Norks on TV
WavyDavy
butt-ugly face, but nice cleavage on Have I got News For You.
2. Does Geri Halliwell know her top is see-thru on Graham Norton right
now......
Dave
Ben Sales
<ben.bos...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>1. Tracey Emin - biffer with an annoying accent, chip on her shoulder and a
>butt-ugly face, but nice cleavage on Have I got News For You.
Missed that.
>2. Does Geri Halliwell know her top is see-thru on Graham Norton right
>now......
Didn't miss that but didn't think it was see thru.
Went to watch the crap porno on Channel 5 and left that after ten
minutes.
B
--
Ben Sales
SV650SY (Sold)
GSX-R750 (Saturday 21st)
DIAABTCOD#11 BOTAFOT#75 two#19 ICQ#73726000
"Computer games don't affect kids, I mean if pac man affected
us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms,
munching pills and listening to repetitive music."
Steve
<ben.bos...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>1. Tracey Emin - biffer with an annoying accent, chip on her shoulder and a
>butt-ugly face, but nice cleavage on Have I got News For You.
I saw that too. Who IS she??
That's my favourite progamme, that is.
AndrewR
<benREMOVE...@randygerbil.com> wrote:
<SNIP>
>Went to watch the crap porno on Channel 5 and left that after ten
>minutes.
10 minutes?
Respect!
--
AndrewR, D.Bot (Celeritas)
Kawasaki ZX-6R J1
BOTAFOT#2 (and KoTL),ITJWTFO#6,UKRMRM#1,MCT#1,DFV#2
Ask me about SKoGA#s, but don't mention the KURDS#s
'We are the priests of power,' he said. 'God is power. But at present power
is only a word so far as you are concerned. It is time for you to gather
some idea of what power means.
Chris Evans
typed this old guff, whilst watching TV with one eye and a quickly
disappearing container of alcohol with the other:
She's the daft Artistic tramp who did the "lived in bed", lived in by
her, her boyfriend and from the state of it, umpteen wee crawly
things.
--
FUB#2
ZX-9R B1 (runs Lean, not Green, slightly Mean)
GPZ500s (nice to re-learn on, robbed)
KL250 (sob, but my first true love,long gone)
Read the FAQ at;
Champ
>On Fri, 20 Apr 2001 23:19:11 +0100, "WavyDavy"
><ben.bos...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>>1. Tracey Emin - biffer with an annoying accent, chip on her shoulder and a
>>butt-ugly face, but nice cleavage on Have I got News For You.
I reckon she had her tits on show to attract attention away from her
face.
>I saw that too. Who IS she??
She's a nartist. She had an installation at the recent (actually,
1999) "Sensation" exhibition called "My Bed", which consisted of an
unmade bed, with soiled sheets, surrounded by vodka bottles, dirty
underwear etc.
--
Champ
Suzuki GSX-R 1000, Kawasaki GPz750turbo
www.champ.org.uk GYASB#0 BotToS#2 BOTAFOT#35 UKRMFBC#2 IHABWTMMJ#3 MCT#5
You can't always get what you want
Steve
>Steve <st...@webtapestry.net> ejaculated :
>
>>On Fri, 20 Apr 2001 23:19:11 +0100, "WavyDavy"
>><ben.bos...@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>>
>>>1. Tracey Emin - biffer with an annoying accent, chip on her shoulder and a
>>>butt-ugly face, but nice cleavage on Have I got News For You.
>
>I reckon she had her tits on show to attract attention away from her
>face.
>
>>I saw that too. Who IS she??
>
>She's a nartist. She had an installation at the recent (actually,
>1999) "Sensation" exhibition called "My Bed", which consisted of an
>unmade bed, with soiled sheets, surrounded by vodka bottles, dirty
>underwear etc.
Oh is that all?
Jeez, if they saw *my* bed, I'd definitely be famous. And I'd deserve
it too!
Lesley
>>>1. Tracey Emin - biffer with an annoying accent, chip on her shoulder and a
>>>butt-ugly face, but nice cleavage on Have I got News For You.
>
>I reckon she had her tits on show to attract attention away from her
>face.
That'll be cos she needed to. And she was also severley lacking in the
intelligence and humour department, too.
>>I saw that too. Who IS she??
>
>She's a nartist. She had an installation at the recent (actually,
>1999) "Sensation" exhibition called "My Bed", which consisted of an
>unmade bed, with soiled sheets, surrounded by vodka bottles, dirty
>underwear etc.
Ew! So *that* is the 'person' who did that? Jeez - would you really want
to sleep in that pit? Or shag, for that matter. Watching the programme,
I thought 'I bet she's had a few bags on her head in her time'.
--
Lesley
ZXR400SP [Cagiva 1000 due]
SBS#11[with oak-leaf cluster] BOTAFOT#101A
"If your dog thinks you're the best, don't seek a
second opinion."
Ben Sales
<and...@rockface.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>On Sat, 21 Apr 2001 00:00:19 +0100, Ben Sales
><benREMOVE...@randygerbil.com> wrote:
>
>
><SNIP>
>
>>Went to watch the crap porno on Channel 5 and left that after ten
>>minutes.
>
>10 minutes?
>
>Respect!
Git. I meant it was crap and any erotic movies that doesn't have any
sex within the first 10 minutes isn't worth watching IMHO.
