Art? Or just bollocks?
gazzafield
cupra
Paul - xxx
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/nottinghamshire/5010408.stm
Bollocks
--
Paul ...
(8(|) Homer Rules ..... Doh !!!
Steve Firth
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/nottinghamshire/5010408.stm
Utter bollocks, mentally impoverished wannabee fails to create art project.
Slim
I mean that in a purely hetrosexual way !!
Regards
Slim.
Westy
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/nottinghamshire/5010408.stm
>
This is way beyond bollocks.
Apparently, Samantha says her car has a male personality - what has
she been doing? bouncing up and down on the gear knob?
fishman
spend most of their married lives shagging machines.
Gizmo
"gazzafield" <rufty_tuft...@nospam.says_I.ko> wrote in message
news:j_-dnQnrz_-...@pipex.net...
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/nottinghamshire/5010408.stm
Some fuckwit "student" pissing tax payers money up the wall.
Rob
|| http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/nottinghamshire/5010408.stm
Both. The art is in passing it off as anything other than bollocks.
--
Rob
Westy
<rufty_tuft...@nospam.says_I.ko> wrote:
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/nottinghamshire/5010408.stm
>
Wonder how the car made it's wedding vows?
She'll have to keep it till it's on the scrap heap now will she? In
sickness and in health?
In case no one has picked up on it - this sort of shit really really
annoys me.
Cessna172
"gazzafield" <rufty_tuft...@nospam.says_I.ko> wrote in message
news:j_-dnQnrz_-...@pipex.net...
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/nottinghamshire/5010408.stm
>
>
She will need to look elswhere for the bollocks.
Cessna172
gazzafield
news:KtydnR_ZF6l...@bt.com...
> gazzafield wrote:
> || http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/nottinghamshire/5010408.stm
>
> Both. The art is in passing it off as anything other than bollocks.
Good point. Clever how so many of these arty farty types appear to pull off
that stunt.
Clive George
news:22m87298kue8a91ha...@4ax.com...
Why?
It's just some art college project which happens to have been sufficiently
individual to have been picked up by the news people. Nothing particularly
outrageous at all.
clive
Westy
Give over it has never been art or a project. IMHO, art is painting,
sculpture etc. - i.e. requires some sort of skill.
Brimstone - what do you think on this one???
Brimstone
It's bollocks, but enjoyable bollocks, if you like that sort of thing. It's
doing no one any harm and giving the non-miserable bastards amongst us a
laugh.
Clive George
>>> In case no one has picked up on it - this sort of shit really really
>>> annoys me.
>>
>>Why?
>>
>>It's just some art college project which happens to have been sufficiently
>>individual to have been picked up by the news people. Nothing particularly
>>outrageous at all.
>>
> Give over it has never been art or a project. IMHO, art is painting,
> sculpture etc. - i.e. requires some sort of skill.
It's definitely been a project - there has been effort put into it. Art?
That's for the people marking her project to decide. It appears to have
gathered sufficient attention to be worth considering though.
My opinion? It's harmless nonsense.
clive
Westy
Yes - it is nearer comedy than art.
Westy
It is harmless and has gathered public attention purely because it is
laughable, ridiculous and errrrr bollocks.
Steve Firth
> Nothing particularly
> outrageous at all.
Who say's it's outrageous? It's not even that, it's just some dull crap
from someone without the skill to sculpt, draw or paint.
Conor
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/nottinghamshire/5010408.stm
>
Bollocks. Fits in well with all the Turner shite at the Tate.
--
Conor,
Grumpy Old Man.
Same shit, different day.
Clive George
"Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
news:16dte5vlallrd.v...@40tude.net...
> On Wed, 24 May 2006 14:27:10 +0100, Clive George wrote:
>
>> Nothing particularly
>> outrageous at all.
>
> Who say's it's outrageous?
Couple of people on this NG apparently complaining about it.
clive
JPG
gazzafield wrote:
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/nottinghamshire/5010408.stm
My opinion:
I think that reality is unattainable," however, according to Long ,
it is not so much reality that is unattainable, but rather the defining
characteristic of reality. But the main theme of the works of Smith is
a neocapitalist totality. Hamburger suggests that we have to choose
between the subsemioticist paradigm of context and posttextual semantic
theory.
"Class is fundamentally dead," says Sartre. In a sense, in Clerks,
Smith examines the neodeconstructivist paradigm of narrative; in Dogma
he analyses Baudrillardist simulacra. Many narratives concerning the
role of the observer as poet exist.
