art warehouse fire
Dave Budd
--
Per ardbeg ad annullo
Dave Budd
CA...@ntlworld.com says...
> On Wed, 26 May 2004 13:26:00 +0100, Dave Budd <ddot...@man.ac.uk> wrote:
>
> >ROFLMAO
>
> Yup, me too.
> It will be even funnier if Charlie Saatchi hasn't got proper insurance
> cover.
>
>
Well, I did wonder if it was an insurance scam. He woke up realising
most of it was utter tosh and worthless and torched it so he'd get some
cash back.
Sam Nelson
I was just wondering if maybe it was some KLF/GreyOrganisation-type[0] stunt.
Presumably the ashes of Tracey Emin's fucking tent (I use the phrase advisedly)
will become some sort of installation piece?
0] It appears one of my best friends from primary school is/was one of the
Grey Organisation. He always seemed kinda normal at the time.
--
SAm.
Eric Jarvis
>
> Well, I did wonder if it was an insurance scam. He woke up realising
> most of it was utter tosh and worthless and torched it so he'd get some
> cash back.
>
it includes a couple of my favourite pieces by Chris Ofili and Sarah
Lucas, and probably quite a lot I'd also love if I'd ever had the chance
to see it...it'll be insured to the hilt since that's one of the reasons
for storing stuff with Momart...but in art terms it;s an utter tragedy...I
don't think anyone will much miss the Damian Hirst pieces, but a lot of
the rest is liable to be extremely good and under exhibited
but we've become a nation of philistines who only care about finding the
cheap shot to sling at other people...fair enough on misc...but pretty
rich when it seems to be the attitude of a lot in the media that "I don't
get it so it must be crap, not that I've actually bothered to look or
anything"
it's all part of the death of craftsmanship...you can describe the Tracey
Emin piece as a tent with names on it, so why bother thinking about
whether it might have been done particularly cleverly...when you can just
stick a short label on something and treat that as the entire description
then you can churn out crap like Windows XP or NAV and simply declare that
it fits the label and bugger off early down the pub
as a culture we no longer want to bother with doing anything properly
--
eric
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
we don't need to make things idiot-proof,
we need to make idiots thing-proof
Dave Mayall
news:MPG.1b1ea882...@news.individual.net...
> it includes a couple of my favourite pieces by Chris Ofili and Sarah
> Lucas, and probably quite a lot I'd also love if I'd ever had the chance
> to see it...it'll be insured to the hilt since that's one of the reasons
> for storing stuff with Momart...but in art terms it;s an utter tragedy.
No it isn't.
A bit of pretentious tat got burnt.
A tragedy is when somebody is maimed or dies.
A sense of perspective about the relative insignificance of works of art in
the bigger scheme wouldn't go amis.
Richard Tobin
Eric Jarvis <w...@ericjarvis.co.uk> wrote:
>so why bother thinking about
>whether it might have been done particularly cleverly
If they're so clever, why don't they do it in a way that doesn't seem
ridiculous to all except those who have been educated to appreciate
it?
-- Richard
Big Tone
wrote:
>In article <hj39b0tcj07n3eifo...@4ax.com>, anarchREMOVE-
>CA...@ntlworld.com says...
>> On Wed, 26 May 2004 13:26:00 +0100, Dave Budd <ddot...@man.ac.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >ROFLMAO
>>
>> Yup, me too.
>> It will be even funnier if Charlie Saatchi hasn't got proper insurance
>> cover.
>>
>>
>Well, I did wonder if it was an insurance scam. He woke up realising
>most of it was utter tosh and worthless and torched it so he'd get some
>cash back.
Looks like the old 'working on the roof' scam. If the piccie in the
Torygraph is anything to go on.
--
Big Tone
davisondottonyaTntlworlddOtcom
One nice thing about egotists: they don't talk about other people.
Dave Budd
w...@ericjarvis.co.uk says...
> Dave Budd ddot...@man.ac.uk wrote:
> >
> > Well, I did wonder if it was an insurance scam. He woke up realising
> > most of it was utter tosh and worthless and torched it so he'd get some
> > cash back.
> >
>
> it includes a couple of my favourite pieces by Chris Ofili and Sarah
> Lucas, and probably quite a lot I'd also love if I'd ever had the chance
> to see it...
No doubt there was some good stuff in there. But its loss isn't going to
affect the number of people dieing of malaria, so it doesn't bother me
much. And, I have to wonder, if this art was so good, what was it doing
in a warehouse instead of being on display somewhere? Doesn't art have
to be seen to actually be art? Or is it a conceptual thing? Maybe we
could just build a new warehouse, tell people it's full of great art,
and ipso facto, it will be.
Sam Nelson
Dave Budd <ddot...@man.ac.uk> writes:
> And, I have to wonder, if this art was so good, what was it doing
> in a warehouse instead of being on display somewhere?
<AOL>
> Doesn't art have
> to be seen to actually be art? Or is it a conceptual thing? Maybe we
> could just build a new warehouse, tell people it's full of great art,
> and ipso facto, it will be.
