Paging Ivan Reid
Nigel Eaton
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3759703.stm
;^)
--
Nigel - No longer worse than Platypus
WS* GHPOTHUF#24 APOSTLE#14 DLC#1 COFF#20 BOTAFOT#150 HYPO#0(KoTL)
ZZR1100, Enfield 500 Curry House Racer "The Basmati Rice Burner",
Honda GL1000K2
Lozzo
At least some good came of an earlier fire
"Five hundred people were moved from their homes in Leyton on Monday
because of a fire at an industrial estate which also destroyed £50m of
modern art."
--
Lozzo: The Speedyspic
Yamaha YZF1000R Thunderace
Variety is the spic of life.
Nigel Eaton
<lo...@lozzo.org.uk> typed
>Nigel Eaton says...
>> You sure your gaff's still there?
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3759703.stm
>
>At least some good came of an earlier fire
>
>"Five hundred people were moved from their homes in Leyton on Monday
>because of a fire at an industrial estate which also destroyed £50m of
>modern art."
Yeah, Tracey's bed up in smoke *and* people moved out of Leyton. Bonus,
eh?
Lozzo
> Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, Lozzo
> <lo...@lozzo.org.uk> typed
> >Nigel Eaton says...
> >> You sure your gaff's still there?
> >>
> >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3759703.stm
> >
> >At least some good came of an earlier fire
> >
> >"Five hundred people were moved from their homes in Leyton on Monday
> >because of a fire at an industrial estate which also destroyed £50m of
> >modern art."
>
> Yeah, Tracey's bed up in smoke *and* people moved out of Leyton. Bonus,
> eh?
I don't think anyone would notice or care if Miss Emin's bed was to
catch fire tbh.
SP
> Nigel Eaton says...
> > You sure your gaff's still there?
> >
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3759703.stm
>
> At least some good came of an earlier fire
>
> "Five hundred people were moved from their homes in Leyton on Monday
> because of a fire at an industrial estate which also destroyed £50m
> of modern art."
Some of which, although deemed as being irreplaceable, can be
reproduced to the previous standard.
How does that work then? Does it mean the value of the second article,
being a copy, is worth a lot less. Or will the try to convince us that
as it is an identical replica to the original then it is worth just as
much, if not more?
I for one was never aware that if I had a bath that leaked and managed
to contain a small amount of water within it then I had a work of art.
Art is just...wierd.
Unless you look at contemporary art, which is obviously different.
And as I'm now clearly wittering away I think I'll shut up.
--
Lesley
CBR600 FW
SBS#11[with oak-leaf cluster]
BOTAFOT#101A UKRMHRC#12
BONY#54P BOB#18
Real burds don't take hormones, they rage naturally
Un-cork me to reply
wessie
> Nigel Eaton says...
>> You sure your gaff's still there?
>>
>> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3759703.stm
>
> At least some good came of an earlier fire
>
> "Five hundred people were moved from their homes in Leyton on Monday
> because of a fire at an industrial estate which also destroyed £50m of
> modern art."
>
I'd love to be an insurance assessor on that job.
"Mr Saatchi, you paid £3,000,000 for this work of art. Well, I've studied
the description and photographs and I can source the materials at Makro for
£17.50. I have statements from 3 leading academics: assembly into a perfect
facsimile should take at most 35 mins. Based on this information, would you
care to revise your claim?"
--
BMW R1150GS
darsy
>"Mr Saatchi, you paid £3,000,000 for this work of art. Well, I've studied
>the description and photographs and I can source the materials at Makro for
>£17.50. I have statements from 3 leading academics: assembly into a perfect
>facsimile should take at most 35 mins. Based on this information, would you
>care to revise your claim?"
right, that's enough.
How much do you think - for example - the original canvas and paints
cost that now form the Van Gogh's "Sunflowers". Or Dali's "Persistence
of Memory".
So, they're only worth a few quid each then?
--
d.
Lozzo
> Lozzo <lo...@lozzo.org.uk> wrote in message
> <MPG.1b23249f6...@news.individual.net>:
>
> >Nigel Eaton says...
>
> >> Yeah, Tracey's bed up in smoke *and* people moved out of Leyton. Bonus,
> >> eh?
> >
> >I don't think anyone would notice or care if Miss Emin's bed was to
> >catch fire tbh.
>
>
> Her work's not to my 'taste' but I'm glad that there are people
> challenging perceptions and pushing the definition of art.
She's not an artist, she's a lazy slapper who can't make a bed or clean
her bedroom.
wessie
I wish that art did not have to be valued in monetary terms. A somewhat
utopian view perhaps. After all, without the patronage of wealthy people
artists would not be able to spend as much time being creative. Patronage
is one thing but the commodification of culture saddens me.
--
BMW R1150GS
ogden
>
> Burnt says...
> > Lozzo wrote:
> >
> > >I don't think anyone would notice or care if Miss Emin's bed was to
> > >catch fire tbh.
> >
> > I think several would care about the one in the Saatchi collection.
> >
> > Her work's not to my 'taste' but I'm glad that there are people
> > challenging perceptions and pushing the definition of art.
>
> She's not an artist, she's a lazy slapper who can't make a bed or clean
> her bedroom.
>
--
ogden
Lozzo
>
> > says...
> >> Lozzo <lo...@lozzo.org.uk> wrote in message
> >> <MPG.1b23249f6...@news.individual.net>:
> >>
> >> >Nigel Eaton says...
> >>
> >> >> Yeah, Tracey's bed up in smoke *and* people moved out of Leyton. Bonus,
> >> >> eh?
> >> >
> >> >I don't think anyone would notice or care if Miss Emin's bed was to
> >> >catch fire tbh.
> >>
> >> I think several would care about the one in the Saatchi collection.
> >>
> >> Her work's not to my 'taste' but I'm glad that there are people
> >> challenging perceptions and pushing the definition of art.
> >
> >She's not an artist, she's a lazy slapper who can't make a bed or clean
> >her bedroom.
>
> More money than sence, eh?
I know you're taking the piss, but that is exactly how I feel about
modern art. It is invariably bought by people with no taste and a lot of
money to burn.
It's a fashion thing IYAM. It's trendy to be a 'modern art' collector,
and some people will go to any lengths to be seen to be trendy.