Thus, the feminine/masculine distinction which is a central theme of
Smith's Mallrats emerges again in Chasing Amy, although in a more
mythopoetical sense. Baudrillard uses the term 'the subsemioticist
paradigm of context' to denote a self-supporting paradox.
In a sense, Foucault suggests the use of structural nihilism to analyse
sexual identity. Debord uses the term 'the subsemioticist paradigm of
context' to denote the role of the writer as reader.
But the characteristic theme of Wilson's[3] essay on dialectic
situationism is the stasis, and eventually the futility, of
presemioticist sexuality. If the neodeconstructivist paradigm of
narrative holds, we have to choose between Batailleist `powerful
communication' and cultural theory.
If one examines Baudrillardist simulacra, one is faced with a choice:
either reject the subsemioticist paradigm of context or conclude that
discourse is a product of communication. In a sense, the subject is
contextualised into a Baudrillardist simulacra that includes truth as a
reality. In Clerks, Smith reiterates postcapitalist discourse; in
Dogma, however, he deconstructs Baudrillardist simulacra.
"Sexual identity is unattainable," says Marx. But the
neodeconstructivist paradigm of narrative implies that the
establishment is capable of intent, but only if sexuality is equal to
narrativity; otherwise, the significance of the observer is social
comment. An abundance of desublimations concerning the subsemioticist
paradigm of context may be found.
It could be said that Humphrey[4] suggests that we have to choose
between the neodeconstructivist paradigm of narrative and textual
theory. Sartre uses the term 'subpatriarchial textual theory' to
denote not, in fact, narrative, but neonarrative.
Thus, the premise of the neodeconstructivist paradigm of narrative
holds that truth is capable of significance. If postcultural discourse
holds, we have to choose between the neodeconstructivist paradigm of
narrative and dialectic precapitalist theory.
In a sense, the primary theme of the works of Smith is a mythopoetical
whole. Foucault uses the term 'the subsemioticist paradigm of
context' to denote the rubicon, and subsequent absurdity, of semiotic
class.
"Sexuality is part of the failure of art," says Marx; however,
according to McElwaine[5] , it is not so much sexuality that is part of
the failure of art, but rather the fatal flaw, and some would say the
defining characteristic, of sexuality. Thus, several deappropriations
concerning the bridge between sexual identity and society exist. The
main theme of von Junz's[6] critique of the subsemioticist paradigm
of context is a postcultural paradox.
In a sense, Foucault promotes the use of the neodeconstructivist
paradigm of narrative to deconstruct the status quo. Tilton[7] implies
that the works of Smith are modernistic.
It could be said that Lyotard uses the term 'the subsemioticist
paradigm of context' to denote not dematerialism, but
neodematerialism. The primary theme of the works of Smith is the
difference between sexual identity and narrativity.
But Sartre suggests the use of capitalist pretextual theory to
challenge and modify sexual identity. If Baudrillardist simulacra
holds, we have to choose between the neodeconstructivist paradigm of
narrative and the semantic paradigm of context.
"Class is intrinsically impossible," says Baudrillard. Therefore,
in Chasing Amy, Smith examines the subsemioticist paradigm of context;
in Clerks he deconstructs Baudrillardist simulacra. An abundance of
discourses concerning postdialectic theory may be discovered.
In the works of Smith, a predominant concept is the concept of semiotic
truth. Thus, the characteristic theme of Dietrich's[8] essay on
Baudrillardist simulacra is the collapse, and subsequent dialectic, of
neodeconstructivist sexuality. Derrida uses the term 'the
subsemioticist paradigm of context' to denote not modernism, but
postmodernism.
"Society is part of the genre of narrativity," says Sartre. But the
main theme of the works of Gibson is the common ground between language
and sexual identity. The subject is interpolated into a
neodeconstructivist paradigm of narrative that includes narrativity as
a reality.
"Society is fundamentally meaningless," says Marx; however,
according to McElwaine[9] , it is not so much society that is
fundamentally meaningless, but rather the paradigm of society. Thus,
Cameron[10] holds that we have to choose between Baudrillardist
simulacra and the predialectic paradigm of expression. The example of
the subsemioticist paradigm of context intrinsic to Gibson's Count
Zero is also evident in Idoru.
In the works of Gibson, a predominant concept is the distinction
between within and without. However, Derrida promotes the use of the
neodeconstructivist paradigm of narrative to attack sexism. The subject
is contextualised into a Baudrillardist simulacra that includes truth
as a paradox.
If one examines modern narrative, one is faced with a choice: either
accept the subsemioticist paradigm of context or conclude that the
raison d'etre of the poet is significant form. Therefore, Debord
suggests the use of the neodeconstructivist paradigm of narrative to
analyse narrativity. If subtextual situationism holds, we have to
choose between Baudrillardist simulacra and the capitalist paradigm of
consensus.