Champ
>>>Went to watch the crap porno on Channel 5 and left that after ten
>>>minutes.
>>
>>10 minutes?
>>
>>Respect!
>
>Git. I meant it was crap and any erotic movies that doesn't have any
>sex within the first 10 minutes isn't worth watching IMHO.
I think you'll find that the 'erotic' movies on channel 5 don't have
any sex at all
Champ
>On Sat, 21 Apr 2001 01:15:53 +0100, Champ <uk...@champ.org.uk> wrote:
>>She's a nartist. She had an installation at the recent (actually,
>>1999) "Sensation" exhibition called "My Bed", which consisted of an
>>unmade bed, with soiled sheets, surrounded by vodka bottles, dirty
>>underwear etc.
>Ew! So *that* is the 'person' who did that? Jeez - would you really want
>to sleep in that pit? Or shag, for that matter. Watching the programme,
>I thought 'I bet she's had a few bags on her head in her time'.
While not really wanting to become the standard bearer for modern art,
I don't think you should infer that her real bed is like the 'piece'.
It's art, after all. It's meant to make you think.
Oh, fuck it, someone's got to do it.
<gets to feet>
My name is Neal Champion, and I like modern art
WavyDavy
"Champ" <uk...@champ.org.uk> wrote in message
news:sli2ets9ghc0p965c...@4ax.com...
>
> <gets to feet>
>
> My name is Neal Champion, and I like modern art
I was watching something on Thursday night and all I can remember through
the alcohol & bacon srnie haze is some comedy type shouting "Modern art?
What's that all about then? It's just for people who CAN'T DRAW!!!!"
Simian
> Ben Sales <benREMOVE...@randygerbil.com> ejaculated :
>
>>Git. I meant it was crap and any erotic movies that doesn't have any
>>sex within the first 10 minutes isn't worth watching IMHO.
>
> I think you'll find that the 'erotic' movies on channel 5 don't have
> any sex at all
No, being inanimate objects, they have no drive to reproduce.
--
simon aka Dougal aka Simian aka NosePicker
SMFMD#1 BOD#4 two#10(greed) D.Bot(afot#52)
HMC#2 GHPOTHUF#22
Christofire
>Lesley <Les...@ukrm.org> ejaculated :
>
>>On Sat, 21 Apr 2001 01:15:53 +0100, Champ <uk...@champ.org.uk> wrote:
>
>>>She's a nartist. She had an installation at the recent (actually,
>>>1999) "Sensation" exhibition called "My Bed", which consisted of an
>>>unmade bed, with soiled sheets, surrounded by vodka bottles, dirty
>>>underwear etc.
>
>>Ew! So *that* is the 'person' who did that? Jeez - would you really want
>>to sleep in that pit? Or shag, for that matter. Watching the programme,
>>I thought 'I bet she's had a few bags on her head in her time'.
>
>While not really wanting to become the standard bearer for modern art,
>I don't think you should infer that her real bed is like the 'piece'.
>It's art, after all. It's meant to make you think.
>
>Oh, fuck it, someone's got to do it.
>
><gets to feet>
>
>My name is Neal Champion, and I like modern art
<Paul Merton<Angus Deayton>>
In what way?
</pm<ad>>
--
Christofire Suzuki SV650SK
two#20 TPPFAUICG#69 BONY#10 MIRTTH#7
"Bye bye Gatso - See you in court."
"If at first you don't succeed parachuting is not for you."
Bastard Bear
> Oh, fuck it, someone's got to do it.
>
> <gets to feet>
>
> My name is Neal Champion, and I like modern art
<nervously raises hand from the back of the room>
What he said; not all of it, by any means, but plenty of it ...
--
Bastard Bear
These are my own opinions, and not necessarily those of all Bears
ZX-9R TART#1 UKRMHRC#8 GHPOTHUF#4 HB#2 TCP#1a DIAABTCOD#4 KotYTC#
UKRMFBC#3 BOTAFOT#1 MSWR#2 "Deligatus est! Viae abeamus!"
Bear's Napster most played: Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young: "American
Dream"
The UKRM FAQ: http://www.windfalls.net/ukrm/
Say "bye bye!" to saddo trolls: http://www.nfilter.org
Glenn Hurrell
Bastard Bear wrote:
>
> Champ wrote:
>
> > Oh, fuck it, someone's got to do it.
> >
> > <gets to feet>
> >
> > My name is Neal Champion, and I like modern art
>
> <nervously raises hand from the back of the room>
>
> What he said; not all of it, by any means, but plenty of it ...
Alright then, being a complete philistine when comes to 'art' - What
exactly is the line that distinguishes modern art from, errmm, not
modern art IYSWIM? Does someone turn around and say - "ooh, that's
cubism that is - must be modern 'cos nobody been using cubes before."
And when does old 'modern art' become traditional art? - Is there some
sort of rolling time frame like wot is used for your road tax, ie
anything over xx years is now traditional art?
And whats the point in the is modern/not modern art thing anyway. Isn't
'art' just individual expression? In which case why differentiate
between modern and traditional - it is all just expression anyway and if
someone takes pleasure in it or finds inspiration then does it matter if
it was done yesterday or a couple of thousand years ago?
G.
