Watercolour Challenge
Maisy McSoup
Does anybody watch this?
I think its a great little programme.
Maisy McSoup
Nick <nick....@locaNOSPAAAmmMmmMMmmlads.net> wrote in message
news:02rfks0euh8qpl5t2...@4ax.com...
> Maisy McSoup amazed us in <8i8p5r$mv4$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com>.
> See:
>
> >Does anybody watch this?
> >
> >I think its a great little programme.
>
> Ohhh! Is it back on?!
It is back on! They were painting planes today!
Martin Underwood
Maisy McSoup <strange.g...@ic24.net> wrote in message
news:8i8p5r$mv4$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com...
>
> Does anybody watch this?
>
> I think its a great little programme.
Does Hannah Gordon have some special arrangement with the Devil which
results in her never looking any older? She hardly seems to have aged since
the days of "My Wife Next Door" and "Telford's Change"!
squidly
"Maisy McSoup" <strange.g...@ic24.net> wrote in message
news:8i8t3a$m6$1...@uranium.btinternet.com...
>
>
> Nick <nick....@locaNOSPAAAmmMmmMMmmlads.net> wrote in message
> news:02rfks0euh8qpl5t2...@4ax.com...
> > Maisy McSoup amazed us in <8i8p5r$mv4$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com>.
> > See:
> >
> > >Does anybody watch this?
> > >
> > >I think its a great little programme.
> >
> > Ohhh! Is it back on?!
>
>
> It is back on! They were painting planes today!
>
I always thought this was a crackin' piece of TV.....has it changed
time/channel?
>
alf
<martin.u...@virgin.net> wrote:
>
>Maisy McSoup <strange.g...@ic24.net> wrote in message
>news:8i8p5r$mv4$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com...
>>
>> Does anybody watch this?
>>
>> I think its a great little programme.
>
>Does Hannah Gordon have some special arrangement with the Devil which
>results in her never looking any older? She hardly seems to have aged since
>the days of "My Wife Next Door" and "Telford's Change"!
>
>
Yes. The watercolour in her attic is quite shocking.
alf
(nice to see it back, mind - 'cept it looks like it's been booted out
for the cricket)
****************************
remove 'alfredo' to reply
e
>
> Nick <nick....@locaNOSPAAAmmMmmMMmmlads.net> wrote in message
> news:02rfks0euh8qpl5t2...@4ax.com...
> > Maisy McSoup amazed us in <8i8p5r$mv4$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com>.
> > See:
> >
> > >
> > >I think its a great little programme.
> >
>
> It is back on! They were painting planes today!
aeroplanes?
e
KDBANGLIA
>> > >Does anybody watch this?
>> > >
>> > >I think its a great little programme.
>> >
>> > Ohhh! Is it back on?!
>>
>> It is back on! They were painting planes today!
>
>aeroplanes?
>
>e
>
That would be a wheeze !
Get them to actually paint an aircraft, using masks and spray!
Richard.
KDBANGLIA
Underwood" <martin.u...@virgin.net> writes:
>Maisy McSoup <strange.g...@ic24.net> wrote in message
>news:8i8p5r$mv4$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com...
>>
>> Does anybody watch this?
>>
>> I think its a great little programme.
>
>Does Hannah Gordon have some special arrangement with the Devil which
>results in her never looking any older? She hardly seems to have aged since
>the days of "My Wife Next Door" and "Telford's Change"!
>
Don't forget the film (?) "Roses and Red Wine" with James Mason and Diana
Coupland as the old-fashioned northern family.
Richard.
KDBANGLIA
<strange.g...@ic24.net> writes:
>> >Does anybody watch this?
>> >
>> >I think its a great little programme.
>>
>> Ohhh! Is it back on?!
>
>
>It is back on! They were painting planes today!
>
>
Is it with Hannah Gordon ?
They did the aircraft programme last time!
If they do a steam engine beside historic platform set, then it's got to be a
repeat series or they've run out of ideas.
Richard.
Mike Plowman
>>
>
>Don't forget the film (?) "Roses and Red Wine" with James Mason and Diana
>Coupland as the old-fashioned northern family.
'Spring And Port Wine' is the title you're looking for Richard.
And if anyone has a copy of this film on video somewhere, I will pay
handsomely for a copy. Been hunting for it for years.
