No CE approved gloves - RIDE article
abd08
test"
Scary sh*t!!!!
Raj
YTC#1
Why?
Just because the EU approves something does not mean it is usable or good
And whats wrong with typing shit ?
And why read Dire ?
--
XJR1300SP, XJ900F, GS550, GSX250, 750SS
POTM#1(KoTL), WUSS#1 , YTC#1(bar), OSOS#2(KoTL) , DS#3 , IbW#18 ,Apostle#8
*(Emails to the posted address will be ignored)*
"The internet is a huge and diverse community and not every one is friendly"
http://www.ytc1.co.uk There *is* an alternative! http://www.openoffice.org/
Get the Software http://wwws.sun.com/software/solaris
The Older Gentleman
No it isn't.
--
Trophy 1200 750SS CB400F CD250 Z650
GAGARPHOF#30 GHPOTHUF#1 BOTAFOT#60 ANORAK#06 YTC#3
BOF#30 WUSS#5 The bells, the bells.....
abd08
> >
> Why?
> Just because the EU approves something does not mean it is usable or good
Nope... had thought about this... just that the manufacturers are not
bothering to get their gloves tested because they don't legally have
to. This also means that there is no "minimum standard" to meet.
> And whats wrong with typing shit ?
Noob to biking/biker NG etiquette.
> And why read Dire ?
See above!!! ;-) Read BIKE as well though. Then again, at my level
almost any info (even Dire) is useful!
The Older Gentleman
> Nope... had thought about this... just that the manufacturers are not
> bothering to get their gloves tested because they don't legally have
> to.
So???
>This also means that there is no "minimum standard" to meet.
So??
Cab
Yeah, I'm bricking myself, going to give up biking, find a hole in the
Arctic and live in it. Who gives a fuck.
--
Cab :^) - argue's like a girl
GSX 1400
UKRMMA#10 (KOTL), IbW#015, BoB#4, POTM#3, SKA#1
email addy : ukrm_dot_cab_at_rosbif_dot_org
http://www.rosbif.org
The gingeometer: http://www.rosbif.org/ukrm/gingeometer/
Matt Chapter
> abd08 wrote:
>> "We didn't find a single pair of approved (CE) bike gloves for our
>> test"
>> Scary sh*t!!!!
> Yeah, I'm bricking myself, going to give up biking, find a hole in the
> Arctic and live in it. Who gives a fuck.
> --
> Cab :^) - argue's like a girl
> GSX 1400
^^^^^^^^^^^
You won't be needing this then, I'll be 'round shortly to take it off your
hands.
--
Matt Chapter
DoD #2225
'76 CB400F '86 R65
Cab
> > Yeah, I'm bricking myself, going to give up biking, find a hole in
> > the Arctic and live in it. Who gives a fuck.
>
> > -- Cab :^) - argue's like a girl
> > GSX 1400
> ^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> You won't be needing this then, I'll be 'round shortly to take it off
> your hands.
<G> It's going in the hole with me as a heater.
--
Cab :^) - argue's like a girl
GSX 1400
muddy
<1hjnt78.od3dti9c5691N%chateau.mur...@dsl.pipex.com>,
chateau.mur...@dsl.pipex.com (The Older Gentleman) wrote:
> abd08 <deja...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Nope... had thought about this... just that the manufacturers are not
> > bothering to get their gloves tested because they don't legally have
> > to.
>
> So???
^^^
<boggle>
>
> >This also means that there is no "minimum standard" to meet.
>
> So??
^^
I never thought I'd see the day.
--
Mike
DL1000 Black with extra black bits. UKRMMA#22
Skype: mikebothe
Testing the limits of gravity since 1947
Matt Chapter
> Matt Chapter wrote:
>> > Yeah, I'm bricking myself, going to give up biking, find a hole in
>> > the Arctic and live in it. Who gives a fuck.
>> > -- Cab :^) - argue's like a girl
>> > GSX 1400
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^
>> You won't be needing this then, I'll be 'round shortly to take it off
>> your hands.
> <G> It's going in the hole with me as a heater.
Pretty to look at as well... Kinda like a women, except less talking.
Hrm, I think I'm onto something here.
YTC#1
>> > Scary sh*t!!!!
>> >
>> Why?
>> Just because the EU approves something does not mean it is usable or good
>
> Nope... had thought about this... just that the manufacturers are not
> bothering to get their gloves tested because they don't legally have
> to. This also means that there is no "minimum standard" to meet.
>
And ? I don't look for CE when buy gloves, I look for what feels nice and
has a good price. If you want a good abresive resitant glove, get a pair
of glass handling gloves.
>> And whats wrong with typing shit ?
>
> Noob to biking/biker NG etiquette.
>
You're fucked then
>> And why read Dire ?
>
> See above!!! ;-) Read BIKE as well though. Then again, at my level
> almost any info (even Dire) is useful!
Thats crap as well now.
Eatmorepies
"abd08" <deja...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1154880103.0...@p79g2000cwp.googlegroups.com...
> "We didn't find a single pair of approved (CE) bike gloves for our
> test"
>
> Scary sh*t!!!!
Not that scary surely?