--
GPZ500s
UKRMRM#3, UKRMMA#12, two#31
"Smoke me a kipper. I'll be back for breakfast"
sppampproofed Stewart Hargrave
>
>I think you'll find that the 'erotic' movies on channel 5 don't have
>any sex at all
Realism.
--
Stewart Hargrave
Kawasaki 1000GTR
Volvo 740
Be wise with speed; A fool at forty is a fool indeed.
- Edward Young 1683 - 1765
Champ
>> > My name is Neal Champion, and I like modern art
>Alright then, being a complete philistine when comes to 'art' - What
>exactly is the line that distinguishes modern art from, errmm, not
>modern art IYSWIM? Does someone turn around and say - "ooh, that's
>cubism that is - must be modern 'cos nobody been using cubes before."
>And when does old 'modern art' become traditional art? - Is there some
>sort of rolling time frame like wot is used for your road tax, ie
>anything over xx years is now traditional art?
>
>And whats the point in the is modern/not modern art thing anyway. Isn't
>'art' just individual expression? In which case why differentiate
>between modern and traditional - it is all just expression anyway and if
>someone takes pleasure in it or finds inspiration then does it matter if
>it was done yesterday or a couple of thousand years ago?
OK, the first question is "what is art". That's the subject of a 3
year degree course at least, so let's forget about it :-)
The phrase modern art obviously refers to a time frame, and I guess
the impressionists in the late 19th century were the first truly
modern artists, in that their painting didn't exactly represent what
they saw, it gave the feeling of what they saw. Caused quite a furore
at the time, but nowadays it's very mainstream, and everyone loves
Monet's Waterlillies, etc.
At the start of the 20th century, things got really interesting, and
people started painting stuff that looked nothing like the real world.
There were too many movements to name (surrelism, cubism, dadaism,
etc), and even tho nearly 100 years old, this work is still 'modern'.
Eventually, we got to pure 'abstract' - the work doesn't tell you
anything about the physical real world, but tries to convey pure
emotion.
So, the short answer is - if it doesn't accurately represent something
that you find in the real world, it's probably modern.
Someone who knows might be along shortly.
Ben Sales
>Ben Sales <benREMOVE...@randygerbil.com> ejaculated :
>
>>>>Went to watch the crap porno on Channel 5 and left that after ten
>>>>minutes.
>>>
>>>10 minutes?
>>>
>>>Respect!
>>
>>Git. I meant it was crap and any erotic movies that doesn't have any
>>sex within the first 10 minutes isn't worth watching IMHO.
>
>I think you'll find that the 'erotic' movies on channel 5 don't have
>any sex at all
That'll be why they're called an 'erotic' movie then won't it? Wasn't
even erotic.
But then I'm a sick puppy according to Burnt's Sleaze test.
B
--
Ben Sales
GSX-R750 DIAABTCOD#11 BOTAFOT#75 two#19 ICQ#73726000
Verdigris
wrote:
>Champ wrote:
>
>> Oh, fuck it, someone's got to do it.
>>
>> <gets to feet>
>>
>> My name is Neal Champion, and I like modern art
>
><nervously raises hand from the back of the room>
>
>What he said; not all of it, by any means, but plenty of it ...
We should form a self-help group!
I really liked Tate Modern when I visited last year. I must go again.
I particularly liked the Jackson Pollack they have there; a wonderful
piece.
--
Simon
Big ugly alleged AIX expert on a Tiger
BOTAFOT #36 two #22 HLR#pi
STILLv...@lineone.net.xx
Mick Whittingham
<uk...@champ.org.uk> writes
>Ben Sales <benREMOVE...@randygerbil.com> ejaculated :
>
>>>>Went to watch the crap porno on Channel 5 and left that after ten
>>>>minutes.
>>>
>>>10 minutes?
>>>
>>>Respect!
>>
>>Git. I meant it was crap and any erotic movies that doesn't have any
>>sex within the first 10 minutes isn't worth watching IMHO.
>
>I think you'll find that the 'erotic' movies on channel 5 don't have
>any sex at all
>
--
Mick Whittingham
'and I will make it a felony to drink small beer.'
William Shakespeare, Henry VI part 2.
Champ
>I really liked Tate Modern when I visited last year. I must go again.
<AOL>
>I particularly liked the Jackson Pollack they have there; a wonderful
>piece.
Sir is partial to a bit of Abstract Impressionism, is sir?
I really like the Gilbert and George work. I'd always regarded them
as self-promoting wankers, but looking at the paintings in isolation
was quite different.
And the Warhol's are excellent, too.
Ben Sales
<Mi...@mjwc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <mji2et0f80bmm2oc7...@4ax.com>, Champ
><uk...@champ.org.uk> writes
>>Ben Sales <benREMOVE...@randygerbil.com> ejaculated :
>>
>>>>>Went to watch the crap porno on Channel 5 and left that after ten
>>>>>minutes.
>>>>
>>>>10 minutes?
>>>>
>>>>Respect!
>>>
>>>Git. I meant it was crap and any erotic movies that doesn't have any
>>>sex within the first 10 minutes isn't worth watching IMHO.
>>
>>I think you'll find that the 'erotic' movies on channel 5 don't have
>>any sex at all
>>
>You need TV1000 and Canal Plus for that, allegedly.
I've got the internet, why would I want either?