Only, to take Ms Emin's PoV, if the person that builds the warehouse has
some artistic training. She didn't put in years of hard work at art school
just to have her bed condemned as, well, a bed, yknow.
--
SAm.
Phil Stovell
wrote:
>No doubt there was some good stuff in there. But its loss isn't going to
>affect the number of people dieing of malaria, so it doesn't bother me
>much. And, I have to wonder, if this art was so good, what was it doing
>in a warehouse instead of being on display somewhere? Doesn't art have
>to be seen to actually be art? Or is it a conceptual thing? Maybe we
>could just build a new warehouse, tell people it's full of great art,
>and ipso facto, it will be.
Schroedinger's pile of bricks. Man.
--
Phil Stovell
South Hampshire, UK
Phil Stovell
<aug...@kororaa.co.uk> wrote:
>The entity currently known as Dave Budd wrote:
>
>> Maybe we could just build a new warehouse, tell people it's full of
>> great art, and ipso facto, it will be.
>
>Neat. I wonder how much we could insure it for?
A virtual amount.
Linz
<alex....@munted.org.uk> wrote:
>On Wed, 26 May 2004, Dave Budd wrote:
>
>> ROFLMAO
>
><AOL>
>
>I've always wanted to set fire to her arty shite.
Whose?
--
Hooray for the differently sane.
Dave Budd
> In article <MPG.1b1eb198...@localnews.mcc.ac.uk>,
> Dave Budd <ddot...@man.ac.uk> writes:
> > And, I have to wonder, if this art was so good, what was it doing
> > in a warehouse instead of being on display somewhere?
>
> <AOL>
>
> > Doesn't art have
> > to be seen to actually be art? Or is it a conceptual thing? Maybe we
> > could just build a new warehouse, tell people it's full of great art,
> > and ipso facto, it will be.
>
> Only, to take Ms Emin's PoV, if the person that builds the warehouse has
> some artistic training.
We'll get Rachel Whiteread to do it. I like her stuff.
Evpuneq Erivf
> but we've become a nation of philistines who only care about finding the
> cheap shot to sling at other people...fair enough on misc...but pretty
> rich when it seems to be the attitude of a lot in the media that "I don't
> get it so it must be crap, not that I've actually bothered to look or
> anything"
Particularly amusing when the media itself has fallen significantly past
the art world in lack of worthwhile content.
> it's all part of the death of craftsmanship...you can describe the Tracey
> Emin piece as a tent with names on it, so why bother thinking about
> whether it might have been done particularly cleverly...
It's a TENT with NAMES written on it. Might be time for a reality check,
no? At least before you start thinking of running down the street in your
brand new set of emperor's clothes.
--
If I have seen further than other men it is because I am surrounded by pygmies.
17:00:51 up 41 days, 1:16, 7 users, load average: 0.11, 0.11, 0.06
Transfered 29.088 mb today, 2.404 gb this week and 9.823 gb this month.
E-mail address munged to prevent spam.
Keith Willoughby
> It's a TENT with NAMES written on it.
"It's a PIECE OF FABRIC with a WOMAN'S FACE painted on it."
--
Keith Willoughby http://flat222.org/keith/
Nid wy'n gofyn bywyd moethus
Ian G Batten
Quite a lot of art that even the redtops approves of is just a
rectangular piece of canvas with a face painted on it. I can do that
with my camera and a copy of photoshop.
ian
Janet McKnight
<ric...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> did say:
Because maybe, just maybe, they're hoping that people will actually
*THINK* about their work, think about what effect it has on them, what it
means to them, what the artist might have been trying to say. Rather than
saying "Well, I don't know anything about this, I haven't been educated in
it," and buggering off down the pub.
--
there's nothing wrong with you, the simple life gets complicated
Janet McKnight
<ddot...@man.ac.uk> did say:
But then you'd have to store all the stuff on the outside!
Rachel Whitread pinched her ideas from Bagpuss (the "Uncle Feedle"
episode) anyway.
--
we all go home lonely if we get to go home at all
Janet McKnight
<SPAMne...@bottest.com> did say:
> On Wed, 26 May 2004 14:14:38 +0100, Eric Jarvis wrote:
>
> > it's all part of the death of craftsmanship...you can describe the Tracey
> > Emin piece as a tent with names on it, so why bother thinking about
> > whether it might have been done particularly cleverly...
>
> It's a TENT with NAMES written on it.
Most war memorials are just bits of rock with names written on them.
My university degree is just a bit of paper with my name written on it.
--
voices singing out of empty cisterns and exhausted wells
Evpuneq Erivf
>> It's a TENT with NAMES written on it.
>
> "It's a PIECE OF FABRIC with a WOMAN'S FACE painted on it."
Yes indeed. This makes the prices rather curious, but there you go.
--
If I have seen further than other men it is because I am surrounded by pygmies.
17:47:24 up 41 days, 2:03, 7 users, load average: 0.25, 0.12, 0.09
Evpuneq Erivf
> Most war memorials are just bits of rock with names written on them.