Tracey Emin, Damien Hurst et al must be laughing all the way to the
bank.
Lozzo
Tracey Emin's bed clearly is shit. You don't need to understand it to
make that judgement. You can't say that anyone except the artist really
understands what they do. It's all just one person's view of what is
right.
With that in mind, it makes it clear to me that most modern art cannot
truthfully be fully appreciated by anyone except the original artist.
darsy
>I wish that art did not have to be valued in monetary terms. A somewhat
>utopian view perhaps. After all, without the patronage of wealthy people
>artists would not be able to spend as much time being creative. Patronage
>is one thing but the commodification of culture saddens me.
you seemed to be agreeing with the "I don't understand modern art so
it must be shit" camp.
--
d.
Porl
> Tracey Emin, Damien Hurst et al must be laughing all the way to the
> bank.
"And I'll tell you who else I had on the back of my cab. That Jim Davidson.
Now there's a proper comedian, none of yer alternative student rubbish...."
wessie
No. I'm hoping that the economic rationality of the insurance cos. will
force some debate over the "art market".
David Aaranovitch said in The Observer "It was a terrible week for Britart.
But if we really needed all this stuff, what was it doing in a
warehouse?....It's too big, too valuable, too friable to be left where
people can see it."
It's an interesting article that raises quite a few questions.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/arts/features/story/0,11710,1228014,00.html
--
BMW R1150GS
ogden
appreciate modern art is to see it in exactly the same way as the original
artist.
It's all open to personal interpretation and criticism. But "it's all
shit" isn't criticism, it's pure philistinism.
Now if you'd suggested Jackson Pollock was a fucking con artist, I'd
not hesitate to agree :)
--
ogden
Pip
>It's all open to personal interpretation and criticism. But "it's all
>shit" isn't criticism, it's pure philistinism.
Like whisky then, for example?
--
Pip, Ex - Hairy Gfedcker. RF 900RR, Ruff and Rattly.
WS* DFWAG#0 IbW#27* DIAABTCOD#15 GP#0 EKP FUB#4 MKA+E#3
ANORAK#8 MIRTTH#15 BOTAFOT/F#47/34a BONY#13 KotMIB# <space>
UKRMRM#14 TWA#2
Pip
>you seemed to be agreeing with the "I don't understand modern art so
>it must be shit" camp.
What is there to "understand" about an unmade bed? Or a pile of
tyres, or bricks for that matter?
Grimly Curmudgeon
drugs began to take hold. I remember wessie <putmyn...@ukrm.net>
saying something like:
>I wish that art did not have to be valued in monetary terms. A somewhat
>utopian view perhaps. After all, without the patronage of wealthy people
>artists would not be able to spend as much time being creative. Patronage
>is one thing but the commodification of culture saddens me.
Art, like everything else, is a gamble. Van Gogh only got the price of a
meal for his daubs, because that's all they were worth at the time.
Personally I'd like to see a small levy on art auction prices, say 1 or
2%, to be paid to the Artist's Benevolent Fund or somesuch.
Please, please, help the struggling artists.
Will nobody think of the Artists?
Remember, think once, think twice, think Artist.
It could be an Artist near you.
--
Dave
GS 850 x2 / SE 6a
SbS#6 DIAABTCOD#16 APOSTLE#6 FUB#3
FUB KotL OSOS#12? UKRMMA#19 COSOC#10
ogden
>
> ogden <og...@pre.org> struggled to ejaculate:
>
> >It's all open to personal interpretation and criticism. But "it's all
> >shit" isn't criticism, it's pure philistinism.
>
> Like whisky then, for example?
>
of booze. And I meant David Hockney. Doh.
--
ogden, b12
Porl
"Pip" <p...@ukrm.net> wrote in message
news:qjojb09q2f7l6cd92...@4ax.com...
> darsy <da...@slimwards.co.uk> struggled to ejaculate:
>
> >you seemed to be agreeing with the "I don't understand modern art so
> >it must be shit" camp.
>
> What is there to "understand" about an unmade bed? Or a pile of
> tyres, or bricks for that matter?
It's all relative. Some art is a comment on previous tyles of art, some
questions what art is, some attempt to broaden the perspective.
The mistake that is made is that there is good art and bad art. There isn't,
there's just art. One person may appreciate the lifetime's application to,
say, photo realism. Another may consider that piece a robotic representation
of the subject and is therefore worthless, so subjectivity obviously isn't
the key to appreciating art.
The trick is to appreciate it without recourse to a subjective and ingrained
attitude of what art is. You may well come to the conclusion that you don't
want to pay Ł25,000 for some mud smeared over a bin liner. That doesn't
change what the piece represents and it doesn't make it bad. Or good.
If you can say it's interesting and provocative then it's got to be
worthwhile. At the bery least it's a reflection of the times and the state
of the art, so to speak.
WavyDavy
"Porl" <po...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:2hu6ttF...@uni-berlin.de...
> The trick is to appreciate it without recourse to a subjective and
ingrained
> attitude of what art is. You may well come to the conclusion that you
don't
> want to pay £25,000 for some mud smeared over a bin liner. That doesn't
> change what the piece represents and it doesn't make it bad. Or good.
But what pisses *me* off about a large number of works by people like Tracy
Emin etc is that one's viewpoint on the work of 'art' *has* to be subjective
as if, say, I didn't make *my* bed, it wouldn't be bought at all. Therefore
the whole perception of the 'art' itself becomes detached from whether there
has been any artistic effort involved in conceiving and/or creating the
piece and it boils down solely to whose name is attached to it (even when
the named artist hasn't created the work - qv. the later Damien Hirst dot
paintings).
I admit that, in order to become recognised as an artist of merit these
people have, in the past, produced works which, while I may not like them,
definitely show an originality and creative talent which I cannot aspire to.
But they then seem to become lured into a fantasy realm whereby every 'idea'
they have will become art because of who they are - mainly ideas or concepts
which they would not have tried to pass off as a serious attempt in their
own field before they were famous.