Mike Plowman
Coronation Street Visual Updates - www.csvu.net
"There was life before Coronation Street,
but it didn't amount to much." Russel Harty
Jacqui
"Maisy McSoup" writes:
>
>>> >Does anybody watch this?
>>> >
>>> >I think its a great little programme.
>>>
>>> Ohhh! Is it back on?!
>>
>>
>>It is back on! They were painting planes today!
>>
>>
>
>Is it with Hannah Gordon ?
>
>They did the aircraft programme last time!
>
>If they do a steam engine beside historic platform set, then it's got
to be a
>repeat series or they've run out of ideas.
I think you'll find, sadly, it's only on when there's no cricket. Boo.
Jac, praying for rain.
Dan Owen
<strange.g...@ic24.net> writes:
>Does anybody watch this?
>
>I think its a great little programme.
I always hate the way they ALWAYS choose the "arty-farty" student who basically
daubs a load of abstract paint onto a canvas, and ignore the unassuming old
lady who's painted something closely resembling a photograph!
The REAL winners never win on that show.
-- Dan Owen
Visit "Millennium 2000"
http://m2000.cjb.net/
ICQ #: 26360276
squidly
"Dan Owen" <spud...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000616122905...@nso-ba.aol.com...
> In article <8i8p5r$mv4$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com>, "Maisy McSoup"
> <strange.g...@ic24.net> writes:
>
> >Does anybody watch this?
> >
> >I think its a great little programme.
>
> I always hate the way they ALWAYS choose the "arty-farty" student who
basically
> daubs a load of abstract paint onto a canvas, and ignore the unassuming old
> lady who's painted something closely resembling a photograph!
Um.....at least the student shows some kind of verve....what's the point in
doing a photoquality painting when you've got cameras?
Gimme something witha bit of style and a bit of a twist on the subject.
I want to see interpretations, not exact replicas.
>
> The REAL winners never win on that show.
>
Heh.....I think we may be headed for a "What is Art" thread.......now THAT is
scary! :-)
Martin Underwood
news:CUt25.3708$KP3.4...@nnrp3.clara.net...
>
>
> "Dan Owen" <spud...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:20000616122905...@nso-ba.aol.com...
> > In article <8i8p5r$mv4$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com>, "Maisy McSoup"
> > <strange.g...@ic24.net> writes:
> >
> > >Does anybody watch this?
> > >
> > >I think its a great little programme.
> >
> > I always hate the way they ALWAYS choose the "arty-farty" student who
> basically
> > daubs a load of abstract paint onto a canvas, and ignore the unassuming
old
> > lady who's painted something closely resembling a photograph!
>
> Um.....at least the student shows some kind of verve....what's the point
in
> doing a photoquality painting when you've got cameras?
>
> Gimme something witha bit of style and a bit of a twist on the subject.
>
> I want to see interpretations, not exact replicas.
We all have our own tastes. Mine are different from yours - and are boringly
predictable, I'm afraid.
I like my paintings to look exactly the way I see the subject - in other
words to be photographic in *quality*. The advantage of a painting or
drawing over a photo is that the artist can enhance reality (eg alter
lighting, remove extraneous telegraph poles, change the composition). That's
fine, as long as the picture still looks as if it *could* be a photograph.
Pictures that don't work for me are those which give a vague *impression* of
the subject or which are just downright weird. If I want a blurry picture,
I'll take my glasses off; if I want weird colours and strange shapes, I'll
smoke something naughty.
I've heard it said that some artists' work is "weird" (ie not like life)
because they had some form of optical problem (eg astigmatism, colour
blindness). Unfortunately this argument misses one important factor: the
artist should still produce a lifelike picture because his painting has to
look the same *to him* as his subject does (even if what he sees is nothing
like what anyone else sees!). To produce a distorted or strangely-coloured
picture is to compound the original problem, not to correct for it!
Maisy McSoup
Nick <nick....@locaNOSPAAAmmMmmMMmmlads.net> wrote in message
news:aa0lkssoobvib3lis...@4ax.com...
> squidly amazed us in <CUt25.3708$KP3.4...@nnrp3.clara.net>. See:
>
> >Heh.....I think we may be headed for a "What is Art" thread.......now
THAT is
> >scary! :-)
>
> In uk.media.tv.misc? Gosh.
>
> --Nick.
Did you see the man who painted those pointy roof buildings? His picture was
really
vivid and dramatic. Now thats good art. And he won!