>
> My university degree is just a bit of paper with my name written on it.
Those would be documentation, or factual record. Not the same thing as
art. More than a few people here have suggested that a degree is as
worthless as a tent with names on it several times anyhow.
--
If I have seen further than other men it is because I am surrounded by pygmies.
17:48:30 up 41 days, 2:04, 7 users, load average: 0.38, 0.15, 0.10
a plea from the dark
>"Eric Jarvis" <w...@ericjarvis.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:MPG.1b1ea882...@news.individual.net...
>> it includes a couple of my favourite pieces by Chris Ofili and Sarah
>> Lucas, and probably quite a lot I'd also love if I'd ever had the chance
>> to see it...it'll be insured to the hilt since that's one of the reasons
>> for storing stuff with Momart...but in art terms it;s an utter tragedy.
>
>No it isn't.
>A sense of perspective about the relative insignificance of works of art in
>the bigger scheme wouldn't go amis.
Maybe, just maybe, that's why he said "but in art terms", to distinguish
it from non-art-related tragedies?
--
I am not the caretaker of your mind.
Sam Nelson
says...
How would that be `painting'?
--
SAm.
bof
<ke...@flat222.org> writes
>Evpuneq Erivf wrote:
>
>> It's a TENT with NAMES written on it.
>
>"It's a PIECE OF FABRIC with a WOMAN'S FACE painted on it."
What? The Mona Lisa?
--
bof at bof dot me dot uk
Keith Willoughby
> In message <873c5ni...@flat222.dyndns.org>, Keith Willoughby
> <ke...@flat222.org> writes
>>Evpuneq Erivf wrote:
>>
>>> It's a TENT with NAMES written on it.
>>
>>"It's a PIECE OF FABRIC with a WOMAN'S FACE painted on it."
>
> What? The Mona Lisa?
That was the one I was aiming for, yes.
--
Keith Willoughby http://flat222.org/keith/
"Individuals have international duties which
transcend the national obligations of obedience"
-- Justice Robert Jackson
bof
>bof wrote:
>
>> In message <873c5ni...@flat222.dyndns.org>, Keith Willoughby
>> <ke...@flat222.org> writes
>>>Evpuneq Erivf wrote:
>>>
>>>> It's a TENT with NAMES written on it.
>>>
>>>"It's a PIECE OF FABRIC with a WOMAN'S FACE painted on it."
>>
>> What? The Mona Lisa?
>
>That was the one I was aiming for, yes.
Yes I realised after clicking send; not knowing the TENT piece I thought
it must also have a WOMAN'S FACE on it.
John of Aix
"Sam Nelson" <s...@ssrl.org.uk> a écrit dans le message de news:
c9257o$vdb$2...@dulnain.stir.ac.uk...
> 0] It appears one of my best friends from primary school is/was one of the
> Grey Organisation. He always seemed kinda normal at the time.
I expect Adolf Hitler's school chums thought the same about him..
John of Aix
"Dave Mayall" <da...@research-group.co.uk> a écrit dans le message de news:
c925t1$geh$1...@localhost.localdomain...
> A tragedy is when somebody is maimed or dies.
No it isn't. Look up the word in the dictionary.
John of Aix
"Keith Willoughby" <ke...@flat222.org> a écrit dans le message de news:
873c5ni...@flat222.dyndns.org...
> Evpuneq Erivf wrote:
>
> > It's a TENT with NAMES written on it.
>
> "It's a PIECE OF FABRIC with a WOMAN'S FACE painted on it."
So is La Gioconda.
Flying Hero Sandwich
>ROFLMAO
Go fist yourself.
G,
dave...@ukmisc.org.uk
> And lo, on 26 May 2004 13:23:35 GMT, Richard Tobin
> <ric...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> did say:
>
> > In article <MPG.1b1ea882...@news.individual.net>,
> > Eric Jarvis <w...@ericjarvis.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > >so why bother thinking about
> > >whether it might have been done particularly cleverly
> >
> > If they're so clever, why don't they do it in a way that doesn't seem
> > ridiculous to all except those who have been educated to appreciate
> > it?
>
> Because maybe, just maybe, they're hoping that people will actually
> *THINK* about their work, think about what effect it has on them, what it
> means to them, what the artist might have been trying to say. Rather than
> saying "Well, I don't know anything about this, I haven't been educated in
> it," and buggering off down the pub.
>
>
--
Am I in Bolton?
dave...@ukmisc.org.uk
> And lo, on Wed, 26 May 2004 16:17:09 +0100, Dave Budd
> <ddot...@man.ac.uk> did say:
>
> > In article <c928pt$vdb$5...@dulnain.stir.ac.uk>, s...@ssrl.org.uk says...
> > > In article <MPG.1b1eb198...@localnews.mcc.ac.uk>,
> > > Dave Budd <ddot...@man.ac.uk> writes:
> > > > And, I have to wonder, if this art was so good, what was it doing
> > > > in a warehouse instead of being on display somewhere?