Thus, Foucault promotes the use of neoconceptualist discourse to
deconstruct outmoded, colonialist perceptions of class. The
neodeconstructivist paradigm of narrative states that sexual identity,
perhaps surprisingly, has intrinsic meaning, given that the premise of
Baudrillardist simulacra is valid.
In a sense, de Selby[11] implies that the works of Gibson are
reminiscent of Mapplethorpe. If the subsemioticist paradigm of context
holds, we have to choose between the neodeconstructivist paradigm of
narrative and the submaterialist paradigm of context.
However, the subject is interpolated into a subsemioticist paradigm of
context that includes culture as a totality. Pickett[12] states that we
have to choose between the neodeconstructivist paradigm of narrative
and cultural theory.
Therefore, many discourses concerning the role of the writer as reader
exist. In All Tomorrow's Parties, Gibson analyses the subsemioticist
paradigm of context; in Count Zero, however, he deconstructs the
neodeconstructivist paradigm of narrative.
It could be said that if the predialectic paradigm of narrative holds,
we have to choose between Baudrillardist simulacra and cultural
nationalism. Bataille suggests the use of the neodeconstructivist
paradigm of narrative to modify and read truth.
Therefore, the primary theme of Wilson's[13] analysis of
Baudrillardist simulacra is the difference between society and class.
The subject is contextualised into a conceptualist capitalism that
includes reality as a whole.
Thus, Derrida promotes the use of the subsemioticist paradigm of
context to challenge hierarchy. Foucault's critique of the
subcapitalist paradigm of context implies that the significance of the
poet is deconstruction.
But Buxton[14] states that we have to choose between the subsemioticist
paradigm of context and the cultural paradigm of discourse. Lyotard
suggests the use of the neodeconstructivist paradigm of narrative to
analyse society.
McKev
"gazzafield" <rufty_tuft...@nospam.says_I.ko> wrote in message
news:j_-dnQnrz_-...@pipex.net...
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/nottinghamshire/5010408.stm
>
>
I have a feeling the gear lever might be a bit wet give the way she loves
that car...
McK.
McKev
"JPG" <j_peasemold_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1148484447....@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> gazzafield wrote:
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/nottinghamshire/5010408.stm
>
>
> My opinion:
>
> I think that reality is unattainable," however, according to Long ,
> it is not so much reality that is unattainable, but rather the defining
> characteristic of reality. But the main theme of the works of Smith is
> a neocapitalist totality. Hamburger suggests that we have to choose
> between the subsemioticist paradigm of context and posttextual semantic
<snip the thesis>
You got the correct NG here??
McK
Brimstone
Steve Firth
None of them said it was outrageous, that's your (incorrect) interpretation
of them describing the project as bollocks, which it was.
Brimstone
JPG said:
> gazzafield wrote:
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/nottinghamshire/5010408.stm
>
>
> My opinion:
>
<post-intellectual clap trap snipped>
Now that really was bollocks.
Clive George
"this sort of shit really really annoys me."
Sounds pretty outraged to me. Seems like my interpretation was correct.
clive
Steve Firth
> In article <j_-dnQnrz_-...@pipex.net>, gazzafield says...
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/nottinghamshire/5010408.stm
>>
> Bollocks. Fits in well with all the Turner shite at the Tate.
Umm the "Turner shite" at the Tate is some of the best art ever to have
bene produced by a visionary painter years ahead of his time. Of all the
British painters the two I have time for are Joseph Wright of Derby and
Joseph Mallord William Turner.
Steve Firth
> "Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:14oe1nh4iwja4$.1w48cyvyixcx9$.dlg@40tude.net...
>> On Wed, 24 May 2006 16:19:18 +0100, Clive George wrote:
>>
>>> "Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:16dte5vlallrd.v...@40tude.net...
>>>> On Wed, 24 May 2006 14:27:10 +0100, Clive George wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Nothing particularly
>>>>> outrageous at all.
>>>>
>>>> Who say's it's outrageous?
>>>
>>> Couple of people on this NG apparently complaining about it.
>>
>> None of them said it was outrageous, that's your (incorrect)
>> interpretation
>> of them describing the project as bollocks, which it was.
>
> "this sort of shit really really annoys me."
>
> Sounds pretty outraged to me. Seems like my interpretation was correct.
It doesn't sound outraged at all, it sounds like someone saying that a
waste of taxpayer's money annoys him. My objection to the project is that
it's not clever, funny, outrageous, innovative, engaging or even credible
it's simply some vacuous middle class nonsense from somebody who can't
actually produce art worthy of the name.