Dave
PS. And just to show my full-on partisan colours, I do believe any piece of
work by the Chapman brothers should be destroyed/defaced on principle to
morph it into a new work of 'art' just as they did with Degas' work -
somehow I get the feeling that, should I crayon on one of their pieces of
work I'd be arrested for vandalism and sued for all I'm worth as no-one
knows who I am, but two fuckwitted self-important corporate whores scrawl on
someone else's works? Art, innit!
Porl
"WavyDavy" <dnk.h...@btopenwurld.com> wrote in message
news:c9csfm$i67$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
> But what pisses *me* off about a large number of works by people like
Tracy
> Emin etc is that one's viewpoint on the work of 'art' *has* to be
subjective
> as if, say, I didn't make *my* bed, it wouldn't be bought at all.
Therefore
> the whole perception of the 'art' itself becomes detached from whether
there
> has been any artistic effort involved in conceiving and/or creating the
> piece.
You're suggesting that a piece must have had effort involved to be
considered 'art'. I offer that to be art you simply need a frame, be it a
wooden one, a metaphorical one or any other kind. Ie, to be art you simply
have to present it as such and it is.
That is why it is all equally worthless and equally valuable. If it looks
pretty and you want to stick it on a wall, then that is the kind of art you
like, simple as that.
The likes of Emin have a value because of the desireability of ther names
and the curators that choose to showcase them. The value of a piece is
arbitrary such as the value of gold which in itself is almost worthless
apart from it's conductivity and non-corrosive properties.
WavyDavy
"WavyDavy" <dnk.h...@btopenwurld.com> wrote in message
news:c9csfm$i67$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
>
> PS. And just to show my full-on partisan colours, I do believe any piece
of
> work by the Chapman brothers should be destroyed/defaced on principle to
> morph it into a new work of 'art' just as they did with Degas' work -
...or even Goya's...... I've had a hard day, OK?
WavyDavy
>
> "WavyDavy" <dnk.h...@btopenwurld.com> wrote in message
> news:c9csfm$i67$1...@sparta.btinternet.com...
>
> > But what pisses *me* off about a large number of works by people like
> Tracy
> > Emin etc is that one's viewpoint on the work of 'art' *has* to be
> subjective
> > as if, say, I didn't make *my* bed, it wouldn't be bought at all.
> Therefore
> > the whole perception of the 'art' itself becomes detached from whether
> there
> > has been any artistic effort involved in conceiving and/or creating the
> > piece.
>
> You're suggesting that a piece must have had effort involved to be
> considered 'art'. I offer that to be art you simply need a frame, be it a
> wooden one, a metaphorical one or any other kind. Ie, to be art you simply
> have to present it as such and it is.
To present something as art is the effort, but to present something as art
but it to only be accepted as art because of the name of the person making
the presentation renders the object itself, in my view, a crude commercial
money making venture designed to extract money from the gullible rather than
'art': "the creation of works of beauty or other special significance; the
exercise of human skill (as distinguished from nature); imaginative skill as
applied to representations of the natural world or figments of the
imagination", all of which require some level of effort....
> That is why it is all equally worthless and equally valuable. If it looks
> pretty and you want to stick it on a wall, then that is the kind of art
you
> like, simple as that.
Yes and no. If you like it and are prepared to pay for it then it may just
be the kind of commodity you like, not art per se.
> The likes of Emin have a value because of the desireability of ther names
> and the curators that choose to showcase them. The value of a piece is
> arbitrary such as the value of gold which in itself is almost worthless
> apart from it's conductivity and non-corrosive properties.
This I agree with. I don't understand *why* a few dozen chinless idiots
think Emin's work is worth such sums of money, yet it is their prerogative
to think how they wish. Similarly, I don't understand why a few hundred
chinless fuckwits in Wall Street/The London Stock Exchange can decide that
gold is more desirable than, say, dead dogs.....
Dave
Owen
> says...
>> Lozzo <lo...@lozzo.org.uk> wrote in message
>> <MPG.1b23249f6...@news.individual.net>:
>>
>> >Nigel Eaton says...
>>
>> >> Yeah, Tracey's bed up in smoke *and* people moved out of Leyton. Bonus,
>> >> eh?
>> >
>> >I don't think anyone would notice or care if Miss Emin's bed was to
>> >catch fire tbh.
>>
>> I think several would care about the one in the Saatchi collection.
>>
>> Her work's not to my 'taste' but I'm glad that there are people
>> challenging perceptions and pushing the definition of art.
>
>She's not an artist, she's a lazy slapper who can't make a bed or clean
>her bedroom.
Heh, she actually said something sensible for once, on being asked how
she felt about the loss of the Scratchy art collection...
Makes a change for her not to be completely p*ss*d-up and shouting
"B*ll*cks!"
--
O
1 Black, shortly to undergo extensive surgery.
1 Red, undergoing lightweight surgery. -----
1 Blue, for Power-Ranger baiting. | o |
Numbers ... | o |
Stuff ... | ooo |
Life ... -----
Owen
<grimlycur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>It was somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
>drugs began to take hold. I remember wessie <putmyn...@ukrm.net>
>saying something like:
>
>>I wish that art did not have to be valued in monetary terms. A somewhat
>>utopian view perhaps. After all, without the patronage of wealthy people
>>artists would not be able to spend as much time being creative. Patronage
>>is one thing but the commodification of culture saddens me.
>
>Art, like everything else, is a gamble. Van Gogh only got the price of a
>meal for his daubs, because that's all they were worth at the time.
>
>Personally I'd like to see a small levy on art auction prices, say 1 or
>2%, to be paid to the Artist's Benevolent Fund or somesuch.
>
>Please, please, help the struggling artists.
>
>Will nobody think of the Artists?
>
>Remember, think once, think twice, think Artist.
>
>It could be an Artist near you.
On this newsgroup there are qute a few artists... ;-)
Porl
> To present something as art is the effort, but to present something as art
> but it to only be accepted as art because of the name of the person making
> the presentation renders the object itself, in my view, a crude commercial
> money making venture designed to extract money from the gullible rather
than
> 'art': "the creation of works of beauty or other special significance; the
> exercise of human skill (as distinguished from nature); imaginative skill
as
> applied to representations of the natural world or figments of the
> imagination", all of which require some level of effort....
That definition has no currency (no pun intended) in the real world. If that
is where you're coming from then I can completely understand your ire.