> > >
> > > <AOL>
> > >
> > > > Doesn't art have
> > > > to be seen to actually be art? Or is it a conceptual thing? Maybe we
> > > > could just build a new warehouse, tell people it's full of great art,
> > > > and ipso facto, it will be.
> > >
> > > Only, to take Ms Emin's PoV, if the person that builds the warehouse has
> > > some artistic training.
> >
> > We'll get Rachel Whiteread to do it. I like her stuff.
>
> But then you'd have to store all the stuff on the outside!
Well at least we'd be able to SEE IT!
>
> Rachel Whitread pinched her ideas from Bagpuss (the "Uncle Feedle"
> episode) anyway.
>
>
--
Am I in Bolton?
Ian G Batten
Sam Nelson <s...@ssrl.org.uk> wrote:
> > Quite a lot of art that even the redtops approves of is just a
> > rectangular piece of canvas with a face painted on it. I can do that
> > with my camera and a copy of photoshop.
>
> How would that be `painting'?
Most of those images are seen by most viewers as printed
representations. Is does the Mona Lisa cease to be art except when it's
viewed as tyhe original oil painting?
ian
Eric Jarvis
> Eric Jarvis <w...@ericjarvis.co.uk> writes:
>
> >...but in art terms it;s an utter tragedy...
>
> Bullshit.
>
> The standard of art in the world has risen several points.
>
> I hope someone has the balls to exhibit some of the ashes.
>
Tent got to a lot of people, though it isn't one of my favourites...it was
certainly a notable piece...but several of Chris Ofili's were stored
there, and his stuff is rarely less than gorgeous...the same is true
of Sarah Lucas...and Jake and Dinos Chapman's Hell was in there, which may
not be categorised by everyone as "art" but has got a massive reaction
from everyone I know of who has seen it...the crud doesn't get stored with
Momart...they are bloody expensive...everything in there was likely to be
exhibited on a fairly regular basis for a hell of a long time to
come...even the early Hirst stuff has some academic interest (as in "how
did a vaguely promising but facile painter get to be so damn famous")
--
eric
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
Bigjobs
> Dave Budd ddot...@man.ac.uk wrote:
>>
>> Well, I did wonder if it was an insurance scam. He woke up realising
>> most of it was utter tosh and worthless and torched it so he'd get
>> some cash back.
>>
>
> it includes a couple of my favourite pieces by Chris Ofili and Sarah
> Lucas, and probably quite a lot I'd also love if I'd ever had the
> chance to see it...it'll be insured to the hilt since that's one of
> utter tragedy...I don't think anyone will much miss the Damian Hirst
> pieces, but a lot of the rest is liable to be extremely good and
> under exhibited
>
> but we've become a nation of philistines who only care about finding
> the cheap shot to sling at other people...fair enough on misc...but
> pretty rich when it seems to be the attitude of a lot in the media
> that "I don't get it so it must be crap, not that I've actually
> bothered to look or anything"
>
Whilst I don't think that Tracey emin/Damian Hirst et al are artists in the
true sense of the word (and don't ask me what the true sense actually is)
and I don't like their work, I respect the right of other people to like it
and pay exhorbitant amounts of money for it, hell it is their money, let
them do with it as they wish.
Bigjobs
Marcus Houlden
wrote the following to uk.misc:
> Eric Jarvis <w...@ericjarvis.co.uk> wrote:
>> but several of Chris Ofili's were stored
>> there, and his stuff is rarely less than gorgeous...
>
> That's the one with elephant poo isn't it?
>
> It all deserved to go up in flames if only for the sake of public
> hygiene.
Private Eye did a painting by numbers version of it a few years back (all
the sections being #2 FWIW).
I'm not sure what to make of the effects of the fire. Quite a lot of
overrated claptrap did go up in smoke, but (I imagine) quite a lot of time
was spent on creating it and it meant something to some people.
mh.
--
Reply-to address *is* valid.
Richard Tobin
Janet McKnight <jane...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>Because maybe, just maybe, they're hoping that people will actually
>*THINK* about their work, think about what effect it has on them, what it
>means to them, what the artist might have been trying to say.
If so, they're not going the right way about it.
It's like spam. Maybe one of the two hundred e-mails I got today
urging me to participate in some implausible scheme is actually
genuine. But I'm not going to read them all carefully just in case.
Much better to
>bugger[] off down the pub.
-- Richard
Richard Tobin
Keith Willoughby <ke...@flat222.org> wrote:
>>>"It's a PIECE OF FABRIC with a WOMAN'S FACE painted on it."
>>
>> What? The Mona Lisa?
>
>That was the one I was aiming for, yes.
I've never been able to understand the fuss about that one either.
When I saw it, my reaction was "it's awfully small"[1].
[1] as the actress said to the bishop.
-- Richard
Evpuneq Erivf
>>> Most war memorials are just bits of rock with names written on them.
>>>
>>> My university degree is just a bit of paper with my name written on it.
>>
>>Those would be documentation, or factual record. Not the same thing as
>>art.