For the avoidance of doubt would you happen to be a wanky arts student?
Clive George
> It doesn't sound outraged at all, it sounds like someone saying that a
> waste of taxpayer's money annoys him. My objection to the project is that
> it's not clever, funny, outrageous, innovative, engaging or even credible
> it's simply some vacuous middle class nonsense from somebody who can't
> actually produce art worthy of the name.
Oh quit whining. Bollocks it may be, but it's amusing bollocks at least.
It's succeeded in provoking people, as can be seen by the complaints it's
produced here. You may be as step up in art appreciation from some of the
other posters here, but that hasn't stopped you producing predictable
snobbish responses.
> For the avoidance of doubt would you happen to be a wanky arts student?
What do you think? Google groups will show my posting history (I'm not
afraid to have what I write archived), and it's pretty easy to find the
answer to your question.
clive
Westy
But couldn't it also be considered comedy? Given the subjectiveness of
the matter?
Westy
<brim...@hotmail.com> wrote:
When a comedy is art - can it still be bollocks?
Steve Firth
> "Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:1q1n9h7p7bj1t$.sdwch3cs6uol$.dlg@40tude.net...
>
>> It doesn't sound outraged at all, it sounds like someone saying that a
>> waste of taxpayer's money annoys him. My objection to the project is that
>> it's not clever, funny, outrageous, innovative, engaging or even credible
>> it's simply some vacuous middle class nonsense from somebody who can't
>> actually produce art worthy of the name.
>
> Oh quit whining.
I'm not whining.
> Bollocks it may be, but it's amusing bollocks at least.
No it's not, if it were I could find time for it.
> It's succeeded in provoking people, as can be seen by the complaints it's
> produced here.
You make the elementary mistake of assuming that because art can provoke
that to provoke is art.
> You may be as step up in art appreciation from some of the
> other posters here, but that hasn't stopped you producing predictable
> snobbish responses.
Oh Christ on a bike, I can see your smelly unwashed donkey jacket as we
speak. It's not snobbish to point out failure.
>> For the avoidance of doubt would you happen to be a wanky arts student?
>
> What do you think?
I think it's looking more and more likely, but I can't understand why you
are scared to simply state that you are an arts graduate if you are one.
I'm not worried by pointing out that graduated as a biochemist and that I
worked for a long time in research.
> Google groups will show my posting history (I'm not
> afraid to have what I write archived),
Is anyone?
> and it's pretty easy to find the answer to your question.
Not really, all I find is signs that you're not was clever as you sometimes
seem to think you are.
Westy
>"Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:1q1n9h7p7bj1t$.sdwch3cs6uol$.dlg@40tude.net...
>
>> It doesn't sound outraged at all, it sounds like someone saying that a
>> waste of taxpayer's money annoys him. My objection to the project is that
>> it's not clever, funny, outrageous, innovative, engaging or even credible
>> it's simply some vacuous middle class nonsense from somebody who can't
>> actually produce art worthy of the name.
>
>Oh quit whining. Bollocks it may be, but it's amusing bollocks at least.
>It's succeeded in provoking people, as can be seen by the complaints it's
>produced here. You may be as step up in art appreciation from some of the
>other posters here, but that hasn't stopped you producing predictable
>snobbish responses.
So the purpose of art is to provoke people?
>
>> For the avoidance of doubt would you happen to be a wanky arts student?
>
>What do you think? Google groups will show my posting history (I'm not
>afraid to have what I write archived), and it's pretty easy to find the
>answer to your question.
>
>clive
Whatever you are - you seem to like sticking up for bollocks!
Clive George
> On Wed, 24 May 2006 20:04:27 +0100, Clive George wrote:
>
>> "Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:1q1n9h7p7bj1t$.sdwch3cs6uol$.dlg@40tude.net...
>>
>>> It doesn't sound outraged at all, it sounds like someone saying that a
>>> waste of taxpayer's money annoys him. My objection to the project is
>>> that
>>> it's not clever, funny, outrageous, innovative, engaging or even
>>> credible
>>> it's simply some vacuous middle class nonsense from somebody who can't
>>> actually produce art worthy of the name.
>>
>> Oh quit whining.
>
> I'm not whining.
You're doing a darn good impression of it then.
>> Bollocks it may be, but it's amusing bollocks at least.
>
> No it's not, if it were I could find time for it.
Amusing is in the eye of the beholder - and in my eye, your continued
blustering merely adds to it.
>> It's succeeded in provoking people, as can be seen by the complaints it's
>> produced here.