B
--
Ben Sales
GSX-R750 DIAABTCOD#11 BOTAFOT#75 two#19 ICQ#73726000
Pip
<benREMOVE...@randygerbil.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 22 Apr 2001 11:37:37 +0100, Mick Whittingham
><Mi...@mjwc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>You need TV1000 and Canal Plus for that, allegedly.
>
>I've got the internet, why would I want either?
Widescreen and the zoom facility with a decent D2Mac decoder, that's
why. Err, allegedly - so I've been told, like.
--
Pip VF750FE DFWAG#0
ANORAK#8 BONY#13(H) DIAABTCOD#14 BOTAFOT#34a FUB#4
While you still have a candle, burn it at both ends
- and torch it in the middle while you're at it!
Kind words butter no parsnips.
Pip
>Verdigris ejaculated :
>
>>I particularly liked the Jackson Pollack they have there; a wonderful
>>piece.
>
>And the Warhol's are excellent, too.
I've frequently considered the oft-ignored parallels between the art
of Jackson P and the feral apostrophes of Warhol to be more
significant than the mainstream critics appreciate, myself.
Mick Whittingham
<benREMOVE...@randygerbil.com> writes
>On Sun, 22 Apr 2001 11:37:37 +0100, Mick Whittingham
><Mi...@mjwc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>In article <mji2et0f80bmm2oc7...@4ax.com>, Champ
>><uk...@champ.org.uk> writes
>>>Ben Sales <benREMOVE...@randygerbil.com> ejaculated :
>>>
>>>>>>Went to watch the crap porno on Channel 5 and left that after ten
>>>>>>minutes.
>>>>>
>>>>>10 minutes?
>>>>>
>>>>>Respect!
>>>>
>>>>Git. I meant it was crap and any erotic movies that doesn't have any
>>>>sex within the first 10 minutes isn't worth watching IMHO.
>>>
>>>I think you'll find that the 'erotic' movies on channel 5 don't have
>>>any sex at all
>>>
>>You need TV1000 and Canal Plus for that, allegedly.
>
>I've got the internet, why would I want either?
>
Ben Sales
>On Sun, 22 Apr 2001 16:01:15 +0100, Ben Sales
><benREMOVE...@randygerbil.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 22 Apr 2001 11:37:37 +0100, Mick Whittingham
>><Mi...@mjwc.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>You need TV1000 and Canal Plus for that, allegedly.
>>
>>I've got the internet, why would I want either?
>
>Widescreen and the zoom facility with a decent D2Mac decoder, that's
>why. Err, allegedly - so I've been told, like.
TV-out to widescreen tv - check
Enough disc space to save the NASA space program - check
Problem solved <cough>If I wanted to</cough>
Champ
>On Sun, 22 Apr 2001 15:44:53 +0100, Champ <uk...@champ.org.uk> wrote:
>
>>Verdigris ejaculated :
>>
>>>I particularly liked the Jackson Pollack they have there; a wonderful
>>>piece.
>
>>
>>And the Warhol's are excellent, too.
>
>I've frequently considered the oft-ignored parallels between the art
>of Jackson P and the feral apostrophes of Warhol to be more
>significant than the mainstream critics appreciate, myself.
<checks post>
curses.
'Ere, Pip - fuck off, ta
Ben Blaney
Hmm. Almost as funny as my mate Chris. When I have a jazz CD on, he
just says: "they're just making it up as they go along".
ho ho ho.
--
Ben Blaney
1998 CBR600
There's no justice, there just is.
Wiglaf Noxgaga
> I really like the Gilbert and George work. I'd always regarded them
> as self-promoting wankers, but looking at the paintings in isolation
> was quite different.
I had that with Mark Rothko. 'Hmmmm, just horizontal lines in different
spludgy colours. Where's the art in that,' I thunk. Then you study a
series of them, and they do have a strange, magical harmony to them.
--
Wiglaf
SbS#1
Pip
>Pip <p...@ukrm.org> ejaculated :
>
>>On Sun, 22 Apr 2001 15:44:53 +0100, Champ <uk...@champ.org.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>And the Warhol's are excellent, too.
>>
>>I've frequently considered the oft-ignored parallels between the art
>>of Jackson P and the feral apostrophes of Warhol to be more
>>significant than the mainstream critics appreciate, myself.
>
><checks post>
>
>curses.
>
>'Ere, Pip - fuck off, ta
You arty types - you're so wordy, aintcha?
Succincticity personified, Champy dear.
Pollacks.
Champ
<Synchronicity department>
I bought a Rothko to hang on my bedroom wall on Saturday [1]
[1] a print from Athena, not an original
--
Champ
Suzuki GSX-R 1000 (running in, please pass) Kawasaki GPz750turbo
Verdigris
>Verdigris ejaculated :
>
>>I really liked Tate Modern when I visited last year. I must go again.
>
><AOL>
>
>>I particularly liked the Jackson Pollack they have there; a wonderful
>>piece.
>
>Sir is partial to a bit of Abstract Impressionism, is sir?
Not all of it, but that Pollack is soooo good. TV and books just
don't do it justice.
>I really like the Gilbert and George work. I'd always regarded them
>as self-promoting wankers, but looking at the paintings in isolation
>was quite different.
Yep.
>And the Warhol's are excellent, too.