>
> So you know what art is? Do tell.
It's one of those things which is easy to say what it isn't. Like the
taste of chicken. The reciprocal is more complicated
--
If I have seen further than other men it is because I am surrounded by pygmies.
03:16:37 up 41 days, 11:32, 7 users, load average: 0.07, 0.03, 0.00
Transfered 0.005 mb today, 2.469 gb this week and 9.89 gb this month.
E-mail address munged to prevent spam.
John of Aix
"Giles Todd" <g...@prullenbak.todd.nu> a écrit dans le message de news:
38rab0lk7tg0jfd0p...@4ax.com...
> Lisa / La Gioconda' is painted in oil on wood. Or maybe you are
> talking about some other painting altogether.
Whoosh. So it is. Just substitute any other painting of a female (on canvas)
hanging in any gallery of your choosing then
Sam Nelson
Janet McKnight
<aug...@kororaa.co.uk> did say:
> The entity currently known as Eric Jarvis wrote:
>
> > even the early Hirst stuff has some academic interest (as in "how
> > did a vaguely promising but facile painter get to be so damn
> > famous")
>
> On the other hand, in this day and age when everything is catalogued
> and recorded to the Nth degree, is the loss of the actual artefact
> itself of any more than a minor inconvenience?
OOI, would you feel the same way if the Louvre was razed to the ground?
--
we all go home lonely if we get to go home at all
Janet McKnight
<j.mu...@nospamlibertysurf.fr> did say:
> "Dave Mayall" <da...@research-group.co.uk> a écrit dans le message de news:
> c925t1$geh$1...@localhost.localdomain...
>
> > A tragedy is when somebody is maimed or dies.
>
> No it isn't. Look up the word in the dictionary.
A tragedy is a five-act play in which everybody is dead by the end.
--
too bad the burial was premature she said
Janet McKnight
<dave...@ukmisc.org.uk> did say:
Well, obviously that's the instinctive reaction, but don't you think
there's a chance that TRYING TO THINK might elicit some other reactions?
Do you think all study of the Arts is worthless? (If not, do you think
that knowledge about the Arts can only be acquired in a dedicated Arts
Teaching Classroom by a certified Arts Teacher?)
I mean, there are plenty of books which have completely underwhelmed me on
the first reading, but on subsequent re-readings I've noticed things that
make me think "Ooh, that's clever".
Now admittedly buggering off down the pub is a perfectly reasonable
reaction to being confronted with all that worthless "literature" junk,
but I wasn't trying to answer the question of "why should x appreciate the
arts"; the original question was more along the lines of "If artists are
so clever, why can't they create something that appeals to the lowest
common denominator?"
But, whatever.
--
time to wave goodbye now
Janet McKnight
<ric...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> did say:
> In article <slrncb9hnc....@chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
> Janet McKnight <jane...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>
> >Because maybe, just maybe, they're hoping that people will actually
> >*THINK* about their work, think about what effect it has on them, what it
> >means to them, what the artist might have been trying to say.
>
> If so, they're not going the right way about it.
Seems to work for some people.
> It's like spam. Maybe one of the two hundred e-mails I got today
> urging me to participate in some implausible scheme is actually
> genuine. But I'm not going to read them all carefully just in case.
Do you really think all artists are just scam-merchants? Perhaps I'm just
naive, but all the artists I've known have seemed to be motivated by
things other than $$$$$$GETRICHQUICK$$$$$$$. OTOH, none of them has so far
Got Rich Quick, so maybe they're just pretending the money doesn't
interest them, to maintain a semblance of integrity.
> Much better to
>
> >bugger[] off down the pub.
I'm not knocking the appeal of BODTP. But beer, for all its many joys,
doesn't make me think.
--
voices singing out of empty cisterns and exhausted wells
Dave Budd
j.mu...@nospamlibertysurf.fr says...
--
Per ardbeg ad annullo
Dave Budd
CA...@ntlworld.com says...
> charcoal, elephant shit, then why can't it be created using a computer and
> software? It's not the material that makes it art, it's the intention.
ITYM the intention is necessary, but not sufficient.
And the Dadaists would cavil in any case: cf "found objects"
Dave Budd
jane...@chiark.greenend.org.uk says...
> Do you think all study of the Arts is worthless?
No. I don't believe I've said anythign of the sort, ever, at all,
anywhere.
(If not, do you think
> that knowledge about the Arts can only be acquired in a dedicated Arts
> Teaching Classroom by a certified Arts Teacher?)
Ha. That would be silly.
I suppose it's a bit like music, really. Some people like jazz, others
say Learn The Tune. Lots of musos like Steely Dan, but lots of non-musos
think it's Lift Music.
It's certainly good for an argument, coz there is no answer.
Dave Budd
> > We'll get Rachel Whiteread to do it. I like her stuff.
>
> But then you'd have to store all the stuff on the outside!
didja ever read that scifi story about the aliens who did surgery by
turning bodies inside-out via hyperspace, so they could get at the
organs easily, without cutting?
bof
<aug...@kororaa.co.uk> writes
>sometimes that we nowadays have a fetish for preservation, and that
>there's too much /stuff/ hanging around taking up space...