However, it's a ridiculously simplified and exclusive definition and if you
intend to decribe the world with dictionary defintions then I will say good
day to you, sir.
> Yes and no. If you like it and are prepared to pay for it then it may
just
> be the kind of commodity you like, not art per se.
"Like" isn't that useful a word when describing art. For instance, the very
fact that you're up in arms about the bed thing goes to justify its
existence and validates it.
> This I agree with. I don't understand *why* a few dozen chinless idiots
> think Emin's work is worth such sums of money, yet it is their prerogative
> to think how they wish.
No, you don't agree with me. I was saying *all* art is inherently worthless
in monetary terms (apart from what people are prepared to pay for it) which
is why it is not a yardstick to decide what is and what isn't art.
Consider what I do: I produce effects for tv and film. On a computer I
sculpt in 3d, I paint in 3d and then I animate to breathe life into it. Is
it art? No , it fookin' ain't. Why not? Because I am not presenting it as
art. If it was stuck in a gallery, or included for some reason an artistic
award shortlist it would be art. It wouldn't change the product itself
though. And therefore the whole issue of what is art and what isn't is
completely redundant.
Lozzo
> On Sun, 30 May 2004 10:14:20 +0100, Lozzo <lo...@lozzo.org.uk> wrote:
>
> > says...
> >> Lozzo <lo...@lozzo.org.uk> wrote in message
> >> <MPG.1b23249f6...@news.individual.net>:
> >>
> >> >Nigel Eaton says...
> >>
> >> >> Yeah, Tracey's bed up in smoke *and* people moved out of Leyton. Bonus,
> >> >> eh?
> >> >
> >> >I don't think anyone would notice or care if Miss Emin's bed was to
> >> >catch fire tbh.
> >>
> >> I think several would care about the one in the Saatchi collection.
> >>
> >> Her work's not to my 'taste' but I'm glad that there are people
> >> challenging perceptions and pushing the definition of art.
> >
> >She's not an artist, she's a lazy slapper who can't make a bed or clean
> >her bedroom.
>
> Heh, she actually said something sensible for once, on being asked how
> she felt about the loss of the Scratchy art collection...
>
> Makes a change for her not to be completely p*ss*d-up and shouting
> "B*ll*cks!"
What did she say?
Something along the lines of "It's ok, I can do another one for 30
quid"?
ogden
> Heh, she actually said something sensible for once, on being asked how
> she felt about the loss of the Scratchy art collection...
>
his only regret was that he hadn't made his pieces from Asbestos.
--
ogden, b12
ogden
>
> > Heh, she actually said something sensible for once, on being asked how
> > she felt about the loss of the Scratchy art collection...
> >
> > Makes a change for her not to be completely p*ss*d-up and shouting
> > "B*ll*cks!"
>
> What did she say?
>
> Something along the lines of "It's ok, I can do another one for 30
> quid"?
>
--
ogden
Paul Corfield
[tracey emin artwork]
>Owen says...
>> Heh, she actually said something sensible for once, on being asked how
>> she felt about the loss of the Scratchy art collection...
>>
>> Makes a change for her not to be completely p*ss*d-up and shouting
>> "B*ll*cks!"
>
>What did she say?
>
>Something along the lines of "It's ok, I can do another one for 30
>quid"?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/kent/3761851.stm
--
Paul C - "the big camp bastard" (tm d.a.r.s.y)
VFR800 | ZX6R | R1150GS
BOD#5, two#4, BOTAFOT#23, BOTAFOF#4, URMSBC#09, COFF#09
Admits to working for London Underground!
Owen
Heh, nice...
Owen
>Owen says...
>> On Sun, 30 May 2004 10:14:20 +0100, Lozzo <lo...@lozzo.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>> > says...
>> >> Lozzo <lo...@lozzo.org.uk> wrote in message
>> >> <MPG.1b23249f6...@news.individual.net>:
>> >>
>> >> >Nigel Eaton says...
>> >>
>> >> >> Yeah, Tracey's bed up in smoke *and* people moved out of Leyton. Bonus,
>> >> >> eh?
>> >> >
>> >> >I don't think anyone would notice or care if Miss Emin's bed was to
>> >> >catch fire tbh.
>> >>
>> >> I think several would care about the one in the Saatchi collection.
>> >>
>> >> Her work's not to my 'taste' but I'm glad that there are people
>> >> challenging perceptions and pushing the definition of art.
>> >
>> >She's not an artist, she's a lazy slapper who can't make a bed or clean
>> >her bedroom.
>>
>> Heh, she actually said something sensible for once, on being asked how
>> she felt aboutthe loss of the Scratchy art collection...
>>
>> Makes a change for her not to be completely p*ss*d-up and shouting
>> "B*ll*cks!"
>
>What did she say?
>
>Something along the lines of "It's ok, I can do another one for 30
>quid"?
Acshirley, something along the lines of... "I'm rather more concerened
about children dying in Iraq..."
Owen
Hmmm, somehow I think I'd rather own a kilo of gold than a kilo of
dead dogs... Call me shallow, but...
Owen
wrote:
Well to a point I suppose you have a point, but what is your point?
Not to put to fine a ... well whatever... mirror, signal, manoeuvre...
;-)
Owen
wrote:
>On Sun, 30 May 2004 14:36:00 +0100, Grimly Curmudgeon
><grimlycur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>It was somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
>>drugs began to take hold. I remember wessie <putmyn...@ukrm.net>
>>saying something like:
>>
>>>I wish that art did not have to be valued in monetary terms. A somewhat
>>>utopian view perhaps. After all, without the patronage of wealthy people
>>>artists would not be able to spend as much time being creative. Patronage
>>>is one thing but the commodification of culture saddens me.
>>
>>Art, like everything else, is a gamble. Van Gogh only got the price of a
>>meal for his daubs, because that's all they were worth at the time.
>>
>>Personally I'd like to see a small levy on art auction prices, say 1 or
>>2%, to be paid to the Artist's Benevolent Fund or somesuch.
>>
>>Please, please, help the struggling artists.
>>
>>Will nobody think of the Artists?
>>
>>Remember, think once, think twice, think Artist.
>>
>>It could be an Artist near you.
>
>On this newsgroup there are qute a few artists... ;-)
P comes to mind...
