wste...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote
>>>
>>>The controversy - and fund raising - were going on at full blast when
>>>we were there a few months ago. The picture is small and rather
>>>lack-luster -- one cannot suppose that all the experts are wrong and
>>>that it is not a Raphael -- however, even Raphael had his off days and
>>>this was one of them. The feet of the child are, quite simply, a
>>>botch and a scream!
>>>
>>>if you are interested, look in on:
>>>
>>>http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/cgi-bin/WebObjects.dll/CollectionPublisher.w
>oa
>>>/wa/largeImage?workNumber=L582&collectionSection=work
>>>
Unimpressive. I see what you mean about the feet!
>
>http://www.abcgallery.com/S/seurat/seurat33.html
>
>There is more to the National than the Rokeby Venus:
>
>http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/cgi-bin/WebObjects.dll/CollectionPublisher.woa
>/wa/work?workNumber=NG2057
>
I watched a critique of the painting on an Arts program some time ago.
It was a ground-breaker for several reasons, one of which was the fact
that the subject was looking at the artist through the mirror.
It is quite erotic compared with most nude studies or the period and
earlier, IMHO. (Not that it is the only criteria by which I judge
paintings). ;-)
--
Gordon
rumpelstiltskin
<justusc...@not-here.com> wrote:
>Throw out every work of art where the subject was religious or the
>artist was financed by a wealthy patron or rich buyers and what would
>you have that pre-dates 1850?
The artists would have spent more time painting slices of life
as Brueghel did, and there can be little debate that his subject
matter is more varied and interesting than that of religious
painters.
The Dutch Renaissance was fired by a prosperous people,
not by a handful of plutocrats, and that's also a more interesting
artistic movement than most. It's certainly my favorite age of
art, at least before the 20th century.
I would very much have preferred 200 instrumental concerti
and chamber works from J.S.Bach than 200 cantatas.
"Preėmpting" is not the same as "creating".
>Michelangelo would have spent his life
>as a stone mason or house painter and Leonardo -- would the name even
>mean anything to you? What great piece of architecture dating prior to
>1800 do we owe to anyone other than the rich and powerful or the
>religious? What would we have from the Ancient World, from the Middle
>Ages, from Renaissance Europe, or from Asia? How many illuminated
>manuscripts? How many cathedrals?
>
>And if you haven't visited the Getty, wait for the Roman Villa to be
>completed, and get right down there. Plan on spending two or three
>days -- and be sure to take the architecture tour and try the
>restaurants.
I liked the Getty. I didn't visit the restaurants, in fact I don't
even remember there being any. I dislike sitting in restaurants,
in general, though,
Ward Stewart
wrote:
>Ward Stewart <wste...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote
>>>
>>>I spent quite a few days looking round art galleries with my previous
>>>girl friend, and we both agreed that the majority of paintings kept on
>>>display in our galleries are dull and dismal. The stylised
>>>presentation of Lords and Ladies of the aristocracy clearly bore little
>>>resemblance to real people, and as for the horses depicted.......
>>>
>>>The Rokeby Venus - now that's another story........
>>
>>Get her to drag you through the National Gallery and there observe the
>>Rembrandt self portraits, the Caravaggio (death of the virgin) and the
>>best of all, Seurat. bathers at "Asnieres."
>>
>That would be enjoyable, but I doubt if my current companion would
>approve of me spending quality time with my 'ex'. ;-)
>
>>http://www.abcgallery.com/S/seurat/seurat33.html
>>
>>There is more to the National than the Rokeby Venus:
>>
>>http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/cgi-bin/WebObjects.dll/CollectionPublisher.woa
>>/wa/work?workNumber=NG2057
>>
>>MUCH more!
>>
>>ward
>>
>I suppose I was being a little tongue-in-cheek in my comment, but I was
>referring to the Manchester Art Gallery, and we also looked at the one
>in York, but that was disappointing compared with the other attractions
>in York, notably the Yorvic Centre, a relatively recently uncovered
>piece of history.
Our high point at York was a rehearsal of a Handel piece for organ and
trumpet -- as we say here in Hawaii - "chicken skin."