How about burning down the British Library? . . . get rid of all those
fusty old books and use the space for something useful like a
$usefulthing.
--
bof at bof dot me dot uk
Ian G Batten
Dave Budd <ddot...@man.ac.uk> wrote:
> I suppose it's a bit like music, really. Some people like jazz, others
> say Learn The Tune. Lots of musos like Steely Dan, but lots of non-musos
> think it's Lift Music.
Quite. Someone has advanced the argument, paraphrasing, why do all
these ``artists'' make ``art'' which only other ``artists'' claim to
understand, and why don't they make it more accessible? To which the
answer is: most jazz post 1970, for which the main audience appears to
be its own practicioners.
ian
Sam Nelson
August West <aug...@kororaa.co.uk> writes:
> I do feel
> sometimes that we nowadays have a fetish for preservation, and that
> there's too much /stuff/ hanging around taking up space...
Absolutely---and we can't save _all_ the buildings, either.
--
SAm.
Janet McKnight
<aug...@kororaa.co.uk> did say:
> In the spirit of Neigh Quack Moo, Janet McKnight said:
>
> > And lo, on Wed, 26 May 2004 23:28:27 +0100, August West
> > <aug...@kororaa.co.uk> did say:
> >
> >> On the other hand, in this day and age when everything is catalogued
> >> and recorded to the Nth degree, is the loss of the actual artefact
> >> itself of any more than a minor inconvenience?
> >
> > OOI, would you feel the same way if the Louvre was razed to the ground?
>
> I'm unsure; that's why I was asking the *question*.
1. I thought it was a rhetorical question.
2. You said "in this day and age", and it wasn't clear how far back "this
day and age" extended -- i.e. whether you were talking only about
"modern" art, whatever that is defined as.
> I do feel
> sometimes that we nowadays have a fetish for preservation, and that
> there's too much /stuff/ hanging around taking up space...
Agreed. I wonder what will happen when we run out of room.
--
you live, you learn, you crash and burn
Janet McKnight
<s...@ssrl.org.uk> did say:
We could fill them with concrete and ... no, wait, we've done that.
--
you can't get lost when you're always found
Janet McKnight
<ddot...@man.ac.uk> did say:
> In article <slrncbb645....@chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
> jane...@chiark.greenend.org.uk says...
> > Do you think all study of the Arts is worthless?
>
> No. I don't believe I've said anythign of the sort, ever, at all,
> anywhere.
It seemed to be the (il)logical conclusion of the attitude that it was
impossible to derive any more interest/information/interpretation/moo from
a work of art than "I don't get it, I'm going down the pub".
Or do you think some people "get it", others don't, and there's no way to
get from one state to the other?
> I suppose it's a bit like music, really. Some people like jazz, others
> say Learn The Tune. Lots of musos like Steely Dan, but lots of non-musos
> think it's Lift Music.
True, but see above: do you think there's any value in trying to show the
people who say "it's Lift Music" why you think it's something more than
that?
I mean, my instinctive reaction to some jazz would be "that's lift-music",
but I live in hope that somebody will be able to get beyond "If you don't
understand it, you'll never understand it, you're obviously just Not A
Jazz Person" and actually try to show me what they see in it. I mean,
A-Level music managed to get me to see some merit in pieces of Classical
and Romantic music I'd've otherwise been unimpressed by; I'm sure jazz
can't be *so* beardedly inscrutable that only men over the age of 40 can
understand it.
Of course, there is a school of argument that says that if you're not
initially impressed by something then it's just shit and there's no point
in bothering to try to find merit in it, you might as well just BODTP.
(Which is fair enough, whatever turns you on, etc.) But generally I like
to try to work out why other people might value something. Whether that
something is Braque, Brahms, or Buffy.
> It's certainly good for an argument, coz there is no answer.
I don't like arguments. Can we have a popcorn-fight instead?
--
you think you are just killing time when all the while time is killing you
Willy Eckerslyke
>>>>We'll get Rachel Whiteread to do it. I like her stuff.
> I liked "House".
>
> Can someone wake me up if she does anything else original?
She was trying to do Tracey Emin's cat, but couldn't get it to eat
enough concrete.
Janet McKnight
<anarchRE...@ntlworld.com> did say:
> On Thu, 27 May 2004 03:17:59 +0100, Evpuneq Erivf
> <SPAMne...@bottest.com> wrote:
>
> >It's one of those things which is easy to say what it isn't.
>
> No it isn't.
I think it's easy to point to *some things* which *most people* would
agree aren't art. And some things which most people would agree probably
are art.
#include <prototype_theory.h>
That is, assuming that those people agree that there is such a thing as
'art', or that there is any point in using the term to describe things.
#include <solipsism.h>
--
where you were so beautiful oh now you're just confused
Janet McKnight
<ddot...@man.ac.uk> did say:
> > > We'll get Rachel Whiteread to do it. I like her stuff.