>
> You make the elementary mistake of assuming that because art can provoke
> that to provoke is art.
You make the elementary mistake of assuming far too much.
>> You may be as step up in art appreciation from some of the
>> other posters here, but that hasn't stopped you producing predictable
>> snobbish responses.
>
> Oh Christ on a bike, I can see your smelly unwashed donkey jacket as we
> speak. It's not snobbish to point out failure.
Maybe. However what you were doing was. Oh yes - and you're making
unwarranted assumptions again.
>>> For the avoidance of doubt would you happen to be a wanky arts student?
>>
>> What do you think?
>
> I think it's looking more and more likely, but I can't understand why you
> are scared to simply state that you are an arts graduate if you are one.
> I'm not worried by pointing out that graduated as a biochemist and that I
> worked for a long time in research.
Am I a student or a graduate? Make your mind up.
>> Google groups will show my posting history (I'm not
>> afraid to have what I write archived),
>
> Is anyone?
Apparently you are.
>> and it's pretty easy to find the answer to your question.
>
> Not really, all I find is signs that you're not was clever as you
> sometimes
> seem to think you are.
<snort>.
Ie you can't be bothered to check. (goes away and checks). Yes, I have
mentioned it before in this very NG - I appear to have a chemistry degree.
Your powers of deduction are somewhat lacking. FWIW the check I was thinking
of was that some of the NGs I've posted to have a distinct non-artsy bias.
clive
Clive George
> So the purpose of art is to provoke people?
You're the second person to make that mistake. I didn't say it was - I said
had done so.
> Whatever you are - you seem to like sticking up for bollocks!
I'll defend it against whiners like you, yes. It's entertained people, it's
provoked discussion (even though it's the ancient 'is it art?' one). It's
made more of an impression than hundreds of other arts student projects - I
think that's a hint that she's done something right. I may also happen to
think it's a bit bollocks, but that's not the point.
clive
Westy
I am not a whiner - actually I truly in disbelief that this could be
considered art. I am also in disbelief that you are tasking this so
seriously!
Anyway since it's become such a serious topic of discussion i'll go on
- if it has entertained people then that is very sad. It only made
'more of an impression than hundreds of other arts student projects'
because it is absolutely RIDICULOUS - it is just a silly media stunt.
What is the point of 'modern' art then? So the point of art in the
modern world is to simply be utterly ridiculous and grab attention for
dreaming up the silliest thing anyone has ever seen?
It's just bollocks. Thats all.
Clive George
> I am not a whiner - actually I truly in disbelief that this could be
> considered art. I am also in disbelief that you are tasking this so
> seriously!
PKB.
> Anyway since it's become such a serious topic of discussion i'll go on
> - if it has entertained people then that is very sad. It only made
> 'more of an impression than hundreds of other arts student projects'
> because it is absolutely RIDICULOUS - it is just a silly media stunt.
>
> What is the point of 'modern' art then? So the point of art in the
> modern world is to simply be utterly ridiculous and grab attention for
> dreaming up the silliest thing anyone has ever seen?
This question isn't exactly confined to this one example, is it? Since a lot
of the most successful stuff in the field has appeared to be that, is it
entirely surprising that she's followed suit?
clive
Ian Dalziel
wrote:
>On Wed, 24 May 2006 16:17:06 +0100, Conor wrote:
>
>> In article <j_-dnQnrz_-...@pipex.net>, gazzafield says...
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/nottinghamshire/5010408.stm
>>>
>> Bollocks. Fits in well with all the Turner shite at the Tate.
>
>Umm the "Turner shite" at the Tate is some of the best art ever to have
>bene produced by a visionary painter years ahead of his time. Of all the
>British painters the two I have time for are Joseph Wright of Derby and
>Joseph Mallord William Turner.
>
I suspect the references were to the Turner Prize and Tate Modern.
--
Ian D
Steve Firth
> "Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:xjxxfmhg9a5n$.6bv12kse2m8g.dlg@40tude.net...
>> On Wed, 24 May 2006 20:04:27 +0100, Clive George wrote:
>>
>>> "Steve Firth" <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:1q1n9h7p7bj1t$.sdwch3cs6uol$.dlg@40tude.net...
>>>
>>>> It doesn't sound outraged at all, it sounds like someone saying that a
>>>> waste of taxpayer's money annoys him. My objection to the project is
>>>> that
>>>> it's not clever, funny, outrageous, innovative, engaging or even
>>>> credible
>>>> it's simply some vacuous middle class nonsense from somebody who can't
>>>> actually produce art worthy of the name.
>>>
>>> Oh quit whining.
>>
>> I'm not whining.
>
> You're doing a darn good impression of it then.