Grimly Curmudgeon
saying something like:
>>What did she say?
>>
>>Something along the lines of "It's ok, I can do another one for 30
>>quid"?
>
>Acshirley, something along the lines of... "I'm rather more concerened
>about children dying in Iraq..."
I've just heard her having a whinge about the difficulties of being an
artist in Britain.
Dr Ivan D. Reid
wrote in <azyGfCz2...@rcav8r.demon.co.uk>:
> You sure your gaff's still there?
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3759703.stm
:-0!
> ;^)
Hope so! I can't think of any tyre depots within 200 m. Sounds
like it's probably along the A408 High Road, which is at least 700 m away.
--
Ivan Reid, Electronic & Computer Engineering, ___ CMS Collaboration,
Brunel University. Ivan...@brunel.ac.uk Room 40-1-B12, CERN
GSX600F, RG250WD. "You Porsche. Me pass!" DoD #484 JKLO# 003, 005
WP7# 3000 LC Unit #2368 (tinlc) UKMC#00009 BOTAFOT#16 UKRMMA#7 (Hon)
KotPT -- "for stupidity above and beyond the call of duty".
Porl
"Owen" <ow...@pericles.demonXX.co.uk> wrote in message
news:sqqkb09t34jkvqoda...@4ax.com...
> Well to a point I suppose you have a point, but what is your point?
In a word: perception.
Owen
<grimlycur...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>It was somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
>drugs began to take hold. I remember Owen <ow...@pericles.demonXX.co.uk>
>saying something like:
>
>>>What did she say?
>>>
>>>Something along the lines of "It's ok, I can do another one for 30
>>>quid"?
>>
>>Acshirley, something along the lines of... "I'm rather more concerened
>>about children dying in Iraq..."
>
>I've just heard her having a whinge about the difficulties of being an
>artist in Britain.
Well she's usually whingeing or justifying the prices of her work with
lines like, "but I studied at art college, therefore my work is
good..."
Darren Robinson
>How can you say 'no taste'? You don't understand their taste and that's
>about it. I'm guessing they like to be challenged and see thought
>provoking stuff but it's only a guess.
How is a tent, with the names of some 100 people daubed on the inside,
supposedly tose of everyone Tracey Emin has ever slept with [1], in any
way, shape or form "art"?
[1] Yeah, right. With that face? A work of fiction, perhaps, but art?
--
Darren Robinson
GSF1200K3+T3
GHPOTHUF#14, IbW#34, MIB#12, no points.
Ben Blaney
>How is a tent, with the names of some 100 people daubed on the inside,
>supposedly tose of everyone Tracey Emin has ever slept with [1], in any
>way, shape or form "art"?
How is a Picasso "art"?
--
Ben Blaney
ogden
>
> dead...@burnt.org.uk burbled:
>
> >How can you say 'no taste'? You don't understand their taste and that's
> >about it. I'm guessing they like to be challenged and see thought
> >provoking stuff but it's only a guess.
>
> How is a tent, with the names of some 100 people daubed on the inside,
> supposedly tose of everyone Tracey Emin has ever slept with [1], in any
> way, shape or form "art"?
>
> [1] Yeah, right. With that face? A work of fiction, perhaps, but art?
>
Slept with. Not shagged.
--
ogden
Darren Robinson
Now on that we agree. Totally over-rated waste of space if ever there
was one.
Ben Blaney
>Ben Blaney <benb...@ukrm.net> burbled:
>
>>Darren Robinson wrote:
>>
>>>How is a tent, with the names of some 100 people daubed on the inside,
>>>supposedly tose of everyone Tracey Emin has ever slept with [1], in any
>>>way, shape or form "art"?
>>
>>How is a Picasso "art"?
>
>Now on that we agree. Totally over-rated waste of space if ever there
>was one.
OK, let's make it a little clearer: How is anything art?
--
Ben Blaney
Ginge
> OK, let's make it a little clearer: How is anything art?
Or, to use the same argument in reverse: How isn't anything art?
--
Ginge [at] stopthevoices [dot] org [dot] uk
- ZRX1200R, SZR660
Ben Blaney
>Ben Blaney wrote:
>
>> OK, let's make it a little clearer: How is anything art?
>
>Or, to use the same argument in reverse: How isn't anything art?
Quite right, old son.
--
Ben Blaney
Grimly Curmudgeon
<dar...@gsx550es.frooserve.co.uk> saying something like:
>How is a tent, with the names of some 100 people daubed on the inside,
>supposedly tose of everyone Tracey Emin has ever slept with [1], in any
>way, shape or form "art"?
In the words of the late and great Fyfe Robertson, it's Phony Art, or
PhArt as he called it.
He was a great man for identifying pretentious wankers, and that was
many decades ago.
Darren Robinson
I just seem to have a bit missing from my brain (okay, one of many,
although in this case I don't consider it a loss) which would otherwise
allow me to appreciate the inherent artyness of abstract or other (for
want of a better word) "modern" art. If it isn't a picture or sculpture
of something, which looks like the thing it purports to represent, I
don't get it. I admire those artists whose work looks as if it's a
photograph, capturing a scene exactly as it was.
sweller
> If it isn't a picture or sculpture of something, which looks like the
> thing it purports to represent, I don't get it. I admire those artists
> whose work looks as if it's a photograph, capturing a scene exactly
> as it was.
The key words here, IMO, is reproduce (as in capturing a scene exactly as
it was) and represent.
Reproducing an image isn't necessarily art. Representing an image is.
Where one defines the border between reproducing and representing is
another debate altogether.
I suspect, and I don't mean to be rude, you don't understand art. That,
however, doesn't preclude the art from being crap.
--
Simon
Brighton | MYSOB: http://www.sweller.co.uk/sob/
England | MZSOB: http://www.mztech.fsnet.co.uk/
Lozzo
> Ben Blaney wrote:
>
> > OK, let's make it a little clearer: How is anything art?
>
> Or, to use the same argument in reverse: How isn't anything art?
The Greeks only have one word for both 'art' and 'design'.