Dan Owen
<squ...@clara.net> writes:
>Um.....at least the student shows some kind of verve....what's the point in
>doing a photoquality painting when you've got cameras?
>
>Gimme something witha bit of style and a bit of a twist on the subject.
>
>I want to see interpretations, not exact replicas.
Yeah, I'm aware of that argument, but here's what happened:
Arty student (mid-20s) decided to paint an abstract portion of the countryside.
A portion. Hm. So, what we got was a big mess of green that was supposed to
represent a "zoomed in" part of a hill. He could have painted that at home
without ever seeing the countryside he was asked to paint.
On the other hand, this man in his late-30s painted a fantastic "typical"
rendition of the countryside. Not as good as a photo -- it was obviously a
painting, but it was very well drawn, detailed, stylish, and I'd hang it on my
wall. Not sure about payin for it, though ;)
So, I don't see why the Student won. His actual finished product was inferior,
but he could offload his arty spiel on WHY he painted such garbage with great
aplomb. Maybe it's more about salesmanship on that show.
Mind you, it's fun to see Hannah Gordon's face betray slight winces of
disapproval when the art "experts" pick the second-to-worst piece (there's
ALWAYS the crud artist who's ambition exceeds their skill)
Robbie Baldock (real email address at foot of message)
>I like my paintings to look exactly the way I see the subject - in other
>words to be photographic in *quality*. The advantage of a painting or
>drawing over a photo is that the artist can enhance reality (eg alter
>lighting, remove extraneous telegraph poles, change the composition). That's
>fine, as long as the picture still looks as if it *could* be a photograph.
So why not just take a photograph?!?
I find paintings which accurately represent their subjects as utterly
pointless. I'm much more interested in seeing how an artist's
personality interacts with the subject to produce a unique
interpretation of that subject.
I guess you don't like modern art much either...
Robbie
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robbie Baldock
r c b AT e a s y n e t DOT c o DOT u k (you know what to do!)
http://www.rcb.easynet.co.uk/
-------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Stevens
<strange.g...@ic24.net> wrote:
>Does anybody watch this?
>I think its a great little programme.
Ah yes, that's it. Look at the way the cottage is framed by that line
of beautiful oaks that stretches far out into the horizon. Now, just a
little touch of colour there... Just the faintest of touches to
contrast with the colour of the sky. Be careful under these lighting
conditions though, because the light can change at a moment's notice.
Ooh, look -- now I'm going to have to add these clouds in here... I'll
just mix in a little black and...
Black... black... Black is the colour they wear when they come for me
at night! What do they want from me, mummy? Why are you locking in
here? It's cold and dark in here, mummy. Cold... and dark... and
BLACK! BLACK! DESTROY! <rrrrip> DESTROY! <tear>
--
Mark Stevens
Max C
it?
--
Max C
"Maximus Maximus Maximus Artisticus" - Gladiator (2000)
KDBANGLIA
email address at foot of message)" <not-a-real-e...@fake.domain>
writes:
>
>I find paintings which accurately represent their subjects as utterly
>pointless. I'm much more interested in seeing how an artist's
>personality interacts with the subject to produce a unique
>interpretation of that subject.
>
>I guess you don't like modern art much either...
>
>
>Robbie
>
It's difficult to find the point where the artist is taking the piss or
actually believes his dog turd in a bottle is actually produced from some form
of truth.
It's the Emporer's clothes all over again but the small boy has been paid off.
Richard.
squidly
> It's difficult to find the point where the artist is taking the piss or
> actually believes his dog turd in a bottle is actually produced from some
form
> of truth.
Is truth neccessary in art? Having said that, I don't really go for the
dogshit in a bottle school of art......I mean I can understand WHY tehy want
to do it and their justifications for doing it, but the final product lacks th
scope of the original idea. Same with Hirst. Thje ideas behing his cows
in formaldehyde make a lot of sense, but....y'konw.....its a cow in
formaldehyde......
Mind you I'm a HUGE fan of Bridget Riley and Mark Rothko......
And Matta.
>
> It's the Emporer's clothes all over again but the small boy has been paid
off.
Very cynical. But I can see why you say that........personally, I find any
means of honest expression something of a joy even if I don't like the final
object.......the passion and motivation is the thing that excites me.....
Speaking as an artist......