Ward Stewart
What is this "Roman Villa" you speak of -- is it the recreation of the
villa from Hurculaneum that used to house the Getty in Malibu?
rumpelstiltskin
<justusc...@not-here.com> wrote:
>Without wealthy patrons, religious or otherwise, most artists of the
>ancient world, the Middle Ages, and Renaissance Europe wouldn't have
>spent time painting or sculpting anything. Without a Pope, Bishop, or
>Duke paying the bills they would have had to find other means of
>support.
Yes, and they did in Holland. Though it's not a zero-sum game,
great wealth doesn't fall out of the sky. It comes mainly from the
pockets of less wealthy people, who then cannot themselves
afford to subsidize art.
> Even now, the high end art market is financed by wealthy
>individuals. Of course there would always be something, but we were
>discussing the art that fills most museums. If you excluded art that
>was financed by the Church or wealthy patrons, a museum like the Getty
>would be denuded. In fact, the museum itself wouldn't exist -- and
>neither would the Raphael that started this thread. I was in Grace
>Cathedral today admiring the murals and stained glass windows -- as
>well as the altarpiece designed by Keith Haring and completed a few
>weeks before he died of AIDS in 1990. None of it would exist.
As I noted, preėmption. The twentieth century is perhaps the
greatest age of all in music, but not much of the great music is
religious, because most of the great composers were not very
religious, if at all, and religion's wealth and power had fallen far
below its prior level.
I should stop inside Grace Cathedral. I think I've only been
inside once, though I've often photographed the outside and
I once lived just half-a-block away from it, on Taylor between Pine
and California. Saint Mary's Cathedral (the "Bishop's Bendix") is
beautiful outside, but absolutely gorgeous inside. I went on a
photographic expedition a week ago, photographing all the
buildings in which I used to live. I forgot to photograph Kenneth
Rexroth's house, on Scott near Haight. It doesn't really count
since I only lived there two months and was a guest (trick) who
didn't pay rent. I never met Kenneth Rexroth: he was teaching
in Santa Cruz and had rented the place to the guys I was
staying with.
KENNETHS
Rexroth and Patchen and Fearing -- their mothers
Perhaps could distinguish their sons from the others,
But I am unable. My inner eye pictures
A three-bodied sun-lover issuing strictures,
Berating "Tom" Eliot, translating tanka,
Imbibing espresso and sneering at Sanka --
Six arms, thirty fingers, all writing abundantly
What pops into heads each named Kenneth, redundantly.
-- John Updike
>Jeff
rumpelstiltskin
<justusc...@not-here.com> wrote:
>You're right, it's not a zero sum game. You're wrong about everything
>else.
>>
>>> Even now, the high end art market is financed by wealthy
>>>individuals. Of course there would always be something, but we were
>>>discussing the art that fills most museums. If you excluded art that
>>>was financed by the Church or wealthy patrons, a museum like the Getty
>>>would be denuded. In fact, the museum itself wouldn't exist -- and
>>>neither would the Raphael that started this thread. I was in Grace
>>>Cathedral today admiring the murals and stained glass windows -- as
>>>well as the altarpiece designed by Keith Haring and completed a few
>>>weeks before he died of AIDS in 1990. None of it would exist.
>>
>>
>>
>> As I noted, preėmption. The twentieth century is perhaps the
>>greatest age of all in music, but not much of the great music is
>>religious, because most of the great composers were not very
>>religious, if at all, and religion's wealth and power had fallen far
>>below its prior level.
>
>You digress. We were talking about the content of the world's great
>museums -- content that was largely commissioned by wealthy patrons as
>well as the Church. It was, you know. (-8
Okay, I thought I was clear but I'll be more direct. The church
got the artists because it could pay them and the impoverished
peasants certainly couldn't.
The only other source of income was the aristocracy who also
usually preferred religious art, partly out of belief but largely, I
would say, out of a perception of the usefulness of religion in
maintaining the status quo because since the status quo existed,
it must be Jehovah's plan. Whether or not you agree with my
characterization, however, the fact is that both the church and
those with wealth outside the church demanded religious art
from the artists.
Now that the church doesn't have the influence it had, and
people who are nor religious primates nor inherited aristocracy
with a politic interest in sustaining religion, the artists have
found other means of sustenance. The religion was merely
the main template artists had available to them in the past.
The economics, plus the fact of the genuine religious belief
of most people before 1800, are why most old great art is
religious. It was always the people, not the religion, that
produced great artists. The religion was merely the available
template.