You seem anxious to claim that I am, however you're wrong.
>>> Bollocks it may be, but it's amusing bollocks at least.
>>
>> No it's not, if it were I could find time for it.
>
> Amusing is in the eye of the beholder - and in my eye, your continued
> blustering merely adds to it.
Ah, "blustering" - use some loaded language in the hope that the shit
sticks?
>>> It's succeeded in provoking people, as can be seen by the complaints it's
>>> produced here.
>>
>> You make the elementary mistake of assuming that because art can provoke
>> that to provoke is art.
>
> You make the elementary mistake of assuming far too much.
Not at all, your comment about provocation is still there.
>>> You may be as step up in art appreciation from some of the
>>> other posters here, but that hasn't stopped you producing predictable
>>> snobbish responses.
>>
>> Oh Christ on a bike, I can see your smelly unwashed donkey jacket as we
>> speak. It's not snobbish to point out failure.
>
> Maybe. However what you were doing was. Oh yes - and you're making
> unwarranted assumptions again.
Not at all, I'm trying to reconcile the reasons why someone would think
it's "snobbish" to point out that posturing is not art.
>>>> For the avoidance of doubt would you happen to be a wanky arts student?
>>>
>>> What do you think?
>>
>> I think it's looking more and more likely, but I can't understand why you
>> are scared to simply state that you are an arts graduate if you are one.
>> I'm not worried by pointing out that graduated as a biochemist and that I
>> worked for a long time in research.
>
> Am I a student or a graduate? Make your mind up.
I don't know, because so far I haven't seen a post in which you've stated
it either way, whereas I've asked if you are either.
>>> Google groups will show my posting history (I'm not
>>> afraid to have what I write archived),
>>
>> Is anyone?
>
> Apparently you are.
Really, what makes you say that?
>>> and it's pretty easy to find the answer to your question.
>>
>> Not really, all I find is signs that you're not was clever as you
>> sometimes
>> seem to think you are.
>
> <snort>.
>
> Ie you can't be bothered to check.
No, I can't be bothered to read past page two of some extrmely tedious
posts.
> (goes away and checks). Yes, I have
> mentioned it before in this very NG - I appear to have a chemistry degree.
> Your powers of deduction are somewhat lacking. FWIW the check I was thinking
> of was that some of the NGs I've posted to have a distinct non-artsy bias.
And that means what? One can be interested in areas of work outside one's
area of expertise. I'm not a mechanic or a racing driver but I like to read
about and drive cars.
Steve Firth
> It's entertained people
I see no evidence for that.
JPG
<brim...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>In news:1148484447....@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com,
>JPG said:
>> gazzafield wrote:
>>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/nottinghamshire/5010408.stm
>>
>>
>> My opinion:
>>
>
><post-intellectual clap trap snipped>
Postmodernist claptrap actually, from the Postmodern Essay Generator:
The essay you have just seen is completely meaningless and was
randomly generated by the Postmodernism Generator. To generate another
essay, follow this link. If you liked this particular essay and would
like to return to it, follow this link for a bookmarkable page.
The Postmodernism Generator was written by Andrew C. Bulhak using the
Dada Engine, a system for generating random text from recursive
grammars, and modified very slightly by Josh Larios (this version,
anyway. There are others out there).
This installation of the Generator has delivered 2155734 essays since
25/Feb/2000 18:43:09 PST, when it became operational. It is being
served from a machine in Seattle, Washington, USA.
More detailed technical information may be found in Monash University
Department of Computer Science Technical Report 96/264: “On the
Simulation of Postmodernism and Mental Debility Using Recursive
Transition Networks”. An on-line copy is available from Monash
University.
More generated texts are linked to from the sidebar to the right.
If you enjoy this, you might also enjoy reading about the Social Text
Affair, where NYU Physics Professor Alan Sokal’s brilliant(ly
meaningless) hoax article was accepted by a cultural criticism
publication.
>
>Now that really was bollocks.
>
Yes, it was the badger's nadgers.
Clive George
> On Wed, 24 May 2006 21:19:47 +0100, Clive George wrote:
>
>> It's entertained people
>
> I see no evidence for that.
It's entertained me, seeing you and others whining on about it.
If it isn't entertaining you, why are you continuing to post on this thread?
clive
Stuart Gray
news:zd%cg.202897$tc.1...@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk:
As art, its bollocks, but I'd like to see the consummation pics...
--
Stuart
"end user" v. A command regrettably not implemented in most systems.
Brimstone
Absolutely. Some people perform art in the full knowledge that it is
bollocks with the simple intention of winding up the miserable gits amongst
us.