Lozzo
> I just seem to have a bit missing from my brain (okay, one of many,
> although in this case I don't consider it a loss) which would otherwise
> allow me to appreciate the inherent artyness of abstract or other (for
> want of a better word) "modern" art. If it isn't a picture or sculpture
> of something, which looks like the thing it purports to represent, I
> don't get it. I admire those artists whose work looks as if it's a
> photograph, capturing a scene exactly as it was.
AOL
Simian
> Ben Blaney <benb...@ukrm.net> burbled:
>
>>Darren Robinson wrote:
>>
>>>How is a tent, with the names of some 100 people daubed on the inside,
>>>supposedly tose of everyone Tracey Emin has ever slept with [1], in any
>>>way, shape or form "art"?
>>
>>How is a Picasso "art"?
>
> Now on that we agree. Totally over-rated waste of space if ever there
> was one.
Hmmm. While most art - including Emin's - passes me by, Picasso did have
a certain something.
But then I'm just an old-art fuddy-duddy.
Complaining that something "isn't art" seems much like complaining that
something a model is wearing on a catwalk isn't "practical to wear".
--
ZX7RR.
Darren Robinson
>I suspect, and I don't mean to be rude, you don't understand art.
I think I have to fully admit that. It's probably because of that fact,
that I don't actually consider it in any way to my detriment. Form
should follow function, and all that. What is the function of art?
Elly
>On Sun, 30 May 2004 17:59:51 +0000 (UTC), "WavyDavy" wrote
<Snip arty debate>
>>Similarly, I don't understand why a few hundred chinless fuckwits
>> in Wall Street/The London Stock Exchange can decide that
>>gold is more desirable than, say, dead dogs.....
>Hmmm, somehow I think I'd rather own a kilo of gold than a kilo of
>dead dogs... Call me shallow, but...
You can probably make a better curry out of a kilo of dead dogs.
--
Elly - a happy Pixie
Uzi - a CBR600F Sport
Spike - FZ400 - firing on 3 cylinders
MRO#32 ibW#25 BoTAFOT#46 BoTAFOF #46 GP#1 UKRMRM#00 TWA#3
http://www.garagepixies.co.uk
"Angel in the kitchen ... "
elly at garagepixies dot co dot uk
Porl
I think I'm going mad.
Ginge
> I think I'm going mad.
Are you seeing white rabbits yet? If so, the circle is complete.
wessie
> "sweller" <n...@mztech.fsnet.co.uk> burbled:
>
>>I suspect, and I don't mean to be rude, you don't understand art.
>
>What is the function of art?
>
>
To make you think?
Even if your response is, "WTF?" At least you had to think about it.
--
BMW R1150GS
Darren Robinson
But it's wasted thought; it's achieved nothing, merely reinforced my
preconceptions.
Can I give Tracey Emin a good kicking, and call it a performance
artwork?
Porl
"Darren Robinson" <dar...@gsx550es.frooserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:72dnb0d92nsce4vqk...@4ax.com...
> wessie <putmyn...@ukrm.net> burbled:
>
> >Darren Robinson wrote in news:fu7nb0tootsgb2glf...@4ax.com:
> >
> >> "sweller" <n...@mztech.fsnet.co.uk> burbled:
> >>
> >>>I suspect, and I don't mean to be rude, you don't understand art.
> >>
> >>What is the function of art?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >To make you think?
> >
> >Even if your response is, "WTF?" At least you had to think about it.
>
> But it's wasted thought; it's achieved nothing, merely reinforced my
> preconceptions.
Oh the irony. Since overcoming preconceptions is exactly what is one of
art's major goals.
wessie
news:72dnb0d92nsce4vqk...@4ax.com:
> wessie <putmyn...@ukrm.net> burbled:
>
>>Darren Robinson wrote in
>>news:fu7nb0tootsgb2glf...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> "sweller" <n...@mztech.fsnet.co.uk> burbled:
>>>
>>>>I suspect, and I don't mean to be rude, you don't understand art.
>>>
>>>What is the function of art?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>To make you think?
>>
>>Even if your response is, "WTF?" At least you had to think about it.
>
> But it's wasted thought; it's achieved nothing, merely reinforced my
> preconceptions.
Not at all. You are engaging in a debate which, as said in other posts,
is another function of art.
>
> Can I give Tracey Emin a good kicking,
Yes, and I'll cheer you on as she, as a person not an artist, annoys me
too.
>and call it a performance artwork?
No. It's called ABH.
--
BMW R1150GS
Porl
<dead...@burnt.org.uk> wrote in message
news:9udnb0h1g8ul1ptv5...@4ax.com...
> "Porl" <po...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> <2i1r88F...@uni-berlin.de>:
>
> >Oh the irony. Since overcoming preconceptions is exactly what is one of
> >art's major goals.
>
You obviously haven't been reading the thread, I've contributed what I think
is a well worded opinion on the subject. As I try to do on a number of
subjects over the years. I imagine people just assume it's too long and
boring to read and don't bother.
> Say something funny.
Last time I tried that you bit me. I don't think I'll bother.
Ginge
> > Can I give Tracey Emin a good kicking,
>
> Yes, and I'll cheer you on as she, as a person not an artist, annoys me
> too.
Can I take some grainy black and white photos of the proceedings and
call it art?
It almost sounds ethical, and may just be the break I need to clear my
debts and live an easy life from here on in.
Darren Robinson
>wessie wrote:
>> > Can I give Tracey Emin a good kicking,
>>
>> Yes, and I'll cheer you on as she, as a person not an artist, annoys me
>> too.
>
>Can I take some grainy black and white photos of the proceedings and
>call it art?
>
>It almost sounds ethical, and may just be the break I need to clear my
>debts and live an easy life from here on in.
I like the cut of your jib. This could be a plan.
Porl
<dead...@burnt.org.uk> wrote in message
news:17enb0pmv6oj4jogn...@4ax.com...> <2i1rjqF...@uni-berlin.de>:
>
> >
> ><dead...@burnt.org.uk> wrote in message
> >news:9udnb0h1g8ul1ptv5...@4ax.com...
> >> "Porl" <po...@btinternet.com> wrote in message
> >> <2i1r88F...@uni-berlin.de>:
> >>
> >> >Oh the irony. Since overcoming preconceptions is exactly what is one
of
> >> >art's major goals.
> >>
> >> What have you done with the real Porl?