One might say (I have said) that Jehovah gives artists
something really big to write about, but Bartok's scorn for
religion didn't prevent him from writing things like "Music for
Strings, Percussion and Celesta" which are as profound and
colossal as the best from any age.
Gordon
>>referring to the Manchester Art Gallery, and we also looked at the one
>>in York, but that was disappointing compared with the other attractions
>>in York, notably the Yorvic Centre, a relatively recently uncovered
>>piece of history.
>
>Our high point at York was a rehearsal of a Handel piece for organ and
>trumpet -- as we say here in Hawaii - "chicken skin."
>
>ward
>
mentioned... :-)
One of the best times to visit a cathedral is when the organist is
trying out a few chords!
--
Gordon
Gordon
>those who have made our world a much pleasanter place.
>
>Jeff
I also enjoy some parts of our English countryside to walk in, thanks to
the Duke of Devonshire, but he is one of the few who welcome walkers to
virtually the whole estate. I can park there for free, unless I
wish to be close to the Stately Home.
However, the estate relies to a great extent on what the public spend
there to allow them to live in such a magnificent house, and the gift
shop and farm shop do well.
They also raise sheep, and host horse and sheepdog trials.
Other landowners are less amenable, notoriously a certain Mr Van
Hoogstraten, who is a ruthless millionaire landlord who has harassed and
bullied tenants out of his properties, etc.
He is currently in custody on appeal against his prison sentence for
(allegedly) employing two hit men to kill a business associate of his.
He escaped a murder charge, but was convicted of manslaughter, but on
appeal, his conviction was declared unsafe because the jury were mis-
directed during the trial. Obviously he can afford the best lawyers!
That's his background, but he has enraged walkers by blocking a Right of
Way across his land with a stack of old industrial freezers. He is
said to be building a mausoleum for his interment, and arranging for all
his wealth to be interred with him!
I supposed he must be Googled somewhere if you wanted to look him up....
--
Gordon
rumpelstiltskin
wrote:
>Ward Stewart <wste...@hawaii.rr.com> wrote
The politics of visiting organists is interesting. There are a
number of presets to control the sound on a big organ. These
require adjustment to a particular organist's tastes. Usually a
visiting organist is allowed to change the presets on one side,
I think the right side, but there will be holy hell to pay if he
messes with the presets on the other side which have been
finely tweaked by the home organist to his satisfaction.
rumpelstiltskin
wrote:
>Other landowners are less amenable, notoriously a certain Mr Van
>Hoogstraten, who is a ruthless millionaire landlord who has harassed and
>bullied tenants out of his properties, etc.
>
>He is currently in custody on appeal against his prison sentence for
>(allegedly) employing two hit men to kill a business associate of his.
>He escaped a murder charge, but was convicted of manslaughter, but on
>appeal, his conviction was declared unsafe because the jury were mis-
>directed during the trial. Obviously he can afford the best lawyers!
>
>That's his background, but he has enraged walkers by blocking a Right of
>Way across his land with a stack of old industrial freezers. He is
>said to be building a mausoleum for his interment, and arranging for all
>his wealth to be interred with him!
He sounds as though he'd be much more comfortable in the USA,
as I see El Castor has also noted.
maureen
>those who have made our world a much pleasanter place.
>
>Jeff
Don't get too carried away , Jeffrey. There is another side to the
coin.
Just keep in mind that before families like the Carnegies,
Vanderbilts, Rockefellers, and others , used campaign and
philanthropic donations to convince Americans how socially upright
they were, they were known as robber barons. They severly exploited
average working Americans.
And in today's world philanthropists use very favorable
tax-deductible funds to buy themselves an air of civic responsibility
by donating to the arts. .
Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote that a philanthropist is a man who gives
away what he should be giving back. The wealth of a country is a two
sided coin and involves work as well as entrepreneurship.
maureen.
Gordon
>
> The politics of visiting organists is interesting. There are a
>number of presets to control the sound on a big organ. These
>require adjustment to a particular organist's tastes. Usually a
>visiting organist is allowed to change the presets on one side,
>I think the right side, but there will be holy hell to pay if he
>messes with the presets on the other side which have been
>finely tweaked by the home organist to his satisfaction.
...which will soon be taken care of by the "User Options" menu, I
expect. :-)
--
Gordon
Gordon
>>
>>However, the estate relies to a great extent on what the public spend
>>there to allow them to live in such a magnificent house, and the gift
>>shop and farm shop do well.