Brimstone
> So the purpose of art is to provoke people?
In some cases, yes.
> Whatever you are - you seem to like sticking up for bollocks!
Surely there is a place for bollocks in this boring mundane world?
Brimstone
Of course, there is no suggestion that bollocks and comedy are dichotic.
Steve Firth
This thread is entertaining me, the student's project is not.
Westy
If the only intention is to wind ' us miserable' people up - how can
that be classed as art?
Westy
Succesful only in the fact that it has grabbed media attention though.
Not sucessful art.
Westy
<brim...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"Westy" <whiteroseo...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:5je972tq14gvbubj6...@4ax.com...
>
>> So the purpose of art is to provoke people?
>
>In some cases, yes.
>
>
Rubbish.
>> Whatever you are - you seem to like sticking up for bollocks!
>
>Surely there is a place for bollocks in this boring mundane world?
>
The world is not boring and mundane to me - it's just your perception
of it.
Westy
Fuck me i'm going to have to get the dictionary out if you keep using
words like that!
Brimstone
Because winding people up is an art. Not everyone can do it.
Brimstone
What is succesful art?
Brimstone
> On Thu, 25 May 2006 00:56:51 +0100, "Brimstone"
> <brim...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Westy" <whiteroseo...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:5je972tq14gvbubj6...@4ax.com...
>>
>>> So the purpose of art is to provoke people?
>>
>>In some cases, yes.
>>
>>
> Rubbish.
Well, this particular piece of art seems to have provoked you.
>
>>> Whatever you are - you seem to like sticking up for bollocks!
>>
>>Surely there is a place for bollocks in this boring mundane world?
>>
>
> The world is not boring and mundane to me - it's just your perception
> of it.
As with everything, it varies. Stunts such as "marrying" one's car is one of
the things that stops it being boring and mundane.
PC Paul
>> On Thu, 25 May 2006 00:54:38 +0100, "Brimstone"
>>> bollocks with the simple intention of winding up the miserable gits
>>> amongst us.
>>>
>> If the only intention is to wind ' us miserable' people up - how can
>> that be classed as art?
>
> Because winding people up is an art. Not everyone can do it.
And as with all artistic endeavours, some are good at it while some just
daub everywhere they go and *think* they are good at it.
Naming no names, obviously ;-)
Brimstone
Steve Firth
> Stunts such as "marrying" one's car is one of
> the things that stops it being boring and mundane.
Err no, stunts like that are simply predictable, dull and devoid of humour.
Westy
I don't know he was talking of 'successful stuff in the field'
whatever that is....
Actually what I meant was - not art.
Westy
<brim...@hotmail.com> wrote:
You are a fucking expert at winding people up - of that there is no
doubt!
It is not an art though. Sorry, it just isn't.
Westy
wrote:
>On Thu, 25 May 2006 09:14:53 +0100, Brimstone wrote:
Yep - and Brimstone - if that sort of shit is how you get your kicks -
you are even sadder than I thought.
Brimstone
Why thank you, a compliment at last.
>
> It is not an art though. Sorry, it just isn't.
That's your view, others may differ.
Brimstone
Westy
<brim...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Well i'm pleased to say that on this occasion, my view appears to be
in the majority.
Westy
Errrrr the marrying car bollocks that you are trying in vain to argue
is art?
Brimstone
Westy said:
> On Thu, 25 May 2006 20:55:49 +0100, "Brimstone"
> <brim...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> In news:svub729itqtk1trjv...@4ax.com,
>> Westy said:
>>> On Thu, 25 May 2006 12:07:36 +0100, Steve Firth
>>> <%steve%@malloc.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 25 May 2006 09:14:53 +0100, Brimstone wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Stunts such as "marrying" one's car is one of
>>>>> the things that stops it being boring and mundane.
>>>>
>>>> Err no, stunts like that are simply predictable, dull and devoid of
>>>> humour.
>>>
>>> Yep - and Brimstone - if that sort of shit is how you get your
>>> kicks - you are even sadder than I thought.
>>
>> What *are* you talking about?
>>
>
> Errrrr the marrying car bollocks that you are trying in vain to argue
> is art?
I don't recall saying that it's art, I've certainly said it's bollocks.
Westy
<brim...@hotmail.com> wrote:
You implied it was art when you said entertainment can be art, and the
marrying of the car was entertaining/funny to 'non miserable' people.
Got a short memory haven't you?
Brimstone
The implication of that is that art can also be entertainment,which is not
always the case. Just because something "can be", doesn't mean that it is.
Nor have I said that stunts such as this are by definition
"entertaining/funny to 'non miserable' people".