Good, but I was less thrilled; possibly due to overexposure.
There is stuff at Tate Modern that I didn't particularly like but
nearly all of it is at the very least interesting.
I even quite liked the tree.
Champ
>There is stuff at Tate Modern that I didn't particularly like but
>nearly all of it is at the very least interesting.
My response to modern art tends to be :
20% - wow - that's fantastic
60% - umm - doesn't do much for me
20% - ugh - that's abhorent.
Of course, some stuff manages to fall into the first and last
categories. Lucian Freud's work, for example, I have to look at
through my fingers, but I still have to look at it, IYSWIM.
--
Champ
Suzuki GSX-R 1000 (running in, please pass) Kawasaki GPz750turbo
Bastard Bear
>
> Verdigris ejaculated :
>
> >There is stuff at Tate Modern that I didn't particularly like but
> >nearly all of it is at the very least interesting.
>
> My response to modern art tends to be :
>
> 20% - wow - that's fantastic
> 60% - umm - doesn't do much for me
> 20% - ugh - that's abhorent.
>
> Of course, some stuff manages to fall into the first and last
> categories. Lucian Freud's work, for example, I have to look at
> through my fingers, but I still have to look at it, IYSWIM.
Mine would be about 50% love, 20% ho hum, 30% "you're taking the piss",
but otherwise I agree wholeheartedly ...
And many, many thanks to Mr Bill Mackinnon for turning that figure from
0/1/99 and enlightening my ignorance.
Darren Robinson
>
>My response to modern art tends to be :
>
>20% - wow - that's fantastic
>60% - umm - doesn't do much for me
>20% - ugh - that's abhorent.
I appear to be missing the part of my brain which would allow me to
appreciate modern art. I think it's all, unreservedly and without
exception, total arse. If it doesn't look like something what's the
point?
I am open to debate on this.
--
Darren Robinson - GHPOTHUF#14 - ITJWTFO#8 - two#1 - ICQ #71154641
darren at you kay are emm dot org
The GSX550ES is gone...
Long live the Bandit 600!
Grimly Curmudgeon
of usenet, the voice of dar...@DIESPAMMERDIEukrm.org (Darren Robinson)
rang out loud and clear:
>I appear to be missing the part of my brain which would allow me to
>appreciate modern art. I think it's all, unreservedly and without
>exception, total arse. If it doesn't look like something what's the
>point?
My dear chap, I thoroughly agree. Almost without exception, most of
this 'modern art' rubbish is unmitigated talentless twaddle
perpetuated by useless hacks, venal art dealers and their credulous
and greedy clientele.
Gully Jimpson.
Champ
>I appear to be missing the part of my brain which would allow me to
>appreciate modern art. I think it's all, unreservedly and without
>exception, total arse. If it doesn't look like something what's the
>point?
>
>I am open to debate on this.
Here goes then:
Point 1
"If it doesn't look like something, what's the point?" sez you. But
we don't expect music to "sound like something", do we? Music is pure
abstraction - in fact, it's often considered 'modern' to put
real-world sounds/noises in music. Music is meant to produce an
emotional response, so why can't we have visual arts that do the same?
Point 2
Lot's of modern art does "look like something", just not in an exactly
representational way. In the same way that a cartoonist uses
caricature to emphasise certain aspects of someone, an artist can show
us something which we recognise, but distorted in a away to show us
some aspect which we might not have noticed before.
I'll take questions after class
Mick Whittingham
Curmudgeon <sh...@the.moon.com> writes
Oooh look, the king is as naked as the day he was born!
Vic
>>1. Tracey Emin - biffer with an annoying accent, chip on her shoulder and a
>>butt-ugly face, but nice cleavage on Have I got News For You.
>
>Missed that.
They were quite amazingly lenient towards her.
I think it was something to do with her doing such a good job of showing us what
a brainless fuckwit she really is, all on her own an' that.
Vic.
Vic
>While not really wanting to become the standard bearer for modern art,
>I don't think you should infer that her real bed is like the 'piece'.
..But from listening to her public humiliation - sorry *interview* - with John
Humphries a while back, you'd get the idea that it was her real bed. Or at least
she said it was.
>It's art, after all. It's meant to make you think.
It makes me think "She's a talentless twat". So it worked, then.
Worst bit was her insistence that she deserved whatever prize it was she won
just because she'd been on the dole for 20 years - nothing to do with quality of
art or anything like that...
>My name is Neal Champion, and I like modern art
<Condolences>
Vic.
Champ
>I clearly still require remedial modern art lessons... So much of it I
>look at and think "you're taking the piss" then I read a description
>of the work and think "now I know you're taking the piss"...
>
>Where's that nice picture of a lily pond gone ...
AH, well, if you're talking about Monet's Waterlillies, then that's
where the whole thing started, innit? Cos the Impressionists didn't
paint things exactly as they appeared, they gave 'an impression' of
how they appeared. Caused quite an upset at the time, I can tell you.
darsy
>AH, well, if you're talking about Monet's Waterlillies, then that's
>where the whole thing started, innit? Cos the Impressionists didn't
>paint things exactly as they appeared, they gave 'an impression' of
>how they appeared. Caused quite an upset at the time, I can tell you.
Have you been watching "art that shocked the world" or whatever it's
called exactly on BBC on whenever it's on? (sorry to be a bit vague,
but that's the way it is with me at the moment, I'm afraid).
"modern" art has always been "rubbish"/"upsetting"/"emperor's new
clothes"/whatever, and then later some stuff is remembered and
venerated and other stuff is ridiculed and/or forgotten.
I mean, look at the reception Hogarth got to his etchings ("Rake's
Progress" for example), but now loads of people (including myself)
think they're works of genius.
Just remember to apply Hanlon's Razor to modern art as well as to
everything else in life.
A lot of it's personal choice too, though - although accepted nowadays
as mainstream, I absolutely cannot stand/see the "point" of Henry
Moore's work - for me, if it's sculpture, it's got to be Rodin any day
of the week.
In terms of "appreciation of art" in general, though, I'm more of a
literature and music person rather than a visual arts person.
--
darsy | TVoR | SZR660:TRX850:CD200 | BOTAFO(T7|F2) web : www.ukrm.org.uk
tracks o'the week: Add N to (X):"Plug me In" | Freq Nasty:"Hydrogenesis"
darsy
wrote:
>darsy <da...@sticky.net> wibbled:
>[Hanlon's razor]
>? Wassat then?
"90% of everything is crap".
>>In terms of "appreciation of art" in general, though, I'm more of a
>>literature and music person rather than a visual arts person.
>
>You don't see the websites you present to us as "artisitc" then...
Some of them are. In fact, here are some art sites:
http://www.pixelodyssey.com/
http://www.beestation.com/
http://www.shift.jp.org/
http://www.once-upon-a-forest.com/
http://www.23dreams.com/index.html
http://www.tokion.com/
http://www.sountain.com/
all about (s2-4w4-7p5-9) IYSWIM.
Verdigris
>dar...@DIESPAMMERDIEukrm.org (Darren Robinson) ejaculated :
>
>>I appear to be missing the part of my brain which would allow me to
>>appreciate modern art. I think it's all, unreservedly and without
>>exception, total arse. If it doesn't look like something what's the
>>point?
>>
>>I am open to debate on this.
>
>Here goes then:
>
>Point 1
>"If it doesn't look like something, what's the point?" sez you. But
>we don't expect music to "sound like something", do we? Music is pure
>abstraction - in fact, it's often considered 'modern' to put
>real-world sounds/noises in music. Music is meant to produce an
>emotional response, so why can't we have visual arts that do the same?
Can a landscape - not a picture of a landscape, but the real thing -
be beautiful? I'm sure everybody would say it can. But what does it
look like? Nothing at all, except itself. It may be similar to other
landscapes but it isn't copying them.
Or maybe a crystalline formation; a big lump of rock-crystal, like the
one in the Geoilogical Museum. This, too, may be pleasing to the eye
but it doesn't necessarily _look_ like anything.
Or a vase, or a fine building, or a bird?
Why then need a piece of art try to look like anything other than
itself?
>Point 2
>Lot's of modern art does "look like something", just not in an exactly
>representational way. In the same way that a cartoonist uses
>caricature to emphasise certain aspects of someone, an artist can show
>us something which we recognise, but distorted in a away to show us
>some aspect which we might not have noticed before.
Even "proper" pictures don't look exactly like their models. They're
not photographs! The artist will have modified the image, if only to
remove blemishes from a portrait of a rich patron.
Champ
>On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 11:49:15 +0100, Richard Giles <gi...@liv.ac.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>darsy <da...@sticky.net> wibbled:
>>[Hanlon's razor]
>>? Wassat then?
>
>"90% of everything is crap".
Hang on, that was Sturgeon's Law last week?
Champ
>2) Not all stuff from that era is hailed as a masterpiece (or even
>good). A centuries worth of selection has occurred to weed out the
>dross.
aka Sturgeon Law / Hanlon's razor. It's only the 10% which isn't shit
which is remembered.
Champ
>On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 11:18:25 +0100, Champ <uk...@champ.org.uk> wrote:
>
>>AH, well, if you're talking about Monet's Waterlillies, then that's
>>where the whole thing started, innit? Cos the Impressionists didn't
>>paint things exactly as they appeared, they gave 'an impression' of
>>how they appeared. Caused quite an upset at the time, I can tell you.
>
>Have you been watching "art that shocked the world" or whatever it's
>called exactly on BBC on whenever it's on? (sorry to be a bit vague,
>but that's the way it is with me at the moment, I'm afraid).
No, not even heard of it. Curses. Despite the fact that I've just
got 2k's worth of home cinema kit, I've hardly watched any TV since I
moved.
>"modern" art has always been "rubbish"/"upsetting"/"emperor's new
>clothes"/whatever,
Indeed, some may say this is it's point.
Champ
>Can a landscape - not a picture of a landscape, but the real thing -
>be beautiful? I'm sure everybody would say it can.
This is another interesting point. The concept of "Beautiful
Landscape" itself is relatively recent - less than 300 years, say. It
can be argued that landscape painting is actually what gave our
culture the idea that nature can be beautiful.
darsy
>darsy <da...@sticky.net> ejaculated :
>
>>On Wed, 25 Apr 2001 11:49:15 +0100, Richard Giles <gi...@liv.ac.uk>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>darsy <da...@sticky.net> wibbled:
>>>[Hanlon's razor]
>>>? Wassat then?