>
>No doubt one day soon it will all be taxed away, but in the meantime I
>am sure he appreciates your generosity.
>
>As for that other bloke blocking the path with his freezers. What an
>unreasonable chap he is! Keeping out the trespassers is he? What will
>these property owners think of next?
>
>Now go have a picnic in your neighbors back yard, and if the bloody
>fool protests, just have him chucked in prison.
>
This just illustrates how ignorant you are of the principle of ancient
Rights Of Way. It is more important than a Constitution in terms of
personal freedom. The ROWs were there before this particular gangster
took over the land, and represent traditional through routes for
villagers to get to and from work, to visit markets, and for social
purposes etc.
Regarding the matter of taxes, the farmers are so heavily subsidised
these days that the walkers who pass peacefully along the huge network
of footpaths in Britain, are without a doubt contributing handsomely
through their taxes towards the income of the farmers and landowners!
--
Gordon
Gordon
--
Gordon
rumpelstiltskin
wrote:
I expect so. It seems like a good idea to me, but there'll
probably be some traditionalist resistance, and I can
sympathize with that too, to a certain extent. Bach spent
an hour each morning prepping his harpsichord, I've heard.
They do take a lot of work to keep in condition. It was
probably zen time for him, and good for him thereby.
Brahms created a fugue in his head every morning before
getting out of bed, I've heard, to get his brain working
ready for the day.
By the way, a cousin's boyfriend just wrote that he got a
"5" on the liberal conservative quiz. He's a Londoner.
Betty, who got a 15, said that though she was considered
liberal in Massachusetts, she was considered conservative
by her friends in California. That might indicate that El
Castor is really out there with his 26, but there are lots of
enclaves in California. (Betty lives in Silicon Valley which
is pretty civilized.)
Gordon
>m...@wmdsaga.can (maureen) wrote:
>
>>Don't get too carried away , Jeffrey. There is another side to the
>>coin.
>>
Unlike Bush and Blair's. They had a two-headed penny, they tossed it,
and when Bush called 'Heads!" they went to war.
Then there was a frantic search for reasons......
--
Gordon
Gordon
>
> Brahms created a fugue in his head every morning before
>getting out of bed, I've heard, to get his brain working
>ready for the day.
>
children who play musical instruments have better memories than those
who don't. The tests they set were word lists, which had to be
remembered.
--
Gordon
Gordon
>
>Sigh. I see I am forced to acquaint you with the provisions of English
>Common Law -- laws which through a profound respect for a civil
>society we in the United States have chosen to adhere to.
>
>"If a man crosses his neighbor's boundary by however innocent a
>mistake, or if his cattle escape into his neighbor's field, he is said
>to be liable in trespass quare clausum fregit."
>http://www.constitution.org/cmt/owh/commonlaw03.htm
>
>"Legalising trespass at common law?
>David Braham Q.C.
>
>In Turner v. Walsh (1881) 6 App. Cas. 636 the Privy Council said: "The
>proper way of looking at these cases is to look at the whole of the
>evidence together, to see whether there has been such a continuous and
>connected user as is sufficient to raise the presumption of
>dedication; and the presumption, if it can be made, is then of a
>complete dedication coeval with the early user". The Privy Council
>went on to state: "You refer the whole of the user to a lawful origin
>rather than to a series of trespasses". This looks suspiciously like a
>rule of convenience for legalising what had in fact been trespassing.
>Read in context, though, it can be seen that this was really directed
>at a wholly different point.
>An appraisal of the classic statement that "You refer the whole of the
>user to a lawful origin rather than to a series of trespasses". "
>http://dspace.dial.pipex.com/rwlr/s-6/s6-2-15.htm
>
>So, Gordon, it does sound like you descend from a long and noble
>lineage -- that of the serial trespasser. Tsk, tsk.
>
>By the way, I see in my investigation of English Common Law that there
>is another crime rooted in the same traditions -- "window peeking". If
>one of your claimed foot paths happens to meander past the bedroom
>window of the lord's 19 year old daughter, you don't uhh, er. Do you?
>
>Jeff
>
All of which is irrelevant. If a Right of Way crosses property then
there is a legal right to walk along the path for recreational purposes.