> Got a short memory haven't you?
It's not my memory that's at fault, it's you being slack in your
comprehension and use of English that's causing you to misunderstand simple
sentences.
Westy
<brim...@hotmail.com> wrote:
It was in this case according to you - you clearly found the car
marrying entertaining.
>Nor have I said that stunts such as this are by definition
>"entertaining/funny to 'non miserable' people".
Not be definition, but you have said that us 'miserble people' should
quit whining about something which you clearly find entertaining, but
also bollock. Entertaining bollock or something? You talk out of
your arse.
>
>
>> Got a short memory haven't you?
>
>It's not my memory that's at fault, it's you being slack in your
>comprehension and use of English that's causing you to misunderstand simple
>sentences.
>
The fact is, you often contadict your own statements in the threads
you post in, because really, the only reason you are here is to
provoke and disagree.
Troll.
Brimstone
Did I? I'd agree I wasn't prepared to slag it off, that doesn't mean I found
it entertaining.
>
>> Nor have I said that stunts such as this are by definition
>> "entertaining/funny to 'non miserable' people".
>
> Not be definition, but you have said that us 'miserble people' should
> quit whining about something which you clearly find entertaining, but
> also bollock. Entertaining bollock or something? You talk out of
> your arse.
Wrong again, I didn't say I found it entertaining, merely that some people
(i.e. the non-miseries) would. As usual with so many arrogant people, just
because someone has a different viewpoint you have to slag them off. Just
what I'd expect from a moronic football hooligan.
>
>>
>>
>>> Got a short memory haven't you?
>>
>> It's not my memory that's at fault, it's you being slack in your
>> comprehension and use of English that's causing you to misunderstand
>> simple sentences.
>>
>
> The fact is, you often contadict your own statements in the threads
> you post in, because really, the only reason you are here is to
> provoke and disagree.
And?
John & Lisa
news:PJqdnUU_G8E7yunZ...@giganews.com...
>
> "gazzafield" <rufty_tuft...@nospam.says_I.ko> wrote in message
> news:j_-dnQnrz_-...@pipex.net...
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/nottinghamshire/5010408.stm
>
> Some fuckwit "student" pissing tax payers money up the wall.
>
>
---------------------
I had similar thoughts.
--
John
Building our caravanning web site and forums...
www.gmails.co.uk/forums
Westy
<brim...@hotmail.com> wrote:
You said it was bollocks - if that's not slagging it off I don't know
what is. The fact you then went on to say is could be entertaining is
beside the point.
>>
>>> Nor have I said that stunts such as this are by definition
>>> "entertaining/funny to 'non miserable' people".
>>
>> Not be definition, but you have said that us 'miserble people' should
>> quit whining about something which you clearly find entertaining, but
>> also bollock. Entertaining bollock or something? You talk out of
>> your arse.
>
>Wrong again, I didn't say I found it entertaining, merely that some people
>(i.e. the non-miseries) would. As usual with so many arrogant people, just
>because someone has a different viewpoint you have to slag them off. Just
>what I'd expect from a moronic football hooligan.
Are you implying i'm a football hooligan? (I am not).
'just because someone has a different viewpoint you have to slag them
off' - that's rich coming from you!
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Got a short memory haven't you?
>>>
>>> It's not my memory that's at fault, it's you being slack in your
>>> comprehension and use of English that's causing you to misunderstand
>>> simple sentences.
>>>
>>
>> The fact is, you often contadict your own statements in the threads
>> you post in, because really, the only reason you are here is to
>> provoke and disagree.
>
>And?
>
That's it - snip out TROLL. The truth hurts doesn't it?
Brimstone
Westy said:
> That's it - snip out TROLL. The truth hurts doesn't it?
I only snip irrelevancies
Westy
Yeah right!
Craig Davies
"gazzafield" <rufty_tuft...@nospam.says_I.ko> wrote in message
news:j_-dnQnrz_-...@pipex.net...
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/nottinghamshire/5010408.stm
Art or bollocks - Funny
Ian Johnston
<m...@privateemailaddress.co.uk> wrote:
: "Gizmo" <Gi...@home.now> wrote in message
: news:PJqdnUU_G8E7yunZ...@giganews.com...
: >
: > "gazzafield" <rufty_tuft...@nospam.says_I.ko> wrote in message
: > news:j_-dnQnrz_-...@pipex.net...
: > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/nottinghamshire/5010408.stm
: >
: > Some fuckwit "student" pissing tax payers money up the wall.
: I had similar thoughts.
Pissing a damn sight less money up the wall than the 40% of medical
students who never practise after qualifying, though.
Ian