Nope. Who's it by?
--
you peel me like an onion skin and wonder at the state I'm in
Sam Nelson
jane...@chiark.greenend.org.uk (Janet McKnight) writes:
> And lo, on Thu, 27 May 2004 09:05:52 +0100, Dave Budd
> <ddot...@man.ac.uk> did say:
>
> > > > We'll get Rachel Whiteread to do it. I like her stuff.
> > >
> > > But then you'd have to store all the stuff on the outside!
> >
> > didja ever read that scifi story about the aliens who did surgery by
> > turning bodies inside-out via hyperspace, so they could get at the
> > organs easily, without cutting?
>
> Nope. Who's it by?
Richard Rogers?
--
SAm.
Dave Budd
jane...@chiark.greenend.org.uk says...
>
> Agreed. I wonder what will happen when we run out of room.
Lebensraum!
Willy Eckerslyke
> Doesn't art have
> to be seen to actually be art? Or is it a conceptual thing? Maybe we
> could just build a new warehouse, tell people it's full of great art,
> and ipso facto, it will be.
Can we have some of Nat Tate's work in it?
Dave Budd
jane...@chiark.greenend.org.uk says...
> And lo, on Thu, 27 May 2004 09:04:32 +0100, Dave Budd
> <ddot...@man.ac.uk> did say:
>
> > In article <slrncbb645....@chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
> > jane...@chiark.greenend.org.uk says...
> > > Do you think all study of the Arts is worthless?
> >
> > No. I don't believe I've said anythign of the sort, ever, at all,
> > anywhere.
>
> It seemed to be the (il)logical conclusion of the attitude that it was
> impossible to derive any more interest/information/interpretation/moo from
> a work of art than "I don't get it, I'm going down the pub".
>
that it can't.
> Or do you think some people "get it", others don't, and there's no way to
> get from one state to the other?
It's not at all clear that the transition from not geting it to getting
it is worth the time and effort for most people. The payback is very
small.
Perhaps art-for-the-initiate should have special galleries all of its
own, which the rest of us can, for the most part, ignore. For a lot of
people of cousre, that's all galleries.
>
> I don't like arguments. Can we have a popcorn-fight instead?
A big paddling pool full of popcorn, by any chance?
Jello?
Semolina?
Dave Budd
jane...@chiark.greenend.org.uk says...
> And lo, on Thu, 27 May 2004 09:05:52 +0100, Dave Budd
> <ddot...@man.ac.uk> did say:
>
> > > > We'll get Rachel Whiteread to do it. I like her stuff.
> > >
> > > But then you'd have to store all the stuff on the outside!
> >
> > didja ever read that scifi story about the aliens who did surgery by
> > turning bodies inside-out via hyperspace, so they could get at the
> > organs easily, without cutting?
>
> Nope. Who's it by?
>
>
Sam Nelson
Dave Budd <ddot...@man.ac.uk> writes:
> In article <slrncbbatm....@chiark.greenend.org.uk>,
> jane...@chiark.greenend.org.uk says...
> >
> > Agreed. I wonder what will happen when we run out of room.
>
> Lebensraum!
Godwin!
--
SAm.
Sam Nelson
August West <aug...@kororaa.co.uk> writes:
> In the spirit of Neigh Quack Moo, Janet McKnight said:
>
> > And lo, on Thu, 27 May 2004 09:02:08 +0100, August West
> > <aug...@kororaa.co.uk> did say:
> >
> >
> > 1. I thought it was a rhetorical question.
>
> brick uni what never did latin.
Isn't `rhetoric' what uk.misc is all about?
> I'm not muich involved with the visual arts, but in architecure, where
> I know a litle bit more, we are preserving frankly third-rate
> buildings simply because they are old, and inhibiting truly modern
> building and design becasue "it won't fit in nicely".
...with the third-rate old buildings, presumably.
--
SAm.
Ian G Batten
Alex Buell <alex....@munted.org.uk> wrote:
> On Thu, 27 May 2004, Janet McKnight wrote:
>
> > > On the other hand, in this day and age when everything is catalogued
> > > and recorded to the Nth degree, is the loss of the actual artefact
> > > itself of any more than a minor inconvenience?
> >
> > OOI, would you feel the same way if the Louvre was razed to the ground?
>
> upset.
The person to whom I alluded earlier, who shall not be named, was most
surprised to learn that the degenerate artists he despised could also do
the sort of landscapes he aspired to, but didn't. I've seen some of
Emin's drawings, for example, and Kim Howells would be somewhat put into
the shade. Picasso could do representational with the best of them: you
don't get to paint Gurnica unless you have the draughtmanship chops (and
the initial sketches alone are worth a trip to Madrid). However, why do
we need more representational painting?
Some might say the same of jazz musicians: given that Keith Jarratt can
make a pretty good fist of the Brandenberg Concerti, on the very
challenging harpischord, why does he do all that aimless noodling?