>
squidly
: I like my paintings to look exactly the way I see the subject - in other
: words to be photographic in *quality*. The advantage of a painting or
: drawing over a photo is that the artist can enhance reality (eg alter
: lighting, remove extraneous telegraph poles, change the composition). That's
: fine, as long as the picture still looks as if it *could* be a photograph.
So how does Dalis work figure? His painting are not even vaguely real but
are - were such things able to be photographed - of photograpic quality....
:
: Pictures that don't work for me are those which give a vague *impression* of
: the subject or which are just downright weird.
But surely a vague impression is there to elicit a response? If any artwork
sets you thinking, or remembering, or whatever, it has succeeded as a work of
art?
The worst thing is to elicit indifference....
If I want a blurry picture,
: I'll take my glasses off; if I want weird colours and strange shapes, I'll
: smoke something naughty.
Okay. I LOVE Mark Rothkos paintings. If you don't know him, hes the guy
who, in the fifties and sixties, painted large panels of colour then overlaid
them with a couple of other colours....thats it. But to me, they remind me of
summer heat haze, of storms in winter, of raw emeotion.......can you honestly
say that that work of art isn't valid? They had a profound and lasting
effect on me....and to me that signifies a good piece of art. I know that
its not everyones cup of tea, and I really don't expect everyone to enjoy
them, but........
: I've heard it said that some artists' work is "weird" (ie not like life)
: because they had some form of optical problem (eg astigmatism, colour
: blindness). Unfortunately this argument misses one important factor: the
: artist should still produce a lifelike picture because his painting has to
: look the same *to him* as his subject does (even if what he sees is nothing
: like what anyone else sees!).
Here we hit a problem. I have a very strange view of the world. I see
things very oddly. I don;t see anything "normally" ntil they have a specific
meaning for me. EVerything else remains....um...."generic".....just grey
blobs.....I things float in and out of existance and sometimes things look
real/cartoony/plain weird......within this visual maelstrom, meaning presents
itself in unusual forms. I constructed a piece which to me basically told my
life story. PEple who saw it could see the intensity and the passion that
went into into, but failed to pick up on any meaning as we were -
essentially - using completely different visual markers; different realities,
even. That doesn't make my art any less valid.....
thingsTo produce a distorted or strangely-coloured
: picture is to compound the original problem, not to correct for it!
But if my visual reality is different to yours, who's to say that you are
"right" and I am "wrong"? And why SHOULD everything to YOUR perception of
the world?
PResenting worlds and views appart from your experience is surely what art is
about?
Jacqui
.I mean I can understand WHY tehy want
>to do it and their justifications for doing it, but the final product
lacks th
>scope of the original idea. Same with Hirst. Thje ideas behing his
cows
>in formaldehyde make a lot of sense, but....y'konw.....its a cow in
>formaldehyde......
Did you see the latest fuss over the shark? It's decomposing, so the
formaldehyde isn't doing such a great job. Apparently it smells too
much to be exhibited now....
I can't laugh too much at it though, my brother produces "modern art"
and some of it's not bad - disturbing and thought-provoking. I can't
say I understand it, but it intrigues me. However, the family portrait
painted entirely in orange and green pissed me off a bit...
Jac
e
)
e
Martin Underwood
>
> Okay. I LOVE Mark Rothkos paintings. If you don't know him, hes the
guy
> who, in the fifties and sixties, painted large panels of colour then
overlaid
> them with a couple of other colours....thats it. But to me, they remind me
of
> summer heat haze, of storms in winter, of raw emeotion.......can you
honestly
> say that that work of art isn't valid? They had a profound and lasting
> effect on me....and to me that signifies a good piece of art. I know
that
> its not everyones cup of tea, and I really don't expect everyone to enjoy
> them, but........
OK, I'll accept that: you're saying that a picture is whatever response it
elicits in the viewer?
My only quibble with abstract art, piles of bricks, cows in formaldehyde,
wet beds etc is "where's the skill in it"? In other words: if I (as a
completely unknown person) produced something very similar and exhibited it,
would my picture be held in the same acclaim as an established artist who
already had "a reputation"? I think not. Maybe the ability to burble on
about it in pseudo art-speak to the art critics might help ;-)
squidly
> OK, I'll accept that: you're saying that a picture is whatever response it
> elicits in the viewer?
In Partt, yes.