This is not to say that you are allowed to linger on the ROW and stare
into anyone's windows! Nor are you supposed to picnic on a ROW.
Some paths even lead through people's gardens, and in practice they tend
to greet the passer-by and take a pride in their gardens. We have
sometimes felt uncomfortable about such paths, but the locals are used
to it, as they appreciate their good fortune in living their lives in a
delightful spot. Most local authorities maintain the paths, stiles
and gates, and erect signposts or way markers to avoid anyone
accidentally trespassing by wandering off the ROW.
In fact, the local authorities are obliged to maintain the paths and
keep them free, although I have walked a few which were badly over
grown, probably due to infrequent use.
As a matter of fact, one established local Trail passes alongside one
boundary of my property, and if I see a group with rucksacks and boots I
often pass the time of day with them.
Usually the path through a farm is clear, and will take account of the
farmer's privacy, and of course during lambing time there are notices
about keeping dogs on leads. In fact, a dog which is worrying sheep
can be shot by the farmer without redress. We met the same farmer
one two successive walks, on one of which we had seen two dead sheep.
Two weeks later we met him again, and the dogs had been caught in the
act and despatched.
Under new legislation, the Right to Roam, these rights have been
extended in some areas, although the government is dragging its feet in
producing maps which designate the areas now fully open to roam.
The areas of open access which everyone can now enjoy were fought for
and won by working men who defied the gamekeepers and trespassed,
notably on the Kinder Plateau, in the Peak District.
The Kinder Trespass is described at:
http://www.trailzone.co.uk/kindertrespass.html
(Note the speech by the Duke of Devonshire, who attended the Centenary
celebrations)
**********************************************************************
Kinder Trespass Anniversary27 April 2002 marks the 70th anniversary of
the famous Kinder Trespass, when Benny Rothman and others struck a
decisive blow for the access rights we now enjoy.
Sadly, Benny Rothman died at the age of 90 on 25th January 2002 at his
home in Essex. He grew up in Manchester, and at the age of 20 was one of
the leaders of the now famous mass trespass in protest against the
landowners who zealously protected the high moorland. He was jailed for
four months for his part, but the wound was made. We have our Right to
Roam these days - something we take for granted - partly to thank him
for.
Ramblers, supported by the BMC, the National Trust and the Peak District
National Park Authority will be marking this historic event on 27 April
2002. The celebration will be themed about looking forward.
Marti Dougherty, Chairman of the Peak National park; Mike Harding
(comedian and famous rambler); and Ramblers Access Committee Chairman -
Kate Ashbrook will be Speaking, and Mike Harding will be leading a
session of music & song - including Kirsty McCall's song - "the
Manchester Rambler".
The venue: Hayfield - Bowden Bridge Quarry. 1.00pm
5th May 2002 - UPDATE
More than 1000 ramblers celebrated the mass trespass. The Duke of
Devonshire appeared to make a fine speech saying "I am aware that I
represent the villain of the piece this afternoon. But over the last 70
years times have changed and it gives me enormous pleasure to welcome
walkers to my estate today.
The trespass was a great shaming event on my family and the sentences
handed down were appalling. But out of great evil can come great good.
The trespass was the first event in the whole movement of access to the
countryside and the creation of our national parks"
Tributes were paid to Benny Rothman. Two of the original ramblers
attended - Bil Keen (90) form Sheffield and Jimmy Jones (5) from
Manchester. National Trust wardens and National park rangers led walkers
across the original route - and actors posing as gamewardens leaped out
and shocked walkers as they made the trip.
************************************************************************
England is a green and pleasant land, and a free land, compared with
some of our friends', but it had to be fought for. ;-)
--
Gordon
rumpelstiltskin
wrote:
I think that may be more of a connection than a cause. Kids who
are good at music are good at math too, speaking very generally.
Troy
I'd believe it.
jim stevens
FYI, A very much discussed topic in teaching. Especially by folks
who want to dump lots of cash into music programs. :) Would that
they put the same emphasis on just studying the material and early
reading.
http://www.mindinstitute.net/MIND3/mozart/mozart.php
http://parenting-baby.com/Parenting-Baby-Music-Research/Music-Research.html
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B000002134/103-3333694-1891065?vi=glance
Gary James
It's been a long time, but I have heard it said that genius is only
recognized in pursuits that are basically math. Including math,
music and chess.