Visit Tate Modern
p.chi...@neuf.fr
My name is Pierre Chirouze, I am a 58 French photographer, visiting
London with my wife Paule next week.
We would appreciate visiting the Tate Modern in the company of a London
couple, to exchange comments about the works to be seen there, and
views on art in general.
Proposing next Friday or Saturday around 19:00, since the gallery
opens till 22:00 on these days.
Get back to me at : p.chi...@neuf.fr until Thursday morning,
a...@mino2.com thereafter.
Best regards,
Please pass this message on to London friends or artists siblings if
you do not feel personally concerned.
Pierre
Icono Clast
> Proposing next Friday or Saturday around 19:00, since the gallery
> opens till 22:00 on these days.
Three hours for the Tate?!? Y'gotta be kidding!
____________________________________________________________
One of (as of 2003) 751,682 residents of San Francisco
http://geocities.com/dancefest/ http://geocities.com/iconoc/
ICQ: http://wwp.mirabilis.com/19098103 IClast at SFbay Net
chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn
> p.chi...@neuf.fr wrote:
> > Proposing next Friday or Saturday around 19:00, since the gallery
> > opens till 22:00 on these days.
>
> Three hours for the Tate?!? Y'gotta be kidding!
Why? Three hours is a perfectly feasible time for visiting the Tate
Modern, actually, especially if not visiting any current special
exhibitions, and at this time of year- it's an excellent way to spend an
evening.
I usually spend an hour or so when I'm there, but that's because there
are usually only certain works I'm interested in seeing. That's one of
the real advantages of the free museums in the UK- you don't feel you
have to spend ages inside to get your money's worth, and you don't feel
you have to see every exhibit. You tend to get tired of trying to see
everything in a gallery.
However, the actual number of viewable exhibits at the Tate Modern is
not as vast as you find at some other museums. Some people go just to
see the main hall (it's a converted power plant) and I don't think
there's anything wrong in that, either.
When I pass the National Gallery, for example, I often just pop in for a
quarter of an hour, just to view the Vermeers, of which I'm very fond.
--
David Horne- www.davidhorne.net
usenet (at) davidhorne (dot) co (dot) uk
The Reids
>> Proposing next Friday or Saturday around 19:00, since the gallery
>> opens till 22:00 on these days.
>
>Three hours for the Tate?!? Y'gotta be kidding!
much too long.
--
Mike Reid
Wasdale-Thames path-London-photos "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
Eat-walk-Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap
The Reids
>However, the actual number of viewable exhibits at the Tate Modern is
>not as vast as you find at some other museums. Some people go just to
>see the main hall (it's a converted power plant) and I don't think
>there's anything wrong in that, either.
Best bit for me, most of the rest of it just mystifies me. What's
the chemist shop for? Why does a glass of water called an oak
tree mean anything? The big spider thing looks quite interesting,
just like the one in Bilbao. In fact, apart from a short period
when the impressionists were around, and Turners later stuff, I
wouldn't miss much of the art that ends up in major galleries,
while I quite often like stuff I see in craft type little shops
when on holiday. Sculpture can be better, often rather attractive
but overhyped and overpriced. I must be a philistine or something
but i'm not the only one as I have seen people at Tate modern
staring at boxes containing the aircon or something similar.
chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn
> Following up to chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn
>
> >However, the actual number of viewable exhibits at the Tate Modern is
> >not as vast as you find at some other museums. Some people go just to
> >see the main hall (it's a converted power plant) and I don't think
> >there's anything wrong in that, either.
>
> Best bit for me, most of the rest of it just mystifies me. What's
> the chemist shop for? Why does a glass of water called an oak
> tree mean anything? The big spider thing looks quite interesting,
> just like the one in Bilbao. In fact, apart from a short period
> when the impressionists were around, and Turners later stuff, I
> wouldn't miss much of the art that ends up in major galleries,
> while I quite often like stuff I see in craft type little shops
> when on holiday. Sculpture can be better, often rather attractive
> but overhyped and overpriced. I must be a philistine or something
> but i'm not the only one as I have seen people at Tate modern
> staring at boxes containing the aircon or something similar.
Well, that's a view, I suppose, and you don't _have_ to like modern art,
and even if you do, you don't have to live everything you see. The Tate
has a heck of a lot more than you describe above though- including a
pretty substantial amount of work by major 20th century figures.
I think there are a lot of impressive pieces there. If you looked at it
without comparing it to, say, more representative art, then you might
see that a lot of it has its own beauty- and ugliness of course, that's
also a part of art. Whenever I'm there, I see a lot of people looking at
the exhibits with a mixture of wonder, shock, fun, whatever- but on the
whole there are a lot of enthusiastic visitors. It's not a question of
'understanding' it (I'm rarely interested in explanations about what a
piece of art may or may not mean)- simply a question of looking at it-
and if a lot more people dropped their preconceptions and inhibitions
about some of what they see, I imagine some people might enjoy it more.
The Reids
>I think there are a lot of impressive pieces there. If you looked at it
>without comparing it to, say, more representative art,
I'm not keen on most of the representative art either, the old
master type stuff usually bores me, people go on about "brush
strokes" and I just think, so what? Once Ive seen one madonna and
child that's enough old brown paintings for me.
>then you might
>see that a lot of it has its own beauty- and ugliness of course, that's
>also a part of art.
I've got no problem with things being abstract, although I cant
see the point of ugly art, unless it *does* have some meaning
beyond being itself.
>Whenever I'm there, I see a lot of people looking at
>the exhibits with a mixture of wonder, shock, fun, whatever- but on the
>whole there are a lot of enthusiastic visitors.
Yes, I'm sure others appreciate it. Sachhi is obviously clever
and collects the stuff, so it means something to him.
>It's not a question of 'understanding' it (I'm rarely interested in explanations about what a
>piece of art may or may not mean)-
The explanations you see certainly just read like bullshit to me.
When people try and explain science they try and do it simply to
get the point across, with art they use the most obscure language
they can muster.
>simply a question of looking at it-
>and if a lot more people dropped their preconceptions and inhibitions
>about some of what they see, I imagine some people might enjoy it more.
There is a double wall of cast iron in the Guggenheim at Bilbao
which makes your footsteps sound odd as you walk through it,
which looked and sounded good and they didn't tell me off for
banging on the sides to make a nice noise. I thought it would be
nice in a park, I would probably be willing to pay cost + £200
for it rather than the £1m its probably "worth". They had a load
of mobiles too, but you were not allowed to make them move.
All in all I think i'm far more impressed by architecture and
design than upmarket fine art, I prefer the couple of small
cheapish abstract scuptures/vases/bowls I have bought in craft
shops to most of the stuff in museums. Ditto I prefer the
representational prints I have bought and good landscape
photographs to 99% of the abstract painting I see in the Tate.
Installations, don't start me on installations :-)
chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn
> Following up to chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn
>
> >I think there are a lot of impressive pieces there. If you looked at it
> >without comparing it to, say, more representative art,
>
> I'm not keen on most of the representative art either, the old
> master type stuff usually bores me, people go on about "brush
> strokes" and I just think, so what?
It can make a difference though.
> Once Ive seen one madonna and
> child that's enough old brown paintings for me.
>
> >then you might
> >see that a lot of it has its own beauty- and ugliness of course, that's
> >also a part of art.
>
> I've got no problem with things being abstract, although I cant
> see the point of ugly art, unless it *does* have some meaning
> beyond being itself.
I think it often does. There's a lot of ugliness in pop art for example.
[]
> There is a double wall of cast iron in the Guggenheim at Bilbao
> which makes your footsteps sound odd as you walk through it,
> which looked and sounded good and they didn't tell me off for
> banging on the sides to make a nice noise. I thought it would be
> nice in a park, I would probably be willing to pay cost + £200
> for it rather than the £1m its probably "worth". They had a load
> of mobiles too, but you were not allowed to make them move.
>
> All in all I think i'm far more impressed by architecture and
> design than upmarket fine art, I prefer the couple of small
> cheapish abstract scuptures/vases/bowls I have bought in craft
> shops to most of the stuff in museums.
Well, I like my little knick-nacks too, but I think there's also a place
for high art. A friend of mine has acquired a few glass pieces recently.
They're extremely expensive- many thousands of pounds- but they really
are exquisite. I couldn't afford such things, but I'm very happy to
admire the works owned by those who can.
> Ditto I prefer the
> representational prints I have bought and good landscape
> photographs to 99% of the abstract painting I see in the Tate.
>
> Installations, don't start me on installations :-)
Well, there was Cornelia Parker's blown up shed suspended in a room at
the Tate a few years ago. I thought it was breathtaking, and went to see
it many times. Evidently, so did other people, it was always full, and
they had to limit the number of visitors. It's just a plain old garden
shed with bits of old junk, blown up and suspended with wires with a
bare light bulb in the middle. Sounds cheap, sounds easy- the kind of
thing 'anyone could do' right? Thing is, no one _did_ do it, she did-
and it was a very memorable, even moving, work of art for me.
dcoj...@search26.com
Rita
(chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn) wrote:
>I think there are a lot of impressive pieces there. If you looked at it
>without comparing it to, say, more representative art, then you might
>see that a lot of it has its own beauty- and ugliness of course, that's
>also a part of art. Whenever I'm there, I see a lot of people looking at
>the exhibits with a mixture of wonder, shock, fun, whatever- but on the
>whole there are a lot of enthusiastic visitors. It's not a question of
>'understanding' it (I'm rarely interested in explanations about what a
>piece of art may or may not mean)- simply a question of looking at it-
>and if a lot more people dropped their preconceptions and inhibitions
>about some of what they see, I imagine some people might enjoy it more.
A work of art either "speaks to me" somehow or it does not. Abstract
art can be beautiful indeed. Or at least interesting. Visited Tate Modern
during two trips to London last spring. Also the Saatchi Gallery -- what
a hoot that is. I think any major gallery such as Tate Modern is best done
in small doses. That is the way I do New York City art museums, but I live
there and have the luxury of popping in and out to view just a few works.
The Reids
>A work of art either "speaks to me" somehow or it does not. Abstract
>art can be beautiful indeed. Or at least interesting.
Heres my picture of something beautiful at Tate Modern:-
"http://www.fellwalk.co.uk/thame212x.htm"
and its free :-)
The Reids
>Well, there was Cornelia Parker's blown up shed suspended in a room at
>the Tate a few years ago. I thought it was breathtaking, and went to see
>it many times. Evidently, so did other people, it was always full, and
>they had to limit the number of visitors. It's just a plain old garden
>shed with bits of old junk, blown up and suspended with wires with a
>bare light bulb in the middle. Sounds cheap, sounds easy- the kind of
>thing 'anyone could do' right? Thing is, no one _did_ do it, she did-
>and it was a very memorable, even moving, work of art for me.
I saw something rather similar with a grand piano that spewed its
works from the ceiling. Nice. The "anyone could do it" test is an
interesting one. Artists now are "allowed" to have craftsmen do
the work for them, which turns them into ideas people or
designers. A lot of people who never really had much idea what
art was were comfortable as long as it involved craft skill as
they didn't understand the difference between craft and art and
could just say "that's skillful, that's art". They are now
confused.
I'm fairly confused too, there now seems to be quite a lot of
stuff just designed to shock, painting with shit, blood or semen,
pissing in snow, pornography, dead bodies w.h.y. The artist as
self publicist, lets have a bit more starving in garrets, I say.
Mind you, "sex sells" is nothing new in art is it? All those
respectable people looking at nude paintings, "nothing to do with
sex, darling, its art", funny how the male artists usually
painted attractive girls, tried it myself years ago but I could
never get the girls to take their clothes off, perhaps if i'd had
a studio rather than the corner of the bedroom or even some
talent?
chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn
[]
> I saw something rather similar with a grand piano that spewed its
> works from the ceiling. Nice. The "anyone could do it" test is an
> interesting one. Artists now are "allowed" to have craftsmen do
> the work for them, which turns them into ideas people or
> designers.
This has been the case, probably as far back as it goes. Do you think
Michaelangelo painted the Sistine Chapel by himself?
The Reids
>Artists now are "allowed" to have craftsmen do
>> the work for them, which turns them into ideas people or
>> designers.
>
>This has been the case, probably as far back as it goes. Do you think
>Michaelangelo painted the Sistine Chapel by himself?
No, they all had people to do the hands, drapery and such like,
but he *could* do it himself and no doubt did all the important
bits.
The Reids
>>This has been the case, probably as far back as it goes. Do you think
>>Michaelangelo painted the Sistine Chapel by himself?
>
>or Rubens all those all those acres of fat ladies?
sexy ladies by the fashions of the times.
chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn
> Following up to chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn
>
> >Artists now are "allowed" to have craftsmen do
> >> the work for them, which turns them into ideas people or
> >> designers.
> >
> >This has been the case, probably as far back as it goes. Do you think
> >Michaelangelo painted the Sistine Chapel by himself?
>
> No, they all had people to do the hands, drapery and such like,
> but he *could* do it himself and no doubt did all the important
> bits.
But he still delegated, which made him into a designer of sorts. I don't
see much difference between what you're describing and a position of an
architect. All that means, if anything, is that the distinction is more
blurred.
The Reids
>> No, they all had people to do the hands, drapery and such like,
>> but he *could* do it himself and no doubt did all the important
>> bits.
>
>But he still delegated, which made him into a designer of sorts. I don't
>see much difference between what you're describing and a position of an
>architect. All that means, if anything, is that the distinction is more
>blurred.
I would agree the painting the sistine Chapel gig was a little
like being an architect, the difference being that architects are
firmly tied to reality and practicality (except for their unique
belief that flat roofs don't leak). I think we are back to the
original post in that the real break with the past was the urinal
rather than not having to do it yourself, although I don't think
there were any artists in the past who couldn't perform in the
discipline themselves.
congokid
<don...@fell-walker.co.uk> writes
> I would probably be willing to pay cost + £200
>for it rather than the £1m its probably "worth".
In the Tate Modern a couple of years ago I bought three framed prints of
Barnett Newman works - mostly fields of red with occasional blue, brown
or black stripes - as they fit very well with the colour scheme I have
used in my living room. UKP150 the lot.
I don't think I could carry a whole evening of art conversation, though.
--
congokid
Good restaurants in London? Number one on Google
http://congokid.com
Karen Selwyn
>
> Best bit for me, most of the rest of it just mystifies me.
Mike, have you ever taken one of the docent-led tours of the Tate or
rented an audio guide? A docent could go a long way towards demystifying
contemporary art for you.
A bit of a disclaimer is necessary here: In Washington, DC, I'm a docent
at the Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden, a museum with a collection
that's very similar to the Tate Modern. I adore guiding people who are
bewildered or actively opposed to contemporary art. It's so much fun to
help people understand what previously had been an intimidating muddle.
> Why does a glass of water called an oak tree mean anything?
Why must it mean something? Impressionist painting doesn't mean
anything; it simply represents the appearance of a scene at a specific
moment of light and weather. Incidentally, if the past is any sort of
predictor of what we can expect for contemporary art, Impressionism was
resoundingly rejected in its early days.
> I must be a philistine or something but i'm not the only one as I have
> seen people at Tate modern staring at boxes containing the aircon
> or something similar.
aircon??? Translation please.
Karen Selwyn
Karen Selwyn
>
> I saw something rather similar with a grand piano that spewed its
> works from the ceiling. Nice.
Loved that piece! I think we saw it summer '02. Visitors to the gallery
where the piece was installed would camp out on their folding chairs and
watch that piece decompose, reform, and decompose once more.
> Artists now are "allowed" to have craftsmen do
> the work for them, which turns them into ideas people or
> designers.
There's no "now" about it. Many name painters had their apprentices
painting, at least, the landscape or figures in a crowd scene.
Interestingly, scientists did an algorithmic analysis of one of
Perugino's paintings recently and confirmed what art experts have
intuitively suspected. Two of Perugino's apprentices painted several of
the important figures in a particular work -- not just the uminportant
bits we usually associate with apprentices.
Bronze statues have long begged the question: Must an artist be the
maker for something to qualify as art? For centuries, artisans at art
foundries have been scaling up artist's original maquettes, creating the
molds for casting, and producing the final work of art.
Still, the Conceptual art movement in the 1970's intensified the debate
going on about contemporary art. Art: Product or concept?
> I'm fairly confused too, there now seems to be quite a lot of
> stuff just designed to shock, painting with shit, blood or semen,
> pissing in snow, pornography, dead bodies w.h.y.
FWIW, the Hirshhorn organized a show about five years ago around the
theme of "beauty." One section of the show -- titled "Challenging
Beauty" -- included some of the ugliest, most disconcerting art I'd ever
seen. The curator made a very persuasive case for the inclusion of these
pieces saying that we wouldn't have a concept of beauty without having a
concept of ugliness.
Having said this, I'll add that there is a great divide between what
intrigues me intellectually in contemporary art and what I'm comfortable
with -- much less willing to live with.
Karen Selwyn
The Reids
snipped sensible stuff about craft/art and what the actual artist
must do
>FWIW, the Hirshhorn organized a show about five years ago around the
>theme of "beauty." One section of the show -- titled "Challenging
>Beauty" -- included some of the ugliest, most disconcerting art I'd ever
>seen. The curator made a very persuasive case for the inclusion of these
>pieces saying that we wouldn't have a concept of beauty without having a
>concept of ugliness.
Ahhhh, does that explain the beautiful girl with her plain
friend?
This is where I start to roll eyes and walk away :-)
I dont need a badly exposed photo to recognise a brilliant photo
from an average one. Ugliness is all around us.
>Having said this, I'll add that there is a great divide between what
>intrigues me intellectually in contemporary art and what I'm comfortable
>with -- much less willing to live with.
I think we would agree on that. My bits and pieces from
commercial craft shops concentrate on beauty.
The Reids
>mostly fields of red with occasional blue, brown
>or black stripes - as they fit very well with the colour scheme I have
>used in my living room. UKP150 the lot.
That's what I like to hear, pick art to match the sofa and pay
little for it.
>I don't think I could carry a whole evening of art conversation, though.
Watch this space :-)
The Reids
>> Best bit for me, most of the rest of it just mystifies me.
>
>Mike, have you ever taken one of the docent-led tours of the Tate or
>rented an audio guide? A docent could go a long way towards demystifying
>contemporary art for you.
I've read art books, used to paint and read art mags.
>A bit of a disclaimer is necessary here: In Washington, DC, I'm a docent
>at the Hirshhorn Museum and Sculpture Garden, a museum with a collection
>that's very similar to the Tate Modern. I adore guiding people who are
>bewildered or actively opposed to contemporary art. It's so much fun to
>help people understand what previously had been an intimidating muddle.
I'm not actively opposed, just sceptical after a lifetime of
pondering the issues, on and off.
>> Why does a glass of water called an oak tree mean anything?
>
>Why must it mean something?
Because if it does not, its rubbish art, and the artist was
clearly meaning something by calling a glass of water an oak
tree. If a glass of water in gallery means nothing, its
worthless, surely?
>Impressionist painting doesn't mean
>anything; it simply represents the appearance of a scene at a specific
>moment of light and weather.
Or in the mind of the artist.
>Incidentally, if the past is any sort of
>predictor of what we can expect for contemporary art, Impressionism was
>resoundingly rejected in its early days.
Indeed, and now we are scared to reject anything.
> > I must be a philistine or something but i'm not the only one as I have
> > seen people at Tate modern staring at boxes containing the aircon
> > or something similar.
>
>aircon??? Translation please.
Airconditionig units or other boxes that are not exhibits
The Reids
>>> Why does a glass of water called an oak tree mean anything?
>>
>>Why must it mean something?
>
>Because if it does not, its rubbish art, and the artist was
>clearly meaning something by calling a glass of water an oak
>tree. If a glass of water in gallery means nothing, its
>worthless, surely?
Carol tells me that the glass of water is related to the urinal,
not in the obvious physical sense of one leading to the other but
rather the artistic sense of "if I say its art its art" leading
to "if I say its an oak tree, its an oak tree", so maybe I should
applaud the "artist" as he is actually joking and debunking the
urinal?
My problem with that is its all rather slight and doesn't warrant
a museum and hushed silence. Its amusing, but only 1% as amusing
as "The Office".
Perhaps I should go to the gallery and make some performance art
by drinking the water etc...............?
chancellor of the duchy of besses o' th' barn
[]
> My criteria is, would I want to own it, if I was given it free? All
> too often the answer is NO.
That's an odd criterion. I wouldn't have the space for most of the
Jackson Pollocks that I like. Besides, 'An oak tree', if it attracts you
(I like it, actually)- is dependent on its place. Maybe there would be
somewhere in the house I could position it that would make it as
effective- but I doubt it.
Karen Selwyn
>
> The explanations you see certainly just read like bullshit to me.
> When people try and explain science they try and do it simply to
> get the point across, with art they use the most obscure language
> they can muster.
I dispute your claim that people trying to explain science try to do it
simply to get the point across. There are just as many pedants in
science as in the field of art. I think the major difference is that the
laws of physics are ground zero for the scientists whereas the field of
art essentially is grounded in opinion.
The twice-a-month-docent training I receive puts me both at the mercy of
and enthralled by curators and guest lectures. I can say unequivocally
that it isn't necessary to talk/write in "artspeak" to speak
intelligently about art. Frankly, I find it a greater expression of
someone's intelligence for them to explain complex or demanding topics
simply than for someone to deal with the same topics in a complicated way.
I think two issues create a lot of antipathy towards contemporary art:
time and a low tolerance for uncertainty. The average person spends
three seconds only looking at a work of art in a museum. That's too
little time to appreciate a representational work, but, at least, the
viewer can recognize the figure in that brief span. It's a perfectly
worthless amount of time to deal with a piece of contemporary art. I
think that people reject a lot of contemporary art because they don't
understand it and don't feel comfortable with their uncertainty. Taking
this discomfort further, I'm convinced that many people suspect the
artist is telling an inside joke that they don't get or that they are
the butt of the joke itself.
I'd much rather museum visitors make a personal connection to
contemporary art -- however at odds with a curatorial interpretation --
than to stay away from contemporary art. Admittedly, as a docent, I'm in
the educational department and there's often a divide between the points
of view of education departments and curatorial staffs world-wide.
Heading off to the Hirshhorn shortly. Training day today!
Karen Selwyn
The Reids
>I think two issues create a lot of antipathy towards contemporary art:
>time and a low tolerance for uncertainty. The average person spends
>three seconds only looking at a work of art in a museum. That's too
>little time to appreciate a representational work, but, at least, the
>viewer can recognize the figure in that brief span. It's a perfectly
>worthless amount of time to deal with a piece of contemporary art. I
>think that people reject a lot of contemporary art because they don't
>understand it and don't feel comfortable with their uncertainty. Taking
>this discomfort further, I'm convinced that many people suspect the
>artist is telling an inside joke that they don't get or that they are
>the butt of the joke itself.
I don't think i'm uncomfortable with my uncertainty. The glass of
water certainly does appear to be an inside joke!
Karen Selwyn
>
> I've read art books, used to paint and read art mags.
Which puts you in an entirely differenct category with repect to
uncertainty -- the topic in another post.
> Airconditionig units or other boxes that are not exhibits
Funny you should mention that! Sunday, I visited the adjunct museum of
the Smithsonian's Air and Space museum, a huge airplane hangar located
near Dulles Airport that is filled with historical planes. One small
area was devoted to a display of airplane engines. As we approached this
area, another member of our group -- a graphic designer -- asked her
pilot husband if he'd like to have one of those engines to display as a
a work of art. I picked one that I coveted -- one that could have been
the product of a contemporary sculptor. Plunked down on a pedestal in an
art museum, no one would have would have felt this utilitarian object
was out of place. Obviously, context and intent are important issues,
but I really can't add anything to the debate over the nature of art
that hasn't been said many times over through the decades.
Karen Selwyn
The Reids
>> I've read art books, used to paint and read art mags.
>Which puts you in an entirely differenct category with repect to
>uncertainty -- the topic in another post.
I suspect I will never make my mind up about art, perhaps I don't
need to.
>Funny you should mention that! Sunday, I visited the adjunct museum of
>the Smithsonian's Air and Space museum, a huge airplane hangar located
>near Dulles Airport that is filled with historical planes. One small
>area was devoted to a display of airplane engines.
I think I often appreciate the beauty of practical things more
than contrived art objects, the ones that look right often seem
to work best, although I don't know to what extent we are
conditioned in what a type of object should look like by exposure
to the successful ones?
I'll stop before I start on about steam engines :-)