There is an arguement that says it's very pleasant to ride the XT600 over
the Devil's Staircase to Llyn Brianne on a sunny day wearing jeans, trainers
and a tee shirt. Whilst in the back of beyond it is very temping to wear
your helmet on your arm and enjoy the sensations you enjoyed in 1966.
John
YTC#1
> Matt Chapter wrote:
>
>> > Yeah, I'm bricking myself, going to give up biking, find a hole in
>> > the Arctic and live in it. Who gives a fuck.
>>
>> > -- Cab :^) - argue's like a girl
>> > GSX 1400
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>> You won't be needing this then, I'll be 'round shortly to take it off
>> your hands.
>
> <G> It's going in the hole with me as a heater.
You are going to warm it up ?
Pip Luscher
wrote:
>In article
><1hjnt78.od3dti9c5691N%chateau.mur...@dsl.pipex.com>,
> chateau.mur...@dsl.pipex.com (The Older Gentleman) wrote:
>
>> abd08 <deja...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Nope... had thought about this... just that the manufacturers are not
>> > bothering to get their gloves tested because they don't legally have
>> > to.
>>
>> So???
> ^^^
>
><boggle>
>>
>> >This also means that there is no "minimum standard" to meet.
>>
>> So??
> ^^
>
>I never thought I'd see the day.
Yeah, TOG's posting style was a bit so-so, wasn't it?
--
-Pip
Paul Varnsverry
> > Just because the EU approves something does not mean it is usable or good
The EU does not issue approvals. Notified Bodies appointed by Member
States' national Governments issue approvals (or, in the case of
"simple design" PPE, such as thimbles and gardening gloves, the
manufacturer self-certifies).
> Nope... had thought about this... just that the manufacturers are not
> bothering to get their gloves tested because they don't legally have
> to. This also means that there is no "minimum standard" to meet.
Wrong. Manufacturers *are* legally required to have their gloves tested
and certified if they claim or imply they are protective.
The applicable standard is EN 13594:2002 "Protective gloves for
professional motorcycle riders - Requirements and test methods". The
General Product Safety Directive addresses the "migration" of
'professional' products into non-professional use.
HTH
YTC#1
> abd08 wrote:
>> > Just because the EU approves something does not mean it is usable or good
>
> The EU does not issue approvals. Notified Bodies appointed by Member
> States' national Governments issue approvals (or, in the case of
> "simple design" PPE, such as thimbles and gardening gloves, the
> manufacturer self-certifies).
Yer, whatever....
>
>> Nope... had thought about this... just that the manufacturers are not
>> bothering to get their gloves tested because they don't legally have
>> to. This also means that there is no "minimum standard" to meet.
>
> Wrong. Manufacturers *are* legally required to have their gloves tested
> and certified if they claim or imply they are protective.
>
> The applicable standard is EN 13594:2002 "Protective gloves for
> professional motorcycle riders - Requirements and test methods". The
> General Product Safety Directive addresses the "migration" of
> 'professional' products into non-professional use.
>
So, moe to the point, they can't be arsed 'cos it is not worth the cost as
people will not buy them
Paul Varnsverry
> On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 01:48:30 -0700, Paul Varnsverry wrote:
> >
> > The applicable standard is EN 13594:2002 "Protective gloves for
> > professional motorcycle riders - Requirements and test methods". The
> > General Product Safety Directive addresses the "migration" of
> > 'professional' products into non-professional use.
> >
> So, moe to the point, they can't be arsed 'cos it is not worth the cost as
> people will not buy them
The cost of getting a range of gloves tested and approved? £2100.
Hardly going to make a dent in the annual capuccino budget of the
average Italian motorcycle clothing brand, methinks. ;-)
SD
wrote:
>The cost of getting a range of gloves tested and approved? £2100.
>Hardly going to make a dent in the annual capuccino budget of the
>average Italian motorcycle clothing brand, methinks. ;-)
Getting them tested, maybe. Improving them so they'll be approved -
possibly a bit more.
--
| ___ Salad Dodger
|/ \
_/_____\_ GL1500SEV/CBR1100XXX/CBX1000Z
|_\_____/_| ..81750../..22169.../..31893.
(>|_|_|<) TPPFATUICG#7 DIAABTCOD#9 WG*
|__|_|__| BOTAFOT #70 BOTAFOF #09 PM#5
\ |^| / IbW#0 & KotIbW# BotTOS#6 GP#4
\|^|/ ANORAK#17 IbB#4 YTC#4 two#11
'^' RBR Clues: 23 Pts: 440 Miles:1738
Ace
wrote:
>YTC#1 wrote:
But it's still quite a lot compared with the cost of not getting them
approved. Why should they bother?
And meaning no offence to you or your profession, but we must remind
ourselves that CE approval does not mean that a piece of kit is good,
just that it's been designed to pass certain tests. Conversly,
non-approved kit may be at least as good as, or possibly much better
than, approved stuff.
--
_______
.'_/_|_\_'. Ace (brucedotrogers a.t rochedotcom)
\`\ | /`/ GSX-R1000K3
`\\ | //' BOTAFOT#3, SbS#2, UKRMMA#13, DFV#8, SKