no video
Tony Myers www.sedatedape.com (A many splendored thing )
to take still photography of most of the exhibits but they don't allow
you to take video. Why not? I get why they ban flash photography, but
what's harmful about filming the art with a video camera? It's not
like the art is some kind of performance like a play. I don't think
anyone would decide not to go to The MMOA just because they already
saw someones home video of their trip there.
Les Albert
www.sedatedape.com (A many splendored thing )" <sedat...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Just a wild guess, but I think it must have to do with protecting the
museum's taped presentations that they rent to the people attending
the museum. It also is a way to prevent you from making your own
taped presentation to sell.
Les
Mac
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 03:59:00 -0800 (PST), "Tony Myerswww.sedatedape.com(A many splendored thing )" <sedated...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In most, or maybe all, of the art museums I've been to they allow you
> >to take still photography of most of the exhibits but they don't allow
> >you to take video. Why not? I get why they ban flash photography, but
> >what's harmful about filming the art with a video camera? It's not
> >like the art is some kind of performance like a play. I don't think
> >anyone would decide not to go to The MMOA just because they already
> >saw someones home video of their trip there.
>
> Just a wild guess, but I think it must have to do with protecting the
> museum's taped presentations that they rent to the people attending
> the museum. It also is a way to prevent you from making your own
> taped presentation to sell.
And also a way to keep people from hogging the viewing space from
other patrons. It's amazing the sense of entitlement any form of
camera gives some people.
Boron Elgar
wrote:
Pshaw....Far less than those talking earpieces do, and I assure you
there at least 20 earpiece listeners for every photographer one
encounters in museums, likely more.
Boron
Paul Ciszek
In article <ca0001b6-b8e8-4394...@a31g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
>to take still photography of most of the exhibits but they don't allow
>you to take video. Why not? I get why they ban flash photography, but
A lot of museums ban ALL photography, actually. I first encountered
this with a travelling Egyptian exhibit at the Denver Museum of Natural
History back in, I dunno, the early eighties maybe?
--
Please reply to: | "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is
pciszek at panix dot com | indistinguishable from malice."
Autoreply is disabled |
Slow Motion Apocalypse
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 08:59:12 -0800 (PST), Mac <ANMCC...@ALUM.WPI.EDU>> >> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 03:59:00 -0800 (PST), "Tony Myerswww.sedatedape.com(Amany splendored thing )" <sedated...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >In most, or maybe all, of the art museums I've been to they allow you
> >> >to take still photography of most of the exhibits but they don't allow
> >> >you to take video. Why not? I get why they ban flash photography, but
> >> >what's harmful about filming the art with a video camera? It's not
> >> >like the art is some kind of performance like a play. I don't think
> >> >anyone would decide not to go to The MMOA just because they already
> >> >saw someones home video of their trip there.
>
> >> Just a wild guess, but I think it must have to do with protecting the
> >> museum's taped presentations that they rent to the people attending
> >> the museum. It also is a way to prevent you from making your own
> >> taped presentation to sell.
>
> >And also a way to keep people from hogging the viewing space from
> >other patrons. It's amazing the sense of entitlement any form of
> >camera gives some people.
>
> Pshaw....Far less than those talking earpieces do, and I assure you
> there at least 20 earpiece listeners for every photographer one
> encounters in museums, likely more.
>
Unless they are discreetely and non-intrusively filming a concert,
people with video cameras are annoying.
Bob Ward
<boron...@hootmail.com> wrote:
>
>Pshaw....Far less than those talking earpieces do, and I assure you
>there at least 20 earpiece listeners for every photographer one
>encounters in museums, likely more.
I saw nothing of the sort when my wife and I went to the King Tut
exhibit in Los Angeles a few years ago. A Very high percentage of the
users rented the audio narration, and people generally waited
patiently until they could get to the front of the pack before moving
on to the bet exhibit in the series.
Bob Ward
Ciszek) wrote:
>
>In article <ca0001b6-b8e8-4394...@a31g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
>Tony Myers www.sedatedape.com (A many splendored thing ) <sedat...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>In most, or maybe all, of the art museums I've been to they allow you
>>to take still photography of most of the exhibits but they don't allow
>>you to take video. Why not? I get why they ban flash photography, but
>
>A lot of museums ban ALL photography, actually. I first encountered
>this with a travelling Egyptian exhibit at the Denver Museum of Natural
>History back in, I dunno, the early eighties maybe?
I have seen (and understand) a ban on flash photography, as well as a
ban on tripods, but I've never been given any problem when using
available light with a handheld camera.
With the advent of camera-equipped cell phones, it seems almost
impossible to monitor in many situations.
Boron Elgar
wrote:
How often do you go to museums, Bob?
Boron
Bob Ward
<boron...@hootmail.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 12:06:15 -0800, Bob Ward <bob...@email.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 12:10:22 -0500, Boron Elgar
>><boron...@hootmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>Pshaw....Far less than those talking earpieces do, and I assure you
>>>there at least 20 earpiece listeners for every photographer one
>>>encounters in museums, likely more.
>>
>>I saw nothing of the sort when my wife and I went to the King Tut
>>exhibit in Los Angeles a few years ago. A Very high percentage of the
>>users rented the audio narration, and people generally waited
>>patiently until they could get to the front of the pack before moving
>>on to the bet exhibit in the series.
>
>How often do you go to museums, Bob?
>
>Boron
Whenever I feel like it. I wasn't aware that a regular schedule was
required to report on one's experiences.
Boron Elgar
wrote:
>On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:31:43 -0500, Boron Elgar
><boron...@hootmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 12:06:15 -0800, Bob Ward <bob...@email.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 12:10:22 -0500, Boron Elgar
>>><boron...@hootmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Pshaw....Far less than those talking earpieces do, and I assure you
>>>>there at least 20 earpiece listeners for every photographer one
>>>>encounters in museums, likely more.
>>>
>>>I saw nothing of the sort when my wife and I went to the King Tut
>>>exhibit in Los Angeles a few years ago. A Very high percentage of the
>>>users rented the audio narration, and people generally waited
>>>patiently until they could get to the front of the pack before moving
>>>on to the bet exhibit in the series.
>>
>>How often do you go to museums, Bob?
>>
>>Boron
>
>Whenever I feel like it. I wasn't aware that a regular schedule was
>required to report on one's experiences.
It is if you're trying to prove a point, especially mentioning a visit
a few years ago to do so. That makes me think you haven't been to many
exhibits that use the earphones, or perhaps you feel the behavior at
that one is atypical?
Boron
John Hatpin
> In article <ca0001b6-b8e8-4394...@a31g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>,
> Tony Myers www.sedatedape.com (A many splendored thing ) <sedat...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >In most, or maybe all, of the art museums I've been to they allow you
> >to take still photography of most of the exhibits but they don't allow
> >you to take video. Why not? I get why they ban flash photography, but
>
> A lot of museums ban ALL photography, actually. I first encountered
> this with a travelling Egyptian exhibit at the Denver Museum of Natural
> History back in, I dunno, the early eighties maybe?
I was about to wonder if the National Museum of Photography, Film and
Television allowed photography[1], but on checking the exact name I
find it's changed now, to the National Media Museum.
Bring back voluntary euthanasia. I've had enough.
[1] I'm sure it does, because I remember clearly having my camera in
there and fiddling with lenses and light meters and so on. Oddly, I
have absolutely no recollection of any pictures I took there. Isn't
memory strange?
--
John Hatpin
http://uninformedcomment.wordpress.com/
bill van
Boron Elgar <boron...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:18:09 -0800, Bob Ward <bob...@email.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:31:43 -0500, Boron Elgar
> ><boron...@hootmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>How often do you go to museums, Bob?
> >
> >Whenever I feel like it. I wasn't aware that a regular schedule was
> >required to report on one's experiences.
>
> It is if you're trying to prove a point, especially mentioning a visit
> a few years ago to do so. That makes me think you haven't been to many
> exhibits that use the earphones, or perhaps you feel the behavior at
> that one is atypical?
>
Yeah, I'm just thinking that through. It's not the earphone people who
get in the way. It's the guided tours with as many as 15-20 people
moving in a clump. You can be sure that everyone of them will try to get
close to the object being discussed by the guide.
Earphone people travel alone or in very small groups, which means
they're no more likely to block anyone's view than ordinary visitors
without earphones.
bill
Bob Ward
Try re-reading my comment for comprehension rather than condescension.
Here's a hint -the audio narration I mentioned used the earpieces we
were talking about. That behavior was typical for the exhibits I've
seen - I had no idea that you were abused so easily by the passive
activities of others, but my enjoyment of the expiation was not
impaired by anyone listening to the narration, even though the hall
was pretty crowded.
Bill Turlock
Heh. I wish I could remember.
John Hatpin
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 19:57:02 -0500, Boron Elgar
> <boron...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:18:09 -0800, Bob Ward <bob...@email.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:31:43 -0500, Boron Elgar
> >><boron...@hootmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>>On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 12:06:15 -0800, Bob Ward <bob...@email.com>
> >>>wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 12:10:22 -0500, Boron Elgar
> >>>><boron...@hootmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>Pshaw....Far less than those talking earpieces do, and I assure you
> >>>>>there at least 20 earpiece listeners for every photographer one
> >>>>>encounters in museums, likely more.
> >>>>
> >>>>I saw nothing of the sort when my wife and I went to the King Tut
> >>>>exhibit in Los Angeles a few years ago. A Very high percentage of the
> >>>>users rented the audio narration, and people generally waited
> >>>>patiently until they could get to the front of the pack before moving
> >>>>on to the bet exhibit in the series.
> >>>
> >>>How often do you go to museums, Bob?
> >>
> >>Whenever I feel like it. I wasn't aware that a regular schedule was
> >>required to report on one's experiences.
> >
> >It is if you're trying to prove a point, especially mentioning a visit
> >a few years ago to do so. That makes me think you haven't been to many
> >exhibits that use the earphones, or perhaps you feel the behavior at
> >that one is atypical?
>
> Try re-reading my comment for comprehension rather than condescension.
> Here's a hint -the audio narration I mentioned used the earpieces we
> were talking about. That behavior was typical for the exhibits I've
> seen - I had no idea that you were abused so easily by the passive
> activities of others, but my enjoyment of the expiation was not
> impaired by anyone listening to the narration, even though the hall
> was pretty crowded.
If you have a wealth of experience in this area, why did you pick on
one particular example? If someone says that roast duck is delicious,
and you say "I had roast duck in 1998 and hated it", does that not
strongly imply that you've not had it before or (more importantly)
since?
Tony Myers www.sedatedape.com (A many splendored thing )
>
> How often do you go to museums, Bob?
>
and remember that just because there are pictures on the walls at the
Old Country Buffet that doesn't make it a museum
Boron Elgar
The guided tours can be bothersome, but at least they move on with
some predictability. Earphone people are individuals, but they are
also like herd animals at a crowed place.
I've two examples from within the past 8-9 months...both in the LA
area (I've more, but I bore enough people already)
We went to the Bowers Museum, which had some of the Chinese terra
cotta warriors and accoutrements. We were at the museum when it
opened. The audio was included as part of the exhibition ticket.
Everyone walked into the first exhibit room and became glued to the
floor and the intro program played on audio. A cluster broke off and
proceeded to the second room to get a bit of space, but it, too was
mobbed with a seemingly immovable feast of art lovers. We went to the
end of the exhibit and worked backwards. The back rooms were empty. WE
had a nice chat with a guard about it all and he said he had been
waiting for someone in that day's crowd to wise up.
LACMA and Getty Malibu had a joint exhibit about Pompeii. It was like
riding a subway at rush hour. People plunked themselves in front of
an art work and there they stayed, until the audio told them to move
on. We cased each room as we entered and bopped from piece to piece
where the crowds were not clustered.
I'm not a crabby old museum attendee and I love to see the places
crowded, truly, I do, and I have no problem with strollers and
backpacks and wheelchairs, and but common sense should tell one that
standing smack in front of a piece, as close as ropes or guards will
allow, and remain there, immovable, for as long as it takes for the
audio play out, is just a bit idiotic. It's become the museum
equivalent of public cell phone use that disturbs so many. No "excuse
me," or standing around at the periphery waiting to crane one's neck
to get a glimpse ever cracks the audio cocoon that some museum goers
wrap themselves in.
I'll whine about it here, but it'll never keep me from going to
museums. I just reconnoiter differently. I realize how important the
audio money is to these places and I am glad that folks want to learn.
I just have my own workarounds.
Boron
John Hatpin
> I've two examples from within the past 8-9 months...both in the LA
> area (I've more, but I bore enough people already)
[...]
>People plunked themselves in front of
> an art work and there they stayed, until the audio told them to move
> on. We cased each room as we entered and bopped from piece to piece
> where the crowds were not clustered.
[...]
This sounds very much like the same reason I don't use audio books.
The reader dictates how long you'll dwell on each sentence/exhibit,
and I find that very frustrating and restrictive, even to the extent
of provoking anxiety, and I'm liable to stop listening/walk out of the
museum. If I find a passage/exhibit/section dull, I'd like to
read/walk quickly; if one is particularly enjoyable, I'd prefer to
dwell longer, and even go back to read/visit it again.
Luckily the comparison stops there, in that people using audio books
don't interfere with my own reading from the print editions. Imagine
queuing to read a paragraph ...
Boron Elgar
I am very picky about audio books and have cut down on them quite a
bit since the kids aged out of them. I used them - even adult books -
to entertain or enlighten during car rides.
I generally agree that the audio reader can superimpose over the text
and detract from it, but in some cases, that superimposition is
actually a benefit and gives me an interesting interpretation. I was
listening to such readings this week, and one will never find better -
Dylan Thomas reading his own works. Wow. Being able to carry around
the equivalent of 7 or 8 CDs' worth on the Zune is really precious. I
love his voice and his commentaries.
Boron
art...@yahoo.com
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 12:10:22 -0500, Boron Elgar
>
Did they play this in the audio narration?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgTPH5y1-ZI&feature=related
Damn, its been 30 years!
Les Albert
<RemoveThi...@gmailAndThisToo.com> wrote:
>I was about to wonder if the National Museum of Photography, Film and
>Television allowed photography[1], but on checking the exact name I
>find it's changed now, to the National Media Museum.
>Bring back voluntary euthanasia. I've had enough.
>[1] I'm sure it does, because I remember clearly having my camera in
>there and fiddling with lenses and light meters and so on. Oddly, I
>have absolutely no recollection of any pictures I took there. Isn't
>memory strange?
Re your lack of recollection of any pictures, that's what the film is
for.
Les
John Hatpin
Either none of them came out (faulty camera or something, a
possibility) or the pictures were so dire that I've actually erased
any memory of them as well as throwing the pictures away.
Another possibility is that I had the film developed, but couldn't
afford the prints, so I've still got the film lurking somewhere -
easier to misplace than a photo album. If that's the case, it's cool
because now I can scan them for nothing and my past penny-pinching has
paid off.
N Jill Marsh
<bil...@skipthis.shaw.ca> wrote:
Not in my experience. The guided tours are pretty easily avoided
because they are so large and easy to spot. Many earphone people seem
to function the same in museums as they so often do on the bus, they
are in their own isolated worlds and do not attend to others in the
area. (Cell phone talkers and texters are much the same in different
environments - their attention is removed to somewhere everyone else
isn't).
Because of that, they tend to situate themselves in front of the work,
and do not move or shift at all unless the audio tells them to do so,
and if they are told to go look at something on the left, they follow
instructions without checking if the way is as clear as it should be
before they move. So they'll bump into you, or move into your line of
sight in a manner that those more aware of their surroundings tend to
not do.
The last major exhibit I was at that was very well attended and had
large numbers of audio people was the Bernini at the National Gallery
of Canada last spring. It was unusual in that there is a lot of
detail on the pieces and they were more or less set up in a 3D manner,
because there's stuff you want to look at on the back of the work as
well as the front. One would think this would reduce congestion, but
it seemed to make it worse, particularly with respect to people moving
into one's field of view or personal space. That was also the only
exhibition I have been to where the photography was intrusive, oddly
enough.
nj"necks craning"m
--
Welcome, stranger, to the humble neighbourhoods.
groo
I'm not sure about that. I ate there once, and they had a pudding exhibit
that was as old as coal.
--
"I was nimble as a cat. I always managed to land on all fours." - Dr.
Tobias Funke on "Arrested Development"
M C Hamster
wrote:
Dealing with the subject itself rather than the side issue of whether
your comment should be dismissed or not... I must say that I have not
particularly been irritated by folks using the listening devices at
the exhibits I've been to. I myself almost always park myself
somewhere at the side as I listen to the narration, so as not to block
the view while I'm listening, and from that angle have no problem
looking at the painting or whatever it is. If someone is standing
right in front also listening, I'm blissfully unaware of this since
I'm over on the side and they aren't blocking my view at all. Then
when the segment has finished, I'll sometimes walk up close to the
painting if I need a closer look at something mentioned in the
narrative, but don't linger there any longer than someone without a
headset on.
Since I will always rent an audio program for exhibits like these, I
can't comment on how the people who stand right in front harm the
experience for others who don't rent the headsets.
--
M C Hamster "Big Wheel Keep on Turnin'" -- Creedence Clearwater Revival
M C Hamster
wrote:
I have a photographic memory, except that often my thumb is
accidentally covering up the lens.
Boron Elgar
<davo...@nospam.speakeasy.net> wrote:
>
>Since I will always rent an audio program for exhibits like these, I
>can't comment on how the people who stand right in front harm the
>experience for others who don't rent the headsets.
You cannot be a solution when you are part of the problem.
Boron
Dover Beach
news:u1ogg5lfjco6omvf7...@4ax.com:
I like to get audio for museum visits too. Hamster and I will huddle
together off to the side and listen to our audio while making ourselves
as tiny and unobtrusive as possible.
--
Dover
Hactar
Someone recorded him prior to his death in 1953? Neato. I have a
recording of Sergei Rachmaninoff playing his own works, via player piano
rolls he recorded soon after he moved to America, which would have been
around the time of the Russian Revolution. I don't know how accurate
the dynamics are though.
--
-eben QebWe...@vTerYizUonI.nOetP royalty.mine.nu:81
Two atoms are discussing whether or not to go into a bar. The first atom
says, "I don't know about this place. Last time I went in there, I lost
an electron." The second atom says, "Don't worry, I'll keep my ion you."
Boron Elgar
wrote:
I have nothing whatsoever against museum audio, just as I have nothing
against cell phones. It think both are swell and applaud their
invention. The problem is not with the equipment, but with a subset of
users who employ these devices in ways that are discourteous to
others.
And there are more likely to be audio users impeding view and progress
at museum exhibits than either photographers or tour groups, which was
really the point of it all.
I am not a Luddite. I embrace technology for its far reaching
convenience and information dissemination. I just hate oblivious folks
who stand smack by an art work as if on a rodent glue trap, until
they hear a little "ding" or a program tells them it is time to move
on, at which point they take up the same or similar position, or
attempt to, at the next work of art.
Insofar as aesthetics, I usually prefer my art straight and like to do
my research and brushing up ahead of time, but that's me. I even offer
to fund audio for the kids once in awhile if they are along and I feel
the exhibit is one they might be unfamiliar with or want other context
or want to wander at their own pace. If I am confronted with a work
about which I need more info, I seek it out. If the culture is really
unknown to me, or there is some other reason, I, too, am very happy to
use audio - in a cordial and gracious way. I spend a lot of time at
museums and while this is rarely a problem within the general
collections, it is a very big one at special exhibits. It is a good
reason to be a member of the museum and go the member viewing's. More
like minds there.
Boron
Boron Elgar
wrote:
>In article <b3rfg5pf0mthnf2ug...@4ax.com>,
>Boron Elgar <boron...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> I generally agree that the audio reader can superimpose over the text
>> and detract from it, but in some cases, that superimposition is
>> actually a benefit and gives me an interesting interpretation. I was
>> listening to such readings this week, and one will never find better -
>> Dylan Thomas reading his own works. Wow.
>
>Someone recorded him prior to his death in 1953? Neato.
This is the set I have, recorded the year before he died.
http://www.amazon.com/Dylan-Thomas-CD-Caedmon-Collection/dp/0694526592
> I have a
>recording of Sergei Rachmaninoff playing his own works, via player piano
>rolls he recorded soon after he moved to America, which would have been
>around the time of the Russian Revolution. I don't know how accurate
>the dynamics are though.
I have similar Gershwin recordings. Such things are amazing. I do not
know how well the player piano rolls caught nuance, perhaps someone
here knows more about that technology. I am curious.
Boron
Mary
> I have nothing whatsoever against museum audio, just as I have nothing
> against cell phones. It think both are swell and applaud their
> invention. The problem is not with the equipment, but with a subset of
> users who employ these devices in ways that are discourteous to
> others.
I agree with this.
> And there are more likely to be audio users impeding view and progress
> at museum exhibits than either photographers or tour groups, which was
> really the point of it all.
But I'm not sure that I agree with this. I never get the audio guides,
by the way, because of my hearing. But whenever I go to a special
exhibit, what I notice more than the audio guide people are the ones who
are just self-absorbed. There are always a few people who will walk
in front of others to see the picture better. And at special exhibits
there are more than usual.
I think it's because the museums tend to advertise these heavily and so
they draw in people who don't go to the museum regularly and aren't used
to navigating around others who are also trying to see the art.
Most recently, about a month ago I went to the exhibit at the
Minneapolis Insitute of Art called The Louvre and the Masterpiece, and
there were a couple of women there that I had a hard time not saying
something to.
Mary
Boron Elgar
>Boron Elgar wrote:
>
>> I have nothing whatsoever against museum audio, just as I have nothing
>> against cell phones. It think both are swell and applaud their
>> invention. The problem is not with the equipment, but with a subset of
>> users who employ these devices in ways that are discourteous to
>> others.
>
>I agree with this.
>
>> And there are more likely to be audio users impeding view and progress
>> at museum exhibits than either photographers or tour groups, which was
>> really the point of it all.
>
>But I'm not sure that I agree with this. I never get the audio guides,
>by the way, because of my hearing. But whenever I go to a special
>exhibit, what I notice more than the audio guide people are the ones who
> are just self-absorbed. There are always a few people who will walk
>in front of others to see the picture better. And at special exhibits
>there are more than usual.
Foolishness is not limited to those who rent the audio. I did not mean
to imply they are the only ones who cause traffic tie ups.
>
>I think it's because the museums tend to advertise these heavily and so
>they draw in people who don't go to the museum regularly and aren't used
>to navigating around others who are also trying to see the art.
An overeducated populace gets tempted to view the art. The newest
increases in uni tuition all over the place should end this - either
fewer will attend college or fewer will be able to afford museum
entrance fees..
>
>Most recently, about a month ago I went to the exhibit at the
>Minneapolis Insitute of Art called The Louvre and the Masterpiece, and
>there were a couple of women there that I had a hard time not saying
>something to.
>
Perhaps it is simply an overly self-absorbed society. We used to label
some as being unable to talk and chew gum at the same time, maybe now
it is look at art and be aware that it is a shared experience, even
though the room is asshole to peckerhead with fellow museum goers.
It must sound so damned elitist talking about bumper-to-bumper crowds
at museums when so much in the world is in disarray.
How was the Louvre exhibit? What got sent over?
Boron
John Hatpin
>I have a
> recording of Sergei Rachmaninoff playing his own works, via player piano
> rolls he recorded soon after he moved to America, which would have been
> around the time of the Russian Revolution. I don't know how accurate
> the dynamics are though.
Likely that there are no dynamics at all - as I understand it, those
old-fashioned player pianos worked entirely in binary on key presses.
Mary
> How was the Louvre exhibit? What got sent over?
It was very good, but not very large. Given that the Louvre is the
biggest museum in the world I was sort of expecting the exhibit to be
reasonably extravagant, but it was small.
But there was some really good stuff. There was a Barye lion sculpture,
a little Vermeer (The Astronomer), a de la Tour, a Michelangelo pen and
ink drawing of the Virgin and child, some silver (Roman dishes, that
sort of thing), a Chardin painting of a cute little boy with a top, and
a small group of Egyption sculptures. Oh, and a da Vinci study.
It was all very good, and I probably shouldn't whine because it didn't
have more in it. But I did.
Mary
John Hatpin
> Hactar wrote:
>
> >I have a
> > recording of Sergei Rachmaninoff playing his own works, via player piano
> > rolls he recorded soon after he moved to America, which would have been
> > around the time of the Russian Revolution. I don't know how accurate
> > the dynamics are though.
>
> Likely that there are no dynamics at all - as I understand it, those
> old-fashioned player pianos worked entirely in binary on key presses.
Sorry, I meant to specify that they're binary in terms of parameters
such as velocity (speed of key press) and pressure. In fact, all
you've got is note timing and duration, which are analogue but still
inaccurate due to record/playback speed discrepancies and variations
in the record/play mechanisms.
Boron Elgar
I am a Vermeer fan and haven't see The Astronomer in real life in a
long, long time. The Met is just finishing up a Vermeer exhibit based
on The Milkmaid that came over from the Rijksmuseum.
Sounds like what you saw was really nice. The rest of that stuff is
not chopped liver.
Boron
Mary
> I am a Vermeer fan and haven't see The Astronomer in real life in a
> long, long time. The Met is just finishing up a Vermeer exhibit based
> on The Milkmaid that came over from the Rijksmuseum.
>
> Sounds like what you saw was really nice. The rest of that stuff is
> not chopped liver.
No, it's not. There was wonderful stuff there. It's too bad they
aren't making more stops with the exhibit, really.
Mary
M C Hamster
How am I part of the problem, if I am standing off to the side, all
the while making sure I am not blocking the view for others behind me?
How am I any more of a problem that you are, standing and looking at
the object without using a headset?
As for photographers, I don't recall ever seeing a photographer at a
museum. If they were there, they were being very unobtrusive.
Tony Myers www.sedatedape.com (A many splendored thing )
>
> As for photographers, I don't recall ever seeing a photographer at a
> museum. If they were there, they were being very unobtrusive.
> -
In the ones I've been to in the past year or so, MOMA, The Met, The
Natural History museum and the Nelson-Atkins (KC art museum) more
than half of the people seemed to have camera with them. Not counting
kids on field trips, I guess
Opus the Penguin
> Hactar wrote:
>
>>I have a
>> recording of Sergei Rachmaninoff playing his own works, via
>> player piano rolls he recorded soon after he moved to America,
>> which would have been around the time of the Russian Revolution.
>> I don't know how accurate the dynamics are though.
>
> Likely that there are no dynamics at all - as I understand it,
> those old-fashioned player pianos worked entirely in binary on key
> presses.
Oh, there were dynamics. I'm not clear on how they were implemented.
Some reproducing pianos actually relied on an engineer taking notes
and putting the dynamics in by hand.
Others had a method for recording the velocity at which a key was
struck which was corresponds more or less to the volume. But I think
most of them could only record and replay two velocities at a time,
one each from the lower and higher part of the keyboard with the
border between the two being freely moveable. If you needed more than
that, you could hit the keys that needed the third velocity a
fraction of a second earlier or later so they'd get their own
velocity mark.
Debussy, Gershwin, Rachmaninoff, Mahler, Ravel, and Scriabin recorded
some of their works on such reproducing pianos.
Prior to that, there were pianolas. They required a performer, a
"pianolist", who would add the dynamics during the performance by
means of pedals. (The levers were for tempo adjustments.) But music
for the pianola was generally not recorded live. The rolls were cut
by hand, I believe.
That's what a bit of Googling tells me anyway. I didn't know most of
this stuff 20 minutes ago.
--
Opus the Penguin
The best darn penguin in all of Usenet
John Hatpin
Fascinating - I didn't know this either. I'll look into this some
time in more depth.
Boron Elgar
<davo...@nospam.speakeasy.net> wrote:
>On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 16:49:26 -0500, Boron Elgar
><boron...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 21 Nov 2009 14:34:01 -0600, M C Hamster
>><davo...@nospam.speakeasy.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Since I will always rent an audio program for exhibits like these, I
>>>can't comment on how the people who stand right in front harm the
>>>experience for others who don't rent the headsets.
>>
>>You cannot be a solution when you are part of the problem.
>>
>
>How am I part of the problem, if I am standing off to the side, all
>the while making sure I am not blocking the view for others behind me?
>How am I any more of a problem that you are, standing and looking at
>the object without using a headset?
Because anyone who does not understand humor is problematic.
>
>As for photographers, I don't recall ever seeing a photographer at a
>museum. If they were there, they were being very unobtrusive.
I see them, and am one myself, but am so unobtrusive that you never
knew, now did you?
Boron
Opus the Penguin
> Someone recorded him prior to his death in 1953? Neato. I have a
> recording of Sergei Rachmaninoff playing his own works, via player
> piano rolls he recorded soon after he moved to America, which
> would have been around the time of the Russian Revolution. I
> don't know how accurate the dynamics are though.
The short answer is that they're relatively accurate but absolutely
not.
Snidely
> An overeducated populace gets tempted to view the art. The newest
> increases in uni tuition all over the place should end this - either
> fewer will attend college or fewer will be able to afford museum
> entrance fees..
Or because more are behind bars after taking over the 2nd floor of
Wheeler Hall in Berkeley, during protests of the inevitable.
/dps
Boron Elgar
Deja vu all over again...I remember my brother complaining about the
tear gas coming in through his apartment windows while he was
attending Berkeley.
Boron
Les Albert
<boron...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 00:18:47 GMT, Mary <mrfea...@aol.c0m> wrote:
>>Boron Elgar wrote:
>>> I have nothing whatsoever against museum audio, just as I have nothing
>>> against cell phones. It think both are swell and applaud their
>>> invention. The problem is not with the equipment, but with a subset of
>>> users who employ these devices in ways that are discourteous to
>>> others.
>>I agree with this.
>>> And there are more likely to be audio users impeding view and progress
>>> at museum exhibits than either photographers or tour groups, which was
>>> really the point of it all.
>>But I'm not sure that I agree with this. I never get the audio guides,
>>by the way, because of my hearing. But whenever I go to a special
>>exhibit, what I notice more than the audio guide people are the ones who
>> are just self-absorbed. There are always a few people who will walk
>>in front of others to see the picture better. And at special exhibits
>>there are more than usual.
>Foolishness is not limited to those who rent the audio. I did not mean
>to imply they are the only ones who cause traffic tie ups. ...
I think the museum patrons wheeling around baby carriages cause
greater traffic jams and discomfort to others when they try to
navigate toward and away from the art work that has other people
looking at it.
>Perhaps it is simply an overly self-absorbed society. We used to label
>some as being unable to talk and chew gum at the same time, maybe now
>it is look at art and be aware that it is a shared experience, even
>though the room is asshole to peckerhead with fellow museum goers.
> ...
Just so!
Les
N Jill Marsh
wrote:
>I think the museum patrons wheeling around baby carriages cause
>greater traffic jams and discomfort to others when they try to
>navigate toward and away from the art work that has other people
>looking at it.
Do you see that a lot? I think that one can take a baby carriage into
most of our museums here, but not into the special exhibitions. At
least one of our museums does not allow winter coats and bulky bags,
offering a free coat/bag check. I always carried the Best Beloved
when he were a tot, but I very seldom used a stroller anywhere.
Besides, he could see and interact better with stuff when he was my
height.
nj"on the move"m
Boron Elgar
wrote:
TP was carried in a kangaroo sort of pouch. And IIRC, she peed on me
but good one day while we were visiting the Met. The do allow smaller
strollers there, but not in all galleries. They also have backpack
carriers and a stroller check where a quick exchange can be made.
Boron
Les Albert
>wrote:
>>I think the museum patrons wheeling around baby carriages cause
>>greater traffic jams and discomfort to others when they try to
>>navigate toward and away from the art work that has other people
>>looking at it.
>Do you see that a lot? I think that one can take a baby carriage into
>most of our museums here, but not into the special exhibitions.
Yes, I do see it frequently. And I see it anytime I visit, even
special exhibitions.
>At
>least one of our museums does not allow winter coats and bulky bags,
>offering a free coat/bag check.
I have not been in any museum here that disallows winter coats,
although some will require that backpacks be checked.
>I always carried the Best Beloved
>when he were a tot, but I very seldom used a stroller anywhere.
>Besides, he could see and interact better with stuff when he was my
>height.
Shlepping a tot around a museum in your arms either made you tired
very quickly, or else developed your upper body strength.
Les
Boron Elgar
wrote:
>Shlepping a tot around a museum in your arms either made you tired
>very quickly, or else developed your upper body strength.
>
>Les
Backpacks and front packs, slings and other tie-arounds work very
well, and the good ones distribute weight and are quite comfortable -
while dry.
Boron
N Jill Marsh
wrote:
>On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 14:06:55 -0500, N Jill Marsh <njm...@storm.ca>
>wrote:
>>Do you see that a lot? I think that one can take a baby carriage into
>>most of our museums here, but not into the special exhibitions.
>
>Yes, I do see it frequently. And I see it anytime I visit, even
>special exhibitions.
I'm sorry, I would find that extremely annoying. Strollers tend to
take up a great deal of space and also get parked at angles that
increase that. I am very much in favour of kids at galleries and
museums but not in strollers at crowded exhibitions.
>>I always carried the Best Beloved
>>when he were a tot, but I very seldom used a stroller anywhere.
>>Besides, he could see and interact better with stuff when he was my
>>height.
>
>Shlepping a tot around a museum in your arms either made you tired
>very quickly, or else developed your upper body strength.
Neither. Granted, I was pretty fit, but I never found him very hard
to carry around. It was a very natural thing for both of us, and he
was fortunately a relatively small and very energetic child.
He went into a backpack carrier exactly once, and the perambulator a
couple of times, and after that it was impossible to keep him in them.
I could keep him in an umbrella type stroller if we were moving
constantly and briskly, but otherwise he mostly walked (or ran)
everywhere, from the time he was a year old. I just kept him on a
leash.
nj"close enough to the ground for comfort"m
hpjeannie
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 13:25:12 +0000, John Hatpin
>
>
>
>
>
> >Boron Elgar wrote:
>
> >> area (I've more, but I bore enough people already)
> >[...]
> >>People plunked themselves in front of
> >> an art work and there they stayed, until the audio told them to move
> >> on. We cased each room as we entered and bopped from piece to piece
> >> where the crowds were not clustered.
> >[...]
>
> >This sounds very much like the same reason I don't use audio books.
> >The reader dictates how long you'll dwell on each sentence/exhibit,
> >and I find that very frustrating and restrictive, even to the extent
> >of provoking anxiety, and I'm liable to stop listening/walk out of the
> >museum. If I find a passage/exhibit/section dull, I'd like to
> >read/walk quickly; if one is particularly enjoyable, I'd prefer to
> >dwell longer, and even go back to read/visit it again.
>
> >Luckily the comparison stops there, in that people using audio books
> >don't interfere with my own reading from the print editions. Imagine
> >queuing to read a paragraph ...
>
> I am very picky about audio books and have cut down on them quite a
> bit since the kids aged out of them. I used them - even adult books -
> to entertain or enlighten during car rides.
>
> and detract from it, but in some cases, that superimposition is
> actually a benefit and gives me an interesting interpretation. I was
> listening to such readings this week, and one will never find better -
> the equivalent of 7 or 8 CDs' worth on the Zune is really precious. I
> love his voice and his commentaries.
Amazon doesn't have a sample of the recordings, unless I'm missing it
somewhere. I'd like to have a sample listen before I buy. Maybe I'll
go looking on YouTube?
Jeannie
Boron Elgar
<hpje...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Nov 21, 5:42�am, Boron Elgar <boron_el...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 13:25:12 +0000, John Hatpin
>> I generally agree that the audio reader can superimpose over the text
>> and detract from it, but in some cases, that superimposition is
>> actually a benefit and gives me an interesting interpretation. I was
>> listening to such readings this week, and one will never find better -
>> Dylan Thomas reading his own works. Wow. Being able to carry around
>> the equivalent of 7 or 8 CDs' worth on the Zune is really precious. I
>> love his voice and his commentaries.
>
>Amazon doesn't have a sample of the recordings, unless I'm missing it
>somewhere. I'd like to have a sample listen before I buy. Maybe I'll
>go looking on YouTube?
>
>Jeannie
I'd try the local library or see if they can get it on interlibrary
loan. As I recall, I found it in a sale bin somewhere and grabbed it
for a very small price - less than $20. I do not think there is a
large market for such CDs.
You'll find a fine example of his voice here, though:
http://www.poetryarchive.org/poetryarchive/singlePoet.do?poetId=7091
Boron
Mac
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 11:25:15 -0800, Les Albert <lalbe...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 14:06:55 -0500, N Jill Marsh <njma...@storm.ca>
> >wrote:
> >>Do you see that a lot? I think that one can take a baby carriage into
> >>most of our museums here, but not into the special exhibitions.
>
> >Yes, I do see it frequently. And I see it anytime I visit, even
> >special exhibitions.
>
> I'm sorry, I would find that extremely annoying. Strollers tend to
> take up a great deal of space and also get parked at angles that
> increase that. I am very much in favour of kids at galleries and
> museums but not in strollers at crowded exhibitions.
Whaddaya got against Musorgsky?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
(Well, she does seem to stand against little pitchers at an
exhibition.)
N Jill Marsh
wrote:
>On Nov 22, 12:43�pm, N Jill Marsh <njma...@storm.ca> wrote:
>> I'm sorry, I would find that extremely annoying. �Strollers tend to
>> take up a great deal of space and also get parked at angles that
>> increase that. �I am very much in favour of kids at galleries and
>> museums but not in strollers at crowded exhibitions.
>
>Whaddaya got against Musorgsky?
Not a thing, I just have my own modest preferences.
nj"including a double ss"m
--
Would have been funnier if that's what I was doing.
Mac
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 14:56:26 -0800 (PST), Mac <ANMCC...@ALUM.WPI.EDU>
Oh, well. If you prefer being addressed as "Marssh", then I can
understand your problem with Mr. Brader...
QueBarbara
Thanks! Things that I'm sure I knew once but had forgotten: he was
only 39 when he died.
--
QueBarbara
hpjeannie
Wow. Thanks, that was very helpful.
Jeannie
Boron Elgar
And here I am, 21 years older, and unable to product more than an
amusing limerick once in awhile.
Boron
Boron Elgar
It's a pleasure to bring someone around to being a fan of his
recordings.
Boron
John Hatpin
As in "Emersson, Lake and Palmer"?
hpjeannie
> recordings.
Well, that's not precisely what I meant, but I didn't want to come
right out and accuse a fellow countryman of chewing the scenery
overmuch. Especially when he admits it himself in such a cute way in
the intro.
Jeannie
Boron Elgar
<hpje...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Nov 22, 4:02锟絧m, Boron Elgar <boron_el...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 15:35:42 -0800 (PST), hpjeannie
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <hpjean...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >On Nov 22, 2:47锟絧m, Boron Elgar <boron_el...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 14:05:58 -0800 (PST), hpjeannie
>>
>> >> <hpjean...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >> >On Nov 21, 5:42锟絘m, Boron Elgar <boron_el...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 13:25:12 +0000, John Hatpin
>> >> >> I generally agree that the audio reader can superimpose over the text
>> >> >> and detract from it, but in some cases, that superimposition is
>> >> >> actually a benefit and gives me an interesting interpretation. I was
>> >> >> listening to such readings this week, and one will never find better -
>> >> >> Dylan Thomas reading his own works. Wow. Being able to carry around
>> >> >> the equivalent of 7 or 8 CDs' worth on the Zune is really precious. I
>> >> >> love his voice and his commentaries.
>>
>> >> >Amazon doesn't have a sample of the recordings, unless I'm missing it
>> >> >somewhere. 锟絀'd like to have a sample listen before I buy. 锟組aybe I'll
>> >> >go looking on YouTube?
>>
>> >> >Jeannie
>>
>> >> I'd try the local library or see if they can get it on interlibrary
>> >> loan. 锟紸s I recall, I found it in a sale bin somewhere and grabbed it
>> >> for a very small price - less than $20. I do not think there is a
>> >> large market for such CDs.
>>
>> >> You'll find a fine example of his voice here, though:
>>
>> >>http://www.poetryarchive.org/poetryarchive/singlePoet.do?poetId=7091
>>
>> >Wow. 锟絋hanks, that was very helpful.
>>
>> It's a pleasure to bring someone around to being a fan of his
>> recordings.
>
>Well, that's not precisely what I meant, but I didn't want to come
>right out and accuse a fellow countryman of chewing the scenery
>overmuch. Especially when he admits it himself in such a cute way in
>the intro.
>
>Jeannie
Ah now I understand.
I expect and want a performance with such readings. I've Carl Sandberg
in recordings, too, and there is nothing interesting about listening
to the poet in that case. Thomas was a performer and besides, I used
to live around the block from where he did some of his last drinking.
I'm a cook and an actress and chewed scenery is welcome, as long as no
one talks with a mouth full of food.
Boron
Bob Ward
<boron...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I am not a Luddite. I embrace technology for its far reaching
>convenience and information dissemination. I just hate oblivious folks
>who stand smack by an art work as if on a rodent glue trap, until
>they hear a little "ding" or a program tells them it is time to move
>on, at which point they take up the same or similar position, or
>attempt to, at the next work of art.
Ask for ye Michael Jackson tour, then. Reserve the whole museum for
yourself and your guests after hours. Otherwise if you are paying the
same price as everyone else, you should have the same amount of
access.
Bob Ward
<boron...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>Insofar as aesthetics, I usually prefer my art straight and like to do
>my research and brushing up ahead of time, but that's me. I even offer
>to fund audio for the kids once in awhile if they are along and I feel
>the exhibit is one they might be unfamiliar with or want other context
>or want to wander at their own pace. If I am confronted with a work
>about which I need more info, I seek it out. If the culture is really
>unknown to me, or there is some other reason, I, too, am very happy to
>use audio - in a cordial and gracious way. I spend a lot of time at
>museums and while this is rarely a problem within the general
>collections, it is a very big one at special exhibits. It is a good
>reason to be a member of the museum and go the member viewing's. More
>like minds there.
Do Greengrocer's get special tours too?
Boron Elgar
wrote:
Really, Bob, just kiss my ass. You're a fucking idiot. Have fun in the
buffet line where I am sure you'll have full access.
Boron
Boron Elgar
wrote:
>On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:03:39 -0500, Boron Elgar
No, the rich people who donate to the museum, like I do, get them.
boron
Mac
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 16:49:57 -0800, Bob Ward <bobw...@email.com>
You evil plutocrat, you.
Slow Motion Apocalypse
Are you new here?
Bill Turlock
>
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 16:25:23 -0800 (PST), hpjeannie
> <hpje...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 15:35:42 -0800 (PST), hpjeannie
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> <hpjean...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 14:05:58 -0800 (PST), hpjeannie
> >>
> >> >> <hpjean...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >> >> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 13:25:12 +0000, John Hatpin
> >> >> >> I generally agree that the audio reader can superimpose over the text
> >> >> >> and detract from it, but in some cases, that superimposition is
> >> >> >> actually a benefit and gives me an interesting interpretation. I was
> >> >> >> listening to such readings this week, and one will never find better -
> >> >> >> Dylan Thomas reading his own works. Wow. Being able to carry around
> >> >> >> the equivalent of 7 or 8 CDs' worth on the Zune is really precious. I
> >> >> >> love his voice and his commentaries.
> >>
> >> >> >Amazon doesn't have a sample of the recordings, unless I'm missing it
> >> >> >go looking on YouTube?
> >>
> >> >> >Jeannie
> >>
> >> >> I'd try the local library or see if they can get it on interlibrary
> >> >> for a very small price - less than $20. I do not think there is a
> >> >> large market for such CDs.
> >>
> >> >> You'll find a fine example of his voice here, though:
> >>
> >> >>http://www.poetryarchive.org/poetryarchive/singlePoet.do?poetId=7091
> >>
> >>
> >> It's a pleasure to bring someone around to being a fan of his
> >> recordings.
> >
> >Well, that's not precisely what I meant, but I didn't want to come
> >right out and accuse a fellow countryman of chewing the scenery
> >overmuch. Especially when he admits it himself in such a cute way in
> >the intro.
> >
> >Jeannie
>
> Ah now I understand.
>
> I expect and want a performance with such readings. I've Carl Sandberg
> in recordings, too, and there is nothing interesting about listening
> to the poet in that case. Thomas was a performer and besides, I used
> to live around the block from where he did some of his last drinking.
>
> I'm a cook and an actress and chewed scenery is welcome, as long as no
> one talks with a mouth full of food.
>
> Boron
More often than not, authors are some of the worst readers of
their own work.
M C Hamster
<boron...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On 22 Nov 2009 00:08:01 -0600, M C Hamster
><davo...@nospam.speakeasy.net> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 16:49:26 -0500, Boron Elgar
>><boron...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On 21 Nov 2009 14:34:01 -0600, M C Hamster
>>><davo...@nospam.speakeasy.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Since I will always rent an audio program for exhibits like these, I
>>>>can't comment on how the people who stand right in front harm the
>>>>experience for others who don't rent the headsets.
>>>
>>>You cannot be a solution when you are part of the problem.
>>>
>>
>>How am I part of the problem, if I am standing off to the side, all
>>the while making sure I am not blocking the view for others behind me?
>>How am I any more of a problem that you are, standing and looking at
>>the object without using a headset?
>
>Because anyone who does not understand humor is problematic.
I still can't identify where your tongue went into your cheek in the
upstream thread, but that's all right. If you were just joshing about
minding the people with the headsets, great.
>>
>>As for photographers, I don't recall ever seeing a photographer at a
>>museum. If they were there, they were being very unobtrusive.
>
>I see them, and am one myself, but am so unobtrusive that you never
>knew, now did you?
>
No, but I'm keeping my eye out for you, and if I see you, I'm
summoning the authorities.
How good do the photos come out, since you can't use flash
photography?
--
M C Hamster "Big Wheel Keep on Turnin'" -- Creedence Clearwater Revival
Paul L. Madarasz
<boron...@hotmail.com> wrote, perhaps among other things:
>On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 16:25:23 -0800 (PST), hpjeannie
><hpje...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>On Nov 22, 4:02 pm, Boron Elgar <boron_el...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 15:35:42 -0800 (PST), hpjeannie
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> <hpjean...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> >On Nov 22, 2:47 pm, Boron Elgar <boron_el...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 14:05:58 -0800 (PST), hpjeannie
>>>
>>> >> <hpjean...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> >> >On Nov 21, 5:42 am, Boron Elgar <boron_el...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> >> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 13:25:12 +0000, John Hatpin
>>> >> >> I generally agree that the audio reader can superimpose over the text
>>> >> >> and detract from it, but in some cases, that superimposition is
>>> >> >> actually a benefit and gives me an interesting interpretation. I was
>>> >> >> listening to such readings this week, and one will never find better -
>>> >> >> Dylan Thomas reading his own works. Wow. Being able to carry around
>>> >> >> the equivalent of 7 or 8 CDs' worth on the Zune is really precious. I
>>> >> >> love his voice and his commentaries.
>>>
>>> >> >Amazon doesn't have a sample of the recordings, unless I'm missing it
>>> >> >somewhere. I'd like to have a sample listen before I buy. Maybe I'll
>>> >> >go looking on YouTube?
>>>
>>> >> >Jeannie
>>>
>>> >> I'd try the local library or see if they can get it on interlibrary
>>> >> loan. As I recall, I found it in a sale bin somewhere and grabbed it
>>> >> for a very small price - less than $20. I do not think there is a
>>> >> large market for such CDs.
>>>
>>> >> You'll find a fine example of his voice here, though:
>>>
>>> >>http://www.poetryarchive.org/poetryarchive/singlePoet.do?poetId=7091
>>>
>>> >Wow. Thanks, that was very helpful.
>>>
>>> It's a pleasure to bring someone around to being a fan of his
>>> recordings.
>>
>>Well, that's not precisely what I meant, but I didn't want to come
>>right out and accuse a fellow countryman of chewing the scenery
>>overmuch. Especially when he admits it himself in such a cute way in
>>the intro.
>>
>>Jeannie
>
>Ah now I understand.
>
>I expect and want a performance with such readings. I've Carl Sandberg
>in recordings, too, and there is nothing interesting about listening
>to the poet in that case. Thomas was a performer and besides, I used
>to live around the block from where he did some of his last drinking.
The White Horse?
>
>I'm a cook and an actress and chewed scenery is welcome, as long as no
>one talks with a mouth full of food.
>
>Boron
--
"Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of the cancer cell."
-- Ed Abbey
Mark Steese
news:p2qfg5tsg6ples98b...@4ax.com:
> Boron Elgar wrote:
>
>> I've two examples from within the past 8-9 months...both in the LA
>> area (I've more, but I bore enough people already)
> [...]
>>People plunked themselves in front of
>> an art work and there they stayed, until the audio told them to move
>> on. We cased each room as we entered and bopped from piece to piece
>> where the crowds were not clustered.
> [...]
>
> This sounds very much like the same reason I don't use audio books.
> The reader dictates how long you'll dwell on each sentence/exhibit,
> and I find that very frustrating and restrictive, even to the extent
> of provoking anxiety, and I'm liable to stop listening/walk out of the
> museum. If I find a passage/exhibit/section dull, I'd like to
> read/walk quickly; if one is particularly enjoyable, I'd prefer to
> dwell longer, and even go back to read/visit it again.
I've been to two museums, the Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts in
Philadelphia and the Portland (Oregon) Art Museum, that had audio guides
that allowed visitors to select commentary on works individually. The
guide had a numeric keypad; if you wanted to hear commentary, you
punched in the number displayed next to the artwork. I thought it worked
very well -- it helped that the audio tracks I chose to listen to were
actually informative.
> Luckily the comparison stops there, in that people using audio books
> don't interfere with my own reading from the print editions. Imagine
> queuing to read a paragraph ...
I've seen that happen in museums. Sometimes special exhibitions have
extensive text explanations posted on the walls, and if there's a good
crowd, you can spend a good ten minutes just waiting for everybody ahead
of you to get finished reading a wall.
--
Mark Steese
=======================================================================
PS: Your second question, you thought I forgot? I didn't. I never found
the banana slug. - William Least Heat-Moon
Boron Elgar
wrote:
>On Nov 22, 4:52�pm, Boron Elgar <boron_el...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I do everything I can to keep art from the masses. It is hard work.
Boron
Boron Elgar
"@sonnnic.invalid> wrote:
>Boron Elgar wrote:
>> I'm a cook and an actress and chewed scenery is welcome, as long as no
>> one talks with a mouth full of food.
>>
>> Boron
>
>More often than not, authors are some of the worst readers of
>their own work.
Very true, but Dylan Thomas was very much a performer, as well as a
writer.
Boron
Boron Elgar
<davo...@nospam.speakeasy.net> wrote:
>On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 08:33:05 -0500, Boron Elgar
><boron...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On 22 Nov 2009 00:08:01 -0600, M C Hamster
>><davo...@nospam.speakeasy.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 16:49:26 -0500, Boron Elgar
>>><boron...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 21 Nov 2009 14:34:01 -0600, M C Hamster
>>>><davo...@nospam.speakeasy.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Since I will always rent an audio program for exhibits like these, I
>>>>>can't comment on how the people who stand right in front harm the
>>>>>experience for others who don't rent the headsets.
>>>>
>>>>You cannot be a solution when you are part of the problem.
>>>>
>>>
>>>How am I part of the problem, if I am standing off to the side, all
>>>the while making sure I am not blocking the view for others behind me?
>>>How am I any more of a problem that you are, standing and looking at
>>>the object without using a headset?
>>
>>Because anyone who does not understand humor is problematic.
>
>I still can't identify where your tongue went into your cheek in the
>upstream thread, but that's all right. If you were just joshing about
>minding the people with the headsets, great.
I was joshing.. I need to refine my unseen LOL and <BG> indicators.
>>>As for photographers, I don't recall ever seeing a photographer at a
>>>museum. If they were there, they were being very unobtrusive.
>>
>>I see them, and am one myself, but am so unobtrusive that you never
>>knew, now did you?
>>
>
>No, but I'm keeping my eye out for you, and if I see you, I'm
>summoning the authorities.
I do not take photographs in exhibits or galleries in which they are
prohibited - generally. I do have a habit of talking with the guards
in museums when the place is quiet. They often know a lot about the
works in the rooms in their care and have great stories about museum
goers. I exchanged tips on how to keep hair curls soft with one at the
Getty a couple of months ago, after we discussed whether my unopened
water bottle within a backpack was allowed or not.
Sometimes I even get to photograph things that are not allowed to be.
Most of the special exhibition prohibitions are set up for insurance
and for not interfering with sales of souvenirs. The problem is that a
lot of things do not make it into the books they sell and I have no
record of them to remind me how lovely they were.
>How good do the photos come out, since you can't use flash
>photography?
It isn't hard with a point and shoot , which is all the arthritis
allows me on that sort of shoot.The shots below are unedited, right
off the SD card and not shown for anything artistic, but just for
varying museum light conditions. The last piece was in a glass case.
I do have a mini tri-pod that can be supported against the chest for
dicey conditions, but it is quite rare when that gets taken out these
days.
http://i49.tinypic.com/23vbz80.jpg
Boron Elgar
<madp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>I expect and want a performance with such readings. I've Carl Sandberg
>>in recordings, too, and there is nothing interesting about listening
>>to the poet in that case. Thomas was a performer and besides, I used
>>to live around the block from where he did some of his last drinking.
>
>The White Horse?
Yup. I used to live in the far West Village.
Boron
N Jill Marsh
I haven't though about them in years, I adored them when I was much
younger; my eldest sibling was a huge progressive rock fan.
I have not listened to them since, I suspect they might age poorly.
nj"like me"m
--
Welcome, stranger, to the humble neighbourhoods.
art...@yahoo.com
I just hate oblivious folks
> >>who stand smack by an art work as if on a rodent glue trap, until
> >>they hear a little "ding" or a program tells them it is time to move
> >>on, at which point they take up the same or similar position, or
> >>attempt to, at the next work of art.
Hey that's me. Of course, the little ding is all in my head.
Artyw "and they get really pissed when you get rodent glue on the
Matisse" 2
M C Hamster
Those are really good. I would have expected them not only to be more
blurry, but yellow-tinged.
I have this disturbing image in my mind now of tourists going into the
Louvre, and standing next to the Mona Lisa and having their photos
taken.
And you, next to that statue of David... well, imagine the various
humorous poses you might strike. I'm not keen on this photography
thing in art museums.
Boron Elgar
<davo...@nospam.speakeasy.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 07:46:36 -0500, Boron Elgar
><boron...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>It isn't hard with a point and shoot , which is all the arthritis
>>allows me on that sort of shoot.The shots below are unedited, right
>>off the SD card and not shown for anything artistic, but just for
>>varying museum light conditions. The last piece was in a glass case.
>>
>>I do have a mini tri-pod that can be supported against the chest for
>>dicey conditions, but it is quite rare when that gets taken out these
>>days.
>>
>>http://i49.tinypic.com/23vbz80.jpg
>>
>>http://i45.tinypic.com/35ce51d.jpg
>>
>>http://i49.tinypic.com/1432hoi.jpg
>
>Those are really good. I would have expected them not only to be more
>blurry, but yellow-tinged.
Thank you. And Canon's engineers thank you, too.
>
>I have this disturbing image in my mind now of tourists going into the
>Louvre, and standing next to the Mona Lisa and having their photos
>taken.
Too much flashback from the protective glass/plastic behind which she
resides.
>
>And you, next to that statue of David... well, imagine the various
>humorous poses you might strike. I'm not keen on this photography
>thing in art museums.
What about the copy on in the square? That one would be good for some
raunchy posing.
I have a lot of slides that I took on European jaunts in the 70s and
80s and between high speed films and small tripods, as well as
well-placed fee boxes for tuning on lights, I got some good shots of
things. Rules have changed over the years and I do not know if I'd
still have as free rein as I used to have in those museums, though.
Boron
Bob Ward
<boron...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 16:47:29 -0800, Bob Ward <bob...@email.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 18:03:39 -0500, Boron Elgar
>><boron...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I am not a Luddite. I embrace technology for its far reaching
>>>convenience and information dissemination. I just hate oblivious folks
>>>who stand smack by an art work as if on a rodent glue trap, until
>>>they hear a little "ding" or a program tells them it is time to move
>>>on, at which point they take up the same or similar position, or
>>>attempt to, at the next work of art.
>>
>>Ask for ye Michael Jackson tour, then. Reserve the whole museum for
>>yourself and your guests after hours. Otherwise if you are paying the
>>same price as everyone else, you should have the same amount of
>>access.
>
>Really, Bob, just kiss my ass. You're a fucking idiot. Have fun in the
>buffet line where I am sure you'll have full access.
>
>Boron
See, that's your problem,. Others who paid the same price that you
did had the balls to not get out of your way fast enough to suit you,
so you revealed that you are really just a low-class cunt and went all
postal on them. That is your standard way of ending a discussion when
you have nothing of value to contribute.
Bob Ward
<boron...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Do all you rich cunts misuse apostrophizes?
Bob Ward
wrote:
>On Nov 22, 4:52�pm, Boron Elgar <boron_el...@hotmail.com> wrote:
You sly dog, you - calling her a bitch all polite like that.
Mary
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 07:46:36 -0500, Boron Elgar
>
> >It isn't hard with a point and shoot , which is all the arthritis
> >allows me on that sort of shoot.The shots below are unedited, right
> >off the SD card and not shown for anything artistic, but just for
> >varying museum light conditions. The last piece was in a glass case.
>
> >I do have a mini tri-pod that can be supported against the chest for
> >dicey conditions, but it is quite rare when that gets taken out these
> >days.
>
> >http://i49.tinypic.com/23vbz80.jpg
>
> >http://i45.tinypic.com/35ce51d.jpg
>
> >http://i49.tinypic.com/1432hoi.jpg
>
> Those are really good. I would have expected them not only to be more
> blurry, but yellow-tinged.
>
> I have this disturbing image in my mind now of tourists going into the
> Louvre, and standing next to the Mona Lisa and having their photos
> taken.
Ha. Ha. Ha. No, what happens when you go to the Louvre and attempt
to see the Mona Lisa is this: you insert yourself in to a small room
packed with humanity. You will be literally shoulder to shoulder with
about 250 strangers, and if you're lucky you can shove your way
forward to the front, where the Mona Lisa hangs. Again, if you're
lucky, you'll get past the people who are shooting video by holding
their cameras above shoulder level and pointing forward, hoping to get
video (and why, you may ask, are they taking video of a stationary
object that hasn't moved significantly in about three hundred years?
Good question. I have no answer for you) and the people who are
waving their digital still cameras above their heads, trying to get
photos of a painting that they can't actually SEE, if they're shorter
than average.
I don't know why they're all focused on photographing it; there are
some very fine guidebooks available in the Louvre's museum shops with
excellent reproductions of the painting. I can tell you
unequivocally, though, that it's a lesson in just how much discomfort
large groups of clueless people can produce.
It's a wonderful painting, but after we got within about fifteen feet
of it, my husband and I looked at each other and said, okay, that's
close enough - we've seen it, let's get the hell out of here. And we
did.
And you know what? Most of the rest of the museum was damn near
deserted and we had a nice hour or two wandering the galleries and
seeing the paintings that all those people who had just spent 45
minutes waiting in line at the museum entrance and then another 25
minutes or so fighting their way into the room where the Mona Lisa
resides were completely ignoring.
People are weird. As far as I could tell, about 80% of the people who
go to the Louvre go in and see the Mona Lisa and the Venus de Milo and
then leave.
Mary
Slow Motion Apocalypse
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 00:17:14 +0000, John Hatpin
>
> >N Jill Marsh wrote:
>
> >> wrote:
> >> >Whaddaya got against Musorgsky?
>
> >> Not a thing, I just have my own modest preferences.
>
> >> nj"including a double ss"m
>
> >As in "Emersson, Lake and Palmer"?
>
> I haven't though about them in years, I adored them when I was much
> younger; my eldest sibling was a huge progressive rock fan.
>
> I have not listened to them since, I suspect they might age poorly.
>
> nj"like me"m
>
> --
> Welcome, stranger, to the humble neighbourhoods.
They have aged beautifully into the worst band of all time.
Boron Elgar
wrote:
>Ha. Ha. Ha. No, what happens when you go to the Louvre and attempt
>to see the Mona Lisa is this: you insert yourself in to a small room
>packed with humanity. You will be literally shoulder to shoulder with
>about 250 strangers, and if you're lucky you can shove your way
>forward to the front, where the Mona Lisa hangs. Again, if you're
>lucky, you'll get past the people who are shooting video by holding
>their cameras above shoulder level and pointing forward, hoping to get
>video (and why, you may ask, are they taking video of a stationary
>object that hasn't moved significantly in about three hundred years?
No..she moved...someone stole her in 1911. Hard to believe, isn't it?
>
>And you know what? Most of the rest of the museum was damn near
>deserted and we had a nice hour or two wandering the galleries and
>seeing the paintings that all those people who had just spent 45
>minutes waiting in line at the museum entrance and then another 25
>minutes or so fighting their way into the room where the Mona Lisa
>resides were completely ignoring.
>
>People are weird. As far as I could tell, about 80% of the people who
>go to the Louvre go in and see the Mona Lisa and the Venus de Milo and
>then leave.
They live on the other side of the Delaware with MC. You must live on
this side.
Boron
N Jill Marsh
<slowmotion...@rocketmail.com> wrote:
>On Nov 23, 5:29�am, N Jill Marsh <njma...@storm.ca> wrote about ELP:
>> I haven't though about them in years, I adored them when I was much
>> younger; my eldest sibling was a huge progressive rock fan.
>>
>> I have not listened to them since, I suspect they might age poorly.
>
>They have aged beautifully into the worst band of all time.
Don't confirm my suspicions!
nj"la la la"m
M C Hamster
I've been to the Louvre on several occasions. Only on the first did I
see the ML, and that was because I was on a group tour. This was back
in the 1970s, and my recollection was that it wasn't as crowded as
Mary describes, though it was definitely, um, busy. What everyone
says about the ML is how really small and basically nondescript it is,
and they're right.
My favorite Paris museum was the Jeu de Paumes... now it's the Musee
d'Orsay. And these are the favorites of most everyone west of the
Delaware as well.
Peter Ward
>
> On Nov 23, 5:29 am, N Jill Marsh <njma...@storm.ca> wrote:
> > On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 00:17:14 +0000, John Hatpin
> >
> > <RemoveThisjfhop...@gmailAndThisToo.com> wrote:
> > >N Jill Marsh wrote:
> >
> > >> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 14:56:26 -0800 (PST), Mac <ANMCC...@ALUM.WPI.EDU>
> > >> wrote:
> > >> >Whaddaya got against Musorgsky?
> >
> > >> Not a thing, I just have my own modest preferences.
> >
> > >> nj"including a double ss"m
> >
> > >As in "Emersson, Lake and Palmer"?
> >
> > I haven't though about them in years, I adored them when I was much
> > younger; my eldest sibling was a huge progressive rock fan.
> >
> > I have not listened to them since, I suspect they might age poorly.
> They have aged beautifully into the worst band of all time.
Far from it, but it's true that they've not aged well. Mind you, there
are good tracks on each of their first four albums, but there are some
really crap ones as well.
--
Peter, from outside the asylum
I'm an alien
email: usenet at peterward dot adsl24 dot co dot uk
http://blowinsmoke.wordpress.com/
Just wait, and it will get worse.
- Greg Johnson
Peter Ward
[The Mona Lisa]
> It's a wonderful painting,
Meh!
> but after we got within about fifteen feet
> of it, my husband and I looked at each other and said, okay, that's
> close enough - we've seen it, let's get the hell out of here. And we
> did.
>
> And you know what? Most of the rest of the museum was damn near
> deserted and we had a nice hour or two wandering the galleries and
> seeing the paintings that all those people who had just spent 45
> minutes waiting in line at the museum entrance and then another 25
> minutes or so fighting their way into the room where the Mona Lisa
> resides were completely ignoring.
I enjoyed visiting the Louvre overall, but I generally find paintings
tedious. The Mona Lisa is a particularly uninteresting exhibit, I don't
know what all the fuss is about. As you say, the crowds all around it
don't help at all, but they do leave the rest of the place free.
> People are weird.
Aren't they, though!
> As far as I could tell, about 80% of the people who
> go to the Louvre go in and see the Mona Lisa and the Venus de Milo and
> then leave.
A friend and I spent the best part of a day there, and we both agreed
that the Mona Lisa is nothing to write home about. We hadn't made a
bee-line for it, and when we got to it were rather taken aback by the
gaggle of people staring at it. We looked, and moved on.
--
Peter, from outside the asylum
I'm an alien
email: usenet at peterward dot adsl24 dot co dot uk
http://blowinsmoke.wordpress.com/
The more I study religions the more I am convinced that man never
worshipped anything but himself.
- Sir Richard Francis Burton
Boron Elgar
<davo...@nospam.speakeasy.net> wrote:
>On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 19:06:33 -0500, Boron Elgar
><boron...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:49:25 -0800 (PST), Mary <mrfea...@aol.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>People are weird. As far as I could tell, about 80% of the people who
>>>go to the Louvre go in and see the Mona Lisa and the Venus de Milo and
>>>then leave.
>>
>>They live on the other side of the Delaware with MC. You must live on
>>this side.
>>
>
>I've been to the Louvre on several occasions. Only on the first did I
>see the ML, and that was because I was on a group tour. This was back
>in the 1970s, and my recollection was that it wasn't as crowded as
>Mary describes, though it was definitely, um, busy. What everyone
>says about the ML is how really small and basically nondescript it is,
>and they're right.
Besides, the better painting that used to be in the same gallery with
the ML is another Da Vinci - The Virgin of the Rocks. It used to be
to the left of the ML and the last time I saw it, it was covered in
sawdust that had wafted onto it from a pile tossed onto the floor so
no one would slip on a puddle a humidifier had dripped there. And
Winged Victory had at least a full inch of dust on her.
>
>My favorite Paris museum was the Jeu de Paumes... now it's the Musee
>d'Orsay. And these are the favorites of most everyone west of the
>Delaware as well.
C'est vrai. The Louvre has too much frilly French painting for my
taste.
Boron
Paul L. Madarasz
perhaps among other things:
>Mary says...
>
>[The Mona Lisa]
>
>> It's a wonderful painting,
>
>Meh!
>
>> but after we got within about fifteen feet
>> of it, my husband and I looked at each other and said, okay, that's
>> close enough - we've seen it, let's get the hell out of here. And we
>> did.
>>
>> And you know what? Most of the rest of the museum was damn near
>> deserted and we had a nice hour or two wandering the galleries and
>> seeing the paintings that all those people who had just spent 45
>> minutes waiting in line at the museum entrance and then another 25
>> minutes or so fighting their way into the room where the Mona Lisa
>> resides were completely ignoring.
>
>I enjoyed visiting the Louvre overall, but I generally find paintings
>tedious. The Mona Lisa is a particularly uninteresting exhibit, I don't
>know what all the fuss is about. As you say, the crowds all around it
>don't help at all, but they do leave the rest of the place free.
There was no fuss about ML, until Walter Pater wrote an influential
puff piece about it in the late (?) 1800s.
>
>> People are weird.
>
>Aren't they, though!
>
>> As far as I could tell, about 80% of the people who
>> go to the Louvre go in and see the Mona Lisa and the Venus de Milo and
>> then leave.
>
>A friend and I spent the best part of a day there, and we both agreed
>that the Mona Lisa is nothing to write home about. We hadn't made a
>bee-line for it, and when we got to it were rather taken aback by the
>gaggle of people staring at it. We looked, and moved on.
--
Mary
> On 24 Nov 2009 01:44:04 -0600, M C Hamster
>
>
>
>
>
> <davol...@nospam.speakeasy.net> wrote:
> >On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 19:06:33 -0500, Boron Elgar
>
> >>On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 15:49:25 -0800 (PST), Mary <mrfeath...@aol.com>
> >>wrote:
>
> >>>People are weird. As far as I could tell, about 80% of the people who
> >>>go to the Louvre go in and see the Mona Lisa and the Venus de Milo and
> >>>then leave.
>
> >>They live on the other side of the Delaware with MC. You must live on
> >>this side.
>
> >I've been to the Louvre on several occasions. Only on the first did I
> >see the ML, and that was because I was on a group tour. This was back
> >in the 1970s, and my recollection was that it wasn't as crowded as
> >Mary describes, though it was definitely, um, busy. What everyone
> >says about the ML is how really small and basically nondescript it is,
> >and they're right.
>
> Besides, the better painting that used to be in the same gallery with
> the ML is another Da Vinci - The Virgin of the Rocks. It used to be
> to the left of the ML and the last time I saw it, it was covered in
> sawdust that had wafted onto it from a pile tossed onto the floor so
> no one would slip on a puddle a humidifier had dripped there. And
> Winged Victory had at least a full inch of dust on her.
>
>
>
> >My favorite Paris museum was the Jeu de Paumes... now it's the Musee
> >d'Orsay. And these are the favorites of most everyone west of the
> >Delaware as well.
>
> C'est vrai. The Louvre has too much frilly French painting for my
> taste.
The Louvre has lots of a lot of different things. I enjoyed it, but
was agog at the weirdness surrounding ML and VdeM. I loved the Musee
d'Orsay, but that was pretty well jam-packed too.
Possibly the moral of my story is not to go to Paris museums on a
weekend in April, but that's when I was there.
Mary
Mary
> "Tony Myerswww.sedatedape.com(A many splendored thing )"
>
> <sedated...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> How often do you go to museums, Bob?
>
> > and remember that just because there are pictures on the walls at the
> > Old Country Buffet that doesn't make it a museum
>
> I'm not sure about that. I ate there once, and they had a pudding exhibit
> that was as old as coal.
Heh. I'd even counter Tony's statement with "remember, just because
there are foodstuffs available at Old Country Buffet doesn't make it a
decent restaurant".
Bleh.
Mary
Boron Elgar
wrote:
I think the very famous works are always surrounded by crowds, off
season, mid-week, whenever. It is good in some ways that the museums
draw in money with the pop pieces so that other works and exhibits can
be more easily funded, too
Boron.
Les Albert
The Frilly Frenchies were an important art group that enabled the
later impressionists.
Les
Peter Ward
Chestnuts in blossom
Holiday tables
Under the trees
--
Peter, from outside the asylum
I'm an alien
email: usenet at peterward dot adsl24 dot co dot uk
http://blowinsmoke.wordpress.com/
German brats are the wurst kind.
- Bill Kinkaid