>>
>>"90% of everything is crap".
>
>Hang on, that was Sturgeon's Law last week?
Yes. I was wrong.
"90% of everying is crap" is indeed Sturgeon's Law.
Hanlon's Razor states: "never attribute to malice that which can
easily be explained by stupidity".
darsy
>No, not even heard of it. Curses. Despite the fact that I've just
>got 2k's worth of home cinema kit, I've hardly watched any TV since I
>moved.
I watch bog all TV myself - but Angie had this on - I think - last
Saturday evening early evening-ish. Think it was BBC2.
Champ
>In article <sli2ets9ghc0p965c...@4ax.com>, Champ says...
>
>>While not really wanting to become the standard bearer for modern art,
>>I don't think you should infer that her real bed is like the 'piece'.
>
>..But from listening to her public humiliation - sorry *interview* - with John
>Humphries a while back, you'd get the idea that it was her real bed. Or at least
>she said it was.
Maybe it is. The point is, it doesn't matter.
>Worst bit was her insistence that she deserved whatever prize it was she won
>just because she'd been on the dole for 20 years - nothing to do with quality of
>art or anything like that...
Ah, but you are now confusing art and the artist. It doesn't matter
what she is like, or what she says, it is the work that counts.
I hate this revisionist crap where some great artist/write/musician is
outed as a misogynist/rapist/whatever, and people thinks it makes his
work somehow less worthy.
>>My name is Neal Champion, and I like modern art
>
><Condolences>
Well, I think you're the one missing out.....
Vic
>Ah, but you are now confusing art and the artist. It doesn't matter
>what she is like, or what she says, it is the work that counts.
Fine - but personally, I've no shortage of unmade beds in my life (since I have
a personal one of my own). I've no desire to look at the shitey sheets of some
munter I wouldn't touch with yours. What exactly does his particular "work" do
for the observer? Other than prove the "artist" doesn't like housework, of
course ;-)
What I'm saying is - the work is bollox, the artist's explanation of what makes
it art is bollox. The fact that the woman appears to have zero redeeming
qualities is the conclusion of the process, not the substantiation.
>I hate this revisionist crap where some great artist/write/musician is
>outed as a misogynist/rapist/whatever, and people thinks it makes his
>work somehow less worthy.
As do I - but that's not what I'm doing. I'm trying to find out what makes a
pile of laundry into art - and the logical place to start IMHO is with the
artist's reasoning along those lines. And her reasoning was that she's been on
the dole for ages and it's about time she got some dosh.
>><Condolences>
>
>Well, I think you're the one missing out.....
If it makes you any happier, you're welcome to my share of this sort of stuff...
Vic.
Darren Robinson
>
> Point 1
> "If it doesn't look like something, what's the point?" sez you. But
> we don't expect music to "sound like something", do we? Music is pure
> abstraction - in fact, it's often considered 'modern' to put
> real-world sounds/noises in music. Music is meant to produce an
> emotional response, so why can't we have visual arts that do the same?
I don't, can't, equate visual art with music. Calcium carbonate and
congealed lactation [1]. I'd probably consider music not written using the
standard Western system of tones and semitones to be more like abstract
art - darsy likes that microtonality stuff, I don't get it at all. However,
there is a lot of "post-modern" stuff around which can be notated
conventionally, but still doesn't sound much like music to me.
> Point 2
> Lot's of modern art does "look like something", just not in an exactly
> representational way. In the same way that a cartoonist uses
> caricature to emphasise certain aspects of someone, an artist can show
> us something which we recognise, but distorted in a away to show us
> some aspect which we might not have noticed before.
In that way it still looks like something, just not very. I consider
totally abstract art, with no meaningful representation at all, or stuff
like Tracey Emin's "work" (I think they call it "installation art") as
pointless. A messy bed is a messy bed is a messy bed. My mum saw it on TV
and said she felt an overpowering urge to tidy it up, or just torch the lot.
Is that the "emotional response" Tracey Emin was intending to elicit? I
know a lot of "modern" artists do go for the "shock" aspect, that any
reaction is a good action.
I've just thought of something... modern art as the real-world equivalent
of trolling?
[1] Yes, there is a connection, in that both contain calcium. That irony is
not lost on me.
Ace
<dar...@omegamusic.u-net.co.uk> wrote:
>I've just thought of something... modern art as the real-world equivalent
>of trolling?
Yes, I reckon you're about right there ;-)
Mind you, I'm a self-confessed Phillistine when it comes to visual
arts, so for me this would be true of almost any art, modern or
otherwise.
--
Ace in Basel
955i Sprint ST, V70 XC & assorted pushbikes
BOTAFOT#3, SbS#2, UKRMMA#13, UKRMSPC#1
Champ
>> Lot's of modern art does "look like something", just not in an exactly
>> representational way.
>In that way it still looks like something, just not very.
I was thinking of cubism here, for example
>I consider
>totally abstract art, with no meaningful representation at all, or stuff
>like Tracey Emin's "work" (I think they call it "installation art") as
>pointless.
Tracy Emin is not "totally abstract".
>A messy bed is a messy bed is a messy bed. My mum saw it on TV
>and said she felt an overpowering urge to tidy it up, or just torch the lot.
>Is that the "emotional response" Tracey Emin was intending to elicit? I
>know a lot of "modern" artists do go for the "shock" aspect, that any
>reaction is a good action.