>
> My only quibble with abstract art, piles of bricks, cows in formaldehyde,
> wet beds etc is "where's the skill in it"?
The skill is in being able to distill what you want to say into the most
efficient manner.
The skill is in the ability to turn your ideas into reality.
In other words: if I (as a
> completely unknown person) produced something very similar and exhibited it,
> would my picture be held in the same acclaim as an established artist who
> already had "a reputation"? I think not.
That depends whomyou ask. The art esablishment are notoriously up
themselves. Its also a question of whther your ideas are your own......I mean
the whole Tracy Emin/grotty bed thing has been done now. THere's ;little more
to be said on the matter. If you did that it'd be seen as nothing more than
plagiarism. If you came up with a different spin on the same thing, that'd
be different. Personally, I don't give a toss about famous names, I'm as
happy wondering round "local" galleries as I am any of the big
galleries.......
Incidentally, the Emin Bed thing was a bit of a noose.....if you went to the
Turner Prize show, you'd've also seen some exquisite watercolours and some
beautiful framed artifacts....bt they were sadly eclipsed and ignored by
skanky bed.....
Maybe the ability to burble on
> about it in pseudo art-speak to the art critics might help ;-)
It might. Sadly, like every other job, you have to learn to speak the
language. Or find someone else who can....I'm actually someone who beleives
that ANYONE can do art......you just have to free yourself from the idea that
pictures that you fin on chocolate boxes and placemats aren't the be all and
end all of artistic expression....
G Bell
>I guess you don't like modern art much either...
<ROGER MOORE>
You make that sound like and accusation!
</ROGER MOORE>
Graham
David!
squidly <squ...@clara.net> wrote in message
news:_Yb35.4772$LP4.7...@nnrp4.clara.net...
>
> Okay. I LOVE Mark Rothkos paintings. If you don't know him, hes the
guy
> who, in the fifties and sixties, painted large panels of colour then
overlaid
> them with a couple of other colours....thats it. But to me, they remind me
of
> summer heat haze, of storms in winter, of raw emeotion
Wow!
Eh Willy, whatever you are on - I want some too!!!
;o)
David
(a piss artist)
David!
Martin Underwood <martin.u...@virgin.net> wrote in message
> My only quibble with abstract art, piles of bricks, cows in formaldehyde,
> wet beds etc is "where's the skill in it"? In other words: if I (as a
> completely unknown person) produced something very similar and exhibited
it,
> would my picture be held in the same acclaim as an established artist who
> already had "a reputation"? I think not. Maybe the ability to burble on
> about it in pseudo art-speak to the art critics might help ;-)
I have no problem with 'abstract art ' (eg the Great Art Swindle - on a par
with the Sex Pistols & co) in fact I, and millions find it quite amusing, to
see luvvies having orgasms over the latest pile of (literally) shite, which
happens to be the latest 'creation' by whichever 'artist' is currently the
flavour of the month.
It's like rock 'n'roll, man - many an untalented overhyped twat has managed
to fool the masses, and art is no different. Sorry to repeat the well-aired
cliche, but this is 'Emperor's Clothes' running riot, in the case of car
tyres, bricks, sheep/shark carcasses etc. I think Squidly mentioned Dali,
whom I respect, despite not being a great fan of art in general, but the guy
knocked out some memorable surreal images, which even I can enjoy, as
opposed to Picasso, several rungs below him. Anyway who gives a shit? We
can always look forward to hearing the Rev Brian Sewell trot out his plummy
voiced bollocks, as he dissects whichever piece of art is under the
spotlight - now that's funny!
David
(wearing smoking jacket, with matching cigarette holder)
Ian Jelf
n.alfredo.net> writes
>>news:8i8p5r$mv4$1...@plutonium.btinternet.com...
>>>
>>>
>>> I think its a great little programme.
>>
>>results in her never looking any older? She hardly seems to have aged since
>>the days of "My Wife Next Door" and "Telford's Change"!
>>
>>
ROFL!! Made my evening, that one!
--
Ian Jelf http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk
Birmingham, UK
Registered "Blue Badge" Tourist Guide
for the Heart of England and London
Julian Barkway
"Martin Underwood" <martin.u...@virgin.net> spake thusly to the
assembled multitudes, agog with barely concealed anticipation:
>OK, I'll accept that: you're saying that a picture is whatever response it
>elicits in the viewer?
>
>My only quibble with abstract art, piles of bricks, cows in formaldehyde,
>wet beds etc is "where's the skill in it"? In other words: if I (as a
>completely unknown person) produced something very similar and exhibited it,
>would my picture be held in the same acclaim as an established artist who
>already had "a reputation"? I think not. Maybe the ability to burble on
>about it in pseudo art-speak to the art critics might help ;-)
Up to a point, I disagree. The pile of bricks (and sundry squares of steel
also by Carl Andre) work as art because they allow you to see the mundane
in a new light. The point about the bricks is that, yes, you *could* have
created it but could you have *conceived* the idea in the first place? In
other words, can you see a brick as an art object and not just another
brick?
The point I start agreeing with you is when an artist starts stating the
bleeding obvious (like most so-called 'conceptual' art) or decides her (or
his) private life is of monumental importance to the world at large, when
it usually isn't.
Or, indeed, is evidently taking the piss - Damian Hirst's 'spin' paintings,
for example. I remember having a thing called a Spiromatic when I was a
kid. It was a turntable in a box onto which you placed a card and then
poured paint on as it was spinning. I really should see if my mother ever
kept any of my 'artworks'. I could make a fortune....
--
| Julian Barkway, | Walk in, buy a jar. |
| Stuttgart, Germany --------------+---------------------------------+
| jbarkway@s叩etic卡e <-----(Hint: anything that looks odd is a dot) |
Robbie Baldock (real email address at foot of message)
>My only quibble with abstract art, piles of bricks, cows in formaldehyde,
>wet beds etc is "where's the skill in it"? In other words: if I (as a
>completely unknown person) produced something very similar and exhibited it,
>would my picture be held in the same acclaim as an established artist who
>already had "a reputation"? I think not. Maybe the ability to burble on
>about it in pseudo art-speak to the art critics might help ;-)
This is such a tired argument. The answer to which is well did you
put a pile of bricks together, did you pickle a cow? Er, no. It may
look ridiculously "easy" but Carl Andre and Damien Hirst were the
first artists to make these works.
Having said that, there were a couple of pieces at the recent British
Art Show which consisted of a sheet of white A4 paper with a single
hole-punch near the edge. Even my somewhat liberal attitude to what
can be called "art" was rattled a bit by those...
Julian Barkway
"squidly" <squ...@clara.net> spake thusly to the assembled multitudes,
agog with barely concealed anticipation:
>That depends whomyou ask. The art esablishment are notoriously up
>themselves. Its also a question of whther your ideas are your own......I mean
>the whole Tracy Emin/grotty bed thing has been done now. THere's ;little more
>to be said on the matter. If you did that it'd be seen as nothing more than
>plagiarism. If you came up with a different spin on the same thing, that'd
>be different. Personally, I don't give a toss about famous names, I'm as
>happy wondering round "local" galleries as I am any of the big
>galleries.......
Just to drift even further off-topic...
If you are ever in Amsterdam, go to the Sunday morning art market in the
city-centre. There are a lot of local artists selling their own work there
and most styles are catered for. Best thing of all, the prices are pretty
reasonable and the quality is high (well, I'm no expert but it looked good
to me...) Great if you want some original artwork for your home.
--
| Julian Barkway, | Walk in, buy a jar. |
| Stuttgart, Germany --------------+---------------------------------+
| jbarkway@sĄneticĄde <-----(Hint: anything that looks odd is a dot) |
KDBANGLIA
email address at foot of message)" <not-a-real-e...@fake.domain>
writes:
>>My only quibble with abstract art, piles of bricks, cows in formaldehyde,
>>wet beds etc is "where's the skill in it"? In other words: if I (as a
>>completely unknown person) produced something very similar and exhibited it,
>>would my picture be held in the same acclaim as an established artist who
>>already had "a reputation"? I think not. Maybe the ability to burble on
>>about it in pseudo art-speak to the art critics might help ;-)
>
>This is such a tired argument. The answer to which is well did you
>put a pile of bricks together, did you pickle a cow? Er, no. It may
>look ridiculously "easy" but Carl Andre and Damien Hirst were the
>first artists to make these works.
>
Next stop, psycho-art !
I've 'imagined' a piece of work inside the new gallery. What do you think ?
Is it well sited ?
Do you think that it costs too much ?