> >
> >You obviously haven't been reading the thread, I've contributed what I
think
> >is a well worded opinion on the subject. As I try to do on a number of
> >subjects over the years. I imagine people just assume it's too long and
> >boring to read and don't bother.
>
> something like you "painted and sculpted using the PC and then breathed
> life into it using animation" 'cept you said it in context and nicer.
>
> >
> >> Say something funny.
> >
> >Last time I tried that you bit me. I don't think I'll bother.
>
> I'm bored now.
Me too.
Ginge
> Ginge <m...@privacy.net> burbled:
>
> >wessie wrote:
> >> > Can I give Tracey Emin a good kicking,
> >>
> >> Yes, and I'll cheer you on as she, as a person not an artist, annoys me
> >> too.
> >
> >Can I take some grainy black and white photos of the proceedings and
> >call it art?
> >
> >It almost sounds ethical, and may just be the break I need to clear my
> >debts and live an easy life from here on in.
>
> I like the cut of your jib. This could be a plan.
See, you *do* get art after all. Now you should feel dirty and used.
sweller
> > I think I'm going mad.
>
> Are you seeing white rabbits yet? If so, the circle is complete.
# When logic and proportion
# Have fallen sloppy dead
fluffycat
> If it isn't a picture or sculpture
> of something, which looks like the thing it purports to represent, I
> don't get it. I admire those artists whose work looks as if it's a
> photograph, capturing a scene exactly as it was.
but what is the point of making something that looks like a photograph?
this may have been desirable in the days before cameras, but no longer.
even then, it wasn't art - it was technical drawing. the point of art is
to notice something that others haven't, and to show it to the rest of
us in ways that affect our emotions or make us think.
(and i'm not saying photography isn't also a medium for art.)
--
fluffycat
Pillion-Cat armed with Sonic Disruptor (Licensed to Shatter)
IbW#39 IWMLAC#1 MIRTTH#30a BOTAFOT#102b
spacereservedforBOMB#Stritchy's_a
Champ
>I know you're taking the piss, but that is exactly how I feel about
>modern art. It is invariably bought by people with no taste and a lot of
>money to burn.
>
>It's a fashion thing IYAM. It's trendy to be a 'modern art' collector,
>and some people will go to any lengths to be seen to be trendy.
Much the same was said about Monet's work in the 1870s
--
Champ
GSX-R 1000, GPz 750 turbo, ZX7RR Endurance Racer x 2
GYASB#0 BotToS#2 BOTAFO(T|F)#35 WG*#1 DFV#8
Team UKRM Racing : www.team-ukrm.com
Ferger
> I admire those artists whose work looks as if it's a
> photograph, capturing a scene exactly as it was.
I know a local artist quite well and remember discussing this with him.
His view was that any half competent painter could do this, but doing
it demonstrated no artistic talent at all, just an excellent grasp of
the mechanics.
--
F
ogden
Technical skill and artistic ability aren't necessarily related.
--
ogden
Darren Robinson
>Darren Robinson wrote:
>> Ginge <m...@privacy.net> burbled:
>>
>> >wessie wrote:
>> >> > Can I give Tracey Emin a good kicking,
>> >>
>> >> Yes, and I'll cheer you on as she, as a person not an artist, annoys me
>> >> too.
>> >
>> >Can I take some grainy black and white photos of the proceedings and
>> >call it art?
>> >
>> >It almost sounds ethical, and may just be the break I need to clear my
>> >debts and live an easy life from here on in.
>>
>> I like the cut of your jib. This could be a plan.
>
>See, you *do* get art after all. Now you should feel dirty and used.
I was more interested in the financial aspect. Money is everything.
Owen
>On Mon, 31 May 2004 00:24:50 +0100, Owen wrote
>
>>On Sun, 30 May 2004 17:59:51 +0000 (UTC), "WavyDavy" wrote
>
><Snip arty debate>
>
>>>Similarly, I don't understand why a few hundred chinless fuckwits
>>> in Wall Street/The London Stock Exchange can decide that
>>>gold is more desirable than, say, dead dogs.....
>
>>Hmmm, somehow I think I'd rather own a kilo of gold than a kilo of
>>dead dogs... Call me shallow, but...
>
>You can probably make a better curry out of a kilo of dead dogs.
I'm willing to wager a kilo of gold that you can buy a better curry
with a kilo of gold than you can make with a kilo of dead dogs...
...And still have change for the taxi home... :-)
--
O
1 Black, shortly to undergo extensive surgery.
1 Red, undergoing lightweight surgery. -----
1 Blue, for Power-Ranger baiting. | o |
Numbers ... | o |
Stuff ... | ooo |
Life ... -----
Elly
wrote:
>On Mon, 31 May 2004 22:30:36 +0100, Elly <el...@ukrm.net> wrote:
>>You can probably make a better curry out of a kilo of dead dogs.
>
>I'm willing to wager a kilo of gold that you can buy a better curry
>with a kilo of gold than you can make with a kilo of dead dogs...
>
>...And still have change for the taxi home... :-)
Hmmm, I believe you may have a point, sir.
However, the pleasure that one may gain from creating a culinary
masterpiece from such seemingly offensive ingredients must surely be
priceless.
geoff
<lo...@lozzo.org.uk> writes
>Nigel Eaton says...
>> Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, Lozzo
>> <lo...@lozzo.org.uk> typed
>> >Nigel Eaton says...
>> >> You sure your gaff's still there?
>> >>
>> >> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/3759703.stm
>> >
>> >At least some good came of an earlier fire
>> >
>> >"Five hundred people were moved from their homes in Leyton on Monday
>> >because of a fire at an industrial estate which also destroyed £50m of
>> >modern art."
>>
>> Yeah, Tracey's bed up in smoke *and* people moved out of Leyton. Bonus,
>> eh?
>
>I don't think anyone would notice or care if Miss Emin's bed was to
>catch fire tbh.
>
I think she did
then blamed everyone for not loving it - pretentious cow
--
geoff
geoff
dead...@burnt.org.uk writes><MPG.1b23249f6...@news.individual.net>:
>
>>Nigel Eaton says...
>
>>> Yeah, Tracey's bed up in smoke *and* people moved out of Leyton. Bonus,
>>> eh?