In a sense. Look, I;m not saying Emin is any good, I'm just trying to
explain what it's trying to do. if it makes you think, if it makes
you feel something, it is working.
Champ
>In article <h3jdet8fto2gvod9f...@4ax.com>, Champ says...
>
>>Ah, but you are now confusing art and the artist. It doesn't matter
>>what she is like, or what she says, it is the work that counts.
>
>Fine - but personally, I've no shortage of unmade beds in my life (since I have
>a personal one of my own). I've no desire to look at the shitey sheets of some
>munter I wouldn't touch with yours. What exactly does his particular "work" do
>for the observer? Other than prove the "artist" doesn't like housework, of
>course ;-)
>
>What I'm saying is - the work is bollox, the artist's explanation of what makes
>it art is bollox. The fact that the woman appears to have zero redeeming
>qualities is the conclusion of the process, not the substantiation.
I can't really argue with this. I'm just prepared to look at this
sort of stuff and let it affect me without saying "what's it for". If
it doesn't have any affect on me, then that doesn't cause me to say
that it isn't art. I just say that it doesn't work for me.
Lucretia Borgia
>Vic<v...@innocent.com> ejaculated :
>
<snip: this is not a pair of scissors 8< >
>>
>>What I'm saying is - the work is bollox, the artist's explanation of what makes
>>it art is bollox. The fact that the woman appears to have zero redeeming
>>qualities is the conclusion of the process, not the substantiation.
>
>I can't really argue with this. I'm just prepared to look at this
>sort of stuff and let it affect me without saying "what's it for". If
>it doesn't have any affect on me, then that doesn't cause me to say
>that it isn't art. I just say that it doesn't work for me.
I went to the Tate Modern in January, fully expecting to be bored
shitless but in fact a lot of the work was amazingly intense and
moving. Some was very clever, some was just bonkers, a lot of it was
inspirational. I had to read the notes on a lot of the works to get
it, but it was an afternoon really well spent, I feel.
I loved seeing the famous works of Matisse, Dali, Picasso et al in the
flesh (as it were). Memorable items were Rodin's "The Kiss" (it's
HUGE!) and a movie installation called "Brontosauraus" (naked guy
dancing in slo-mo...whee!) and a gleaming brass box about 3x3x3 feet
with the bottom painted red, so that all the inner surfaces reflected
it. Love that stuff.
I'm a bigger fan of realism and fantasy art (hail Boris) but as
someone earlier stated, if art makes you think, then it's served it's
purpose.
Just my 0.02 Euros.
Lucretia________(...=^洵^=________---<, ,,'>
LTD1100, Spectre 750, Athlon 600, Win98SE, Alien Nation (NABD), DOGMUK ~o&'o
Darren Robinson
>"Darren Robinson" <dar...@omegamusic.u-net.co.uk> ejaculated :
>
>>I consider
>>totally abstract art, with no meaningful representation at all, or stuff
>>like Tracey Emin's "work" (I think they call it "installation art") as
>>pointless.
>
>Tracy Emin is not "totally abstract".
>
Should I have specified Boolean XOR? I just don't like it, and object
to the obscene [1] amounts of money people spend on that sort of
thing; it serves no purpose.
>In a sense. Look, I;m not saying Emin is any good, I'm just trying to
>explain what it's trying to do. if it makes you think, if it makes
>you feel something, it is working.
What does it make me feel? Disgust. Anger. Homicidal.
[1] It makes me swear.
Darren Robinson
>As do I - but that's not what I'm doing. I'm trying to find out what makes a
>pile of laundry into art - and the logical place to start IMHO is with the
>artist's reasoning along those lines. And her reasoning was that she's been on
>the dole for ages and it's about time she got some dosh.
If she's genuinely out to exploit pretentious overpaid wankers and
make money for old sheets, rather than holding any belief in artistic
value, then I forgive her and say "bloody well done".
Champ
>Quoth Champ <uk...@champ.org.uk>, on Wed, 25 Apr 2001 17:50:06 +0100 :
>
>>"Darren Robinson" <dar...@omegamusic.u-net.co.uk> ejaculated :
>>
>>>I consider
>>>totally abstract art, with no meaningful representation at all, or stuff
>>>like Tracey Emin's "work" (I think they call it "installation art") as
>>>pointless.
>>
>>Tracy Emin is not "totally abstract".
>>
>Should I have specified Boolean XOR?
Oops - missed the "or" in your original post. Sorry.
Verdigris
>I hate this revisionist crap where some great artist/write/musician is
>outed as a misogynist/rapist/whatever, and people thinks it makes his
>work somehow less worthy.
We're obsessed with personalities, now that we can meet everyone
through TV. I try not to care whether writers, sportsmen, etc are
nice people. I'm never going to meet them, so what do I care?
I do have my limits, but they're mostly political. I wouldn't buy any
book by L Ron Hubbard, for example. (But that's an easy one, because
they're all crap.)
darsy
wrote:
>darsy <da...@sticky.net> wibbled:
>
>snip
>
>>
>>Hanlon's Razor states: "never attribute to malice that which can
>>easily be explained by stupidity".
>
>That's even better than Sturgeons law, when applied to modern art;
Hah - it is, actually, isn't it?