Does it reflect the pain and suffering in a technopsychologically based
society, therefore reverting to a ipso-facto delusiory factuality of the
BBC2ishness with an Open University Professor type reflectiveness, or in other
words, male reproductory spherical objectiveness?
Richard.
David!
KDBANGLIA <kdba...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000620201000...@nso-fc.aol.com...
> Does it reflect the pain and suffering in a technopsychologically based
> society, therefore reverting to a ipso-facto delusiory factuality of the
> BBC2ishness with an Open University Professor type reflectiveness, or in
other
> words, male reproductory spherical objectiveness?
>
>
> Richard.
Eh? Bollocks!!
--
David
Tantaliser of Twats
KDBANGLIA
<da...@comedytime.fsnetco.uk> writes:
>> Does it reflect the pain and suffering in a technopsychologically based
>> society, therefore reverting to a ipso-facto delusiory factuality of the
>> BBC2ishness with an Open University Professor type reflectiveness, or in
>other
>> words, male reproductory spherical objectiveness?
>>
>>
>> Richard.
>
>
>
>Eh? Bollocks!!
>
For my next work, I intend attaching paint rollers to my girlfriends knees and
elbows, goin' doggy and calling out her sisters name. Thanks to Jethro for
that idea.
Richard.
Sarah
up your own arse??
David!
LOL - yeah - the old 'Rodeo' gag recycled!!!
For those in the dark- it's a sex game called 'Rodeo' - You copulate with
your partner, doggy style, then grab her hair, whisper "You're not as good
as your sister" then try and hold on for more than 10 seconds!!!!!!
I recall a chat with some dumb bint, at my local, and I commented on her red
raw knees, showing below obligatory miniskirt, to which she replied...."
doggy fashion"
I suggested that she try a different position, to which she retorted "Nah -
the dog don't like it....."
David!
Sarah <multi...@donotmail.com> wrote in message
news:DXc45.442$W07....@nnrp4.clara.net...
> is that technobabble 6.0 youre using? or is your head really that far
> up your own arse??
>
Wow! Now THAT'S art!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
squidly
"David!" <da...@comedytime.fsnetco.uk> wrote in message
news:8it8s7$q1u$6...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
>
> Sarah <multi...@donotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:DXc45.442$W07....@nnrp4.clara.net...
> > is that technobabble 6.0 youre using? or is your head really that far
> > up your own arse??
> >
>
> Wow! Now THAT'S art!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Nope....thats a Chris Morris sketch involving an Elephant and noel Edmunds....
David!
Phew! Title?
"Revenge of the Jam-Eating Thick-skinned Blobby Shagger" ???
Maisy McSoup
Did anyone else see Timmy Mallet judging the artists one day this week or
did I merely imagine it?!!
KDBANGLIA
<multi...@donotmail.com> writes:
>
>is that technobabble 6.0 youre using? or is your head really that far
>up your own arse??
>
Add a reply and you could be in serious danger of carrying on a thread !
Sorry, I missed a moticon for the lower life forms.... ;-) There !
If it was my previous post you were replying to then it was Open University
professor 1.0 from the late 70s describing art with the use of graphs and
metaphor, minus the blackboard and bearded colleague, of course.
Richard.
David M. Hughes
<Lo...@My.Sig> writes
>[Re: <oNc35.2748$fw6....@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>]
>
>"Martin Underwood" <martin.u...@virgin.net> spake thusly to the
>assembled multitudes, agog with barely concealed anticipation:
>
>>elicits in the viewer?
>>
>>wet beds etc is "where's the skill in it"? In other words: if I (as a
>>completely unknown person) produced something very similar and exhibited it,
>>would my picture be held in the same acclaim as an established artist who
>>already had "a reputation"? I think not. Maybe the ability to burble on
>>about it in pseudo art-speak to the art critics might help ;-)
>
>also by Carl Andre) work as art because they allow you to see the mundane
>in a new light. The point about the bricks is that, yes, you *could* have
>created it but could you have *conceived* the idea in the first place? In
>other words, can you see a brick as an art object and not just another
>brick?
Okay then, so anything can work as a piece of abstract art?
How about the empty tube I have in front of me - I'll put a cunning spin
in it though by slightly crushing it in the middle.
Who wants to buy it?
--
Dave
Join the search for Extra-Terrestrial life with SETI at home:
http://setiathome.ssl.berkeley.edu/