>>
>>I don't think anyone would notice or care if Miss Emin's bed was to
>>catch fire tbh.
>
>
>Her work's not to my 'taste' but I'm glad that there are people
>challenging perceptions and pushing the definition of art.
A painting in elephant dung is still a pile of shit
--
geoff
geoff
<putmyn...@ukrm.net> writes
If you were to have come up with the same concept (for the sake of
argument trace eminem's unmade bed) and tried to exhibit / sell it,
would anybody have gone to see it / bought it ?
I think not
So it's not actually the art which is worth anything, it's the fact that
a currently trendy "artist" did it that gives it value
So that's art ...
--
geoff
Ben Blaney
>In message <gp6jb0dpr2db6ktjg...@4ax.com>,
>dead...@burnt.org.uk writes
>>
>>Her work's not to my 'taste' but I'm glad that there are people
>>challenging perceptions and pushing the definition of art.
>
>A painting in elephant dung is still a pile of shit
Is it, though?
--
Ben Blaney
Lozzo
To Tracey Emin, that's 3 million quid in the bank.
--
Lozzo: The Speedyspic
Yamaha YZF1000R Thunderace
geoff
<lo...@lozzo.org.uk> writes
>Ginge says...
>> Ben Blaney wrote:
>>
>> > OK, let's make it a little clearer: How is anything art?
>>
>> Or, to use the same argument in reverse: How isn't anything art?
>
>The Greeks only have one word for both 'art' and 'design'.
>
Krapos ?
--
geoff
geoff
Curmudgeon <grimlycur...@hotmail.com> writes
>It was somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
>drugs began to take hold. I remember Owen <ow...@pericles.demonXX.co.uk>
>saying something like:
>
>>>What did she say?
>>>
>>>Something along the lines of "It's ok, I can do another one for 30
>>>quid"?
>>
>>Acshirley, something along the lines of... "I'm rather more concerened
>>about children dying in Iraq..."
>
>I've just heard her having a whinge about the difficulties of being an
>artist in Britain.
Not forgetting blaming the British public for not appreciating her art
>
--
geoff
geoff
<benb...@ukrm.net> writes
--
geoff
geoff
<putmyn...@ukrm.net> writes
>darsy wrote in news:glljb099a4db14amv...@4ax.com:
>
>> On 30 May 2004 10:13:44 GMT, wessie <putmyn...@ukrm.net> wrote:
>>
>>>I wish that art did not have to be valued in monetary terms. A
>>>somewhat utopian view perhaps. After all, without the patronage of
>>>wealthy people artists would not be able to spend as much time being
>>>creative. Patronage is one thing but the commodification of culture
>>>saddens me.
>>
>> you seemed to be agreeing with the "I don't understand modern art so
>> it must be shit" camp.
>
>No. I'm hoping that the economic rationality of the insurance cos. will
>force some debate over the "art market".
>
Hello Ms Emim I'm here for the insurance evaluation,
That's two pillows, one top sheet, one ...
--
geoff
Ben Blaney
>I can think "what a load of bollocks" far more cheaply
>
>If you were to have come up with the same concept (for the sake of
>argument trace eminem's unmade bed) and tried to exhibit / sell it,
>would anybody have gone to see it / bought it ?
>
>I think not
>
>So it's not actually the art which is worth anything, it's the fact that
>a currently trendy "artist" did it that gives it value
>
>So that's art ...
You actually don't know anything about it, do you?
--
Ben Blaney
geoff
<dnk.h...@btopenwurld.com> writes
>
>> That is why it is all equally worthless and equally valuable. If it looks
>> pretty and you want to stick it on a wall, then that is the kind of art
>you
>> like, simple as that.
>
>Yes and no. If you like it and are prepared to pay for it then it may just
>be the kind of commodity you like, not art per se.
>
>> The likes of Emin have a value because of the desireability of ther names
>> and the curators that choose to showcase them. The value of a piece is
>> arbitrary such as the value of gold which in itself is almost worthless
>> apart from it's conductivity and non-corrosive properties.
>
>This I agree with. I don't understand *why* a few dozen chinless idiots
>think Emin's work is worth such sums of money, yet it is their prerogative
>to think how they wish. Similarly, I don't understand why a few hundred
>chinless fuckwits in Wall Street/The London Stock Exchange can decide that
>gold is more desirable than, say, dead dogs.....
>
Maybe because gold lasts longer and doesn't smell
just a thought
--
geoff
Ben Blaney
Art is more than definition.
--
Ben Blaney
geoff
>It was somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
>saying something like:
>
>>I wish that art did not have to be valued in monetary terms. A somewhat
>>utopian view perhaps. After all, without the patronage of wealthy people
>>artists would not be able to spend as much time being creative. Patronage
>>is one thing but the commodification of culture saddens me.
>
>meal for his daubs, because that's all they were worth at the time.
>
>Personally I'd like to see a small levy on art auction prices, say 1 or
>2%, to be paid to the Artist's Benevolent Fund or somesuch.
>
>Please, please, help the struggling artists.
>
>Will nobody think of the Artists?
>
>Remember, think once, think twice, think Artist.
>
>It could be an Artist near you.
>
OK, I have a carefully crafted empty Stella can on the table, it
represents my fight with my inner self and must be worth thousands...
who's going to start the bidding ?
10% to the artists benevolent fund from the piss artists rubbish fund
--
geoff
geoff
<benb...@ukrm.net> writes
refute what I said, rather than coming up with a bland statement like
that
--
geoff
geoff
>geoff wrote:
>
>>In message <mc2qb05l2shqouonj...@4ax.com>, Ben Blaney
>><benb...@ukrm.net> writes
>>>geoff wrote:
>>>
>>>>In message <gp6jb0dpr2db6ktjg...@4ax.com>,
>>>>dead...@burnt.org.uk writes
>>>>>
>>>>>Her work's not to my 'taste' but I'm glad that there are people
>>>>>challenging perceptions and pushing the definition of art.
>>>>
>>>>A painting in elephant dung is still a pile of shit
>>>
>>>Is it, though?
>>>
>>By definition, yes
>
>Art is more than definition.
>
--
geoff
Champ
That's not what she said. Not in the article posted, anyway.