I'm the first to point out that there's a fear amongst some people that
they don't want to be like the audience of the first performance of The
Rite of Spring, booing something that posterity would be rather kind to.
However, the belief that (pace Fukayama) Art is Finished, and all that
we have left to do is churn pastiche of what has gone before is just
inane. Van Gogh, Seurat, Monet, Manet and Picasso were all dismissed as
fools and charlatans in their lifetimes. Are they not ``proper art''?
Their contemporaries didn't think so.
ian
Ian G Batten
August West <aug...@kororaa.co.uk> wrote:
> > To which the answer is: most jazz post 1970, for which the main
> > audience appears to be its own practicioners.
>
> total lack of public funding. Can the same be said of modern visual
> art?
Probably. Almost all the stuff that gets railed about is privately
funded. The galleries are publically funded, but then so are most of
the concert halls.
ian
Ian G Batten
Janet McKnight <jane...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> in bothering to try to find merit in it, you might as well just BODTP.
I read that as BOOTP.
ian
bof
<aug...@kororaa.co.uk> writes
>The entity currently known as bof wrote:
>
>> In message <m365ai....@news2.kororaa.com>, August West
>> <aug...@kororaa.co.uk> writes
>>>In the spirit of Neigh Quack Moo, Janet McKnight said:
>>>
>>>> And lo, on Wed, 26 May 2004 23:28:27 +0100, August West
>>>> <aug...@kororaa.co.uk> did say:
>>>>
>>>>> catalogued and recorded to the Nth degree, is the loss of the
>>>>> actual artefact itself of any more than a minor inconvenience?
>>>>
>>>> OOI, would you feel the same way if the Louvre was razed to the ground?
>>>
>>>I'm unsure; that's why I was asking the *question*. I do feel
>>>sometimes that we nowadays have a fetish for preservation, and that
>>>there's too much /stuff/ hanging around taking up space...
>>
>> How about burning down the British Library? . . .
>
Perfectly well thanks
>I'm not *advocating*, just questioning.
Wasn't suggesting you were advocating anything, I'm just questioning
where the boundary lies between what's kept and what's lost. Given the
choice I'd rather keep Pollock's Blue Poles than an old copy of the
Bible.
>
>> get rid of all those fusty old books and use the space for something
>> useful like a $usefulthing.
>
>Books are different, anyway. They are meta-objects.
>They contain information.
Scan it, store it, burn the book.
Sam Nelson
Dave Budd <ddot...@man.ac.uk> writes:
> It's not at all clear that the transition from not geting it to getting
> it is worth the time and effort for most people. The payback is very
> small.
I went to the Monet exhibition in Embra late last year. I definitely didn't
get Monet before that, and I think I do now. That was one of the best things
that happened to me last year, I think. Not that I _know_ anything much about
Monet, you understand, but I _get_ him.
--
SAm.
Sam Nelson
Ian G Batten <I.G.B...@batten.eu.org> writes:
> The person to whom I alluded earlier, who shall not be named, was most
> surprised to learn that the degenerate artists he despised could also do
> the sort of landscapes he aspired to, but didn't. I've seen some of
> Emin's drawings, for example, and Kim Howells would be somewhat put into
> the shade.
It's perhaps a pity she only makes a fuss of the pointless shite, then. You
go and see `Whistler's Mother' at the Hunterian and you wonder what the point
of the several square feet of frankly tedious muddiness is, and then you go to
the Burrell and see the positively life-affirming Whistler lithographs they
have there, and while you still don't get the point of the mud, you're
prepared to put up with it.
--
SAm.
a plea from the dark
No. Literature is over-rated.
Fancy a pint?
--
I am not the caretaker of your mind.
Janet McKnight
<alex....@munted.org.uk> did say:
> On Thu, 27 May 2004, Janet McKnight wrote:
>
> > > On the other hand, in this day and age when everything is catalogued
> > > and recorded to the Nth degree, is the loss of the actual artefact
> > > itself of any more than a minor inconvenience?
> >
> > OOI, would you feel the same way if the Louvre was razed to the ground?
>
> The Louvre has what I call "proper" art, therefore I'd be very, very, very
> upset.
So what makes the stuff in the Louvre "proper" art?
And why would you be upset?
Sam Nelson
> digial medium. Books are the final repository of our culture.
In three thousand years time there'll only be our pottery and our shit and
our bones left anyway.
--
SAm.
Ian G Batten
Sam Nelson <s...@ssrl.org.uk> wrote:
> I went to the Monet exhibition in Embra late last year. I definitely didn't
> get Monet before that, and I think I do now. That was one of the best things
But Monet was heavily criticised in his time, and for many years was
unable to sell any paintings. Seurat was even more heavily
criticised. Both are now about as mainstream as it's possible to
imagine. How does the contemporary view of Monet in his time differ
from the views you espouse about Emin?
And looking at it the other way around, there were contemporaries of
Monet, whose names I cannot recall without reference works to hand, who
_did_ sell, and _were_ critical successes. That I can't remember them,
and you probably won't jump in with their names, is rather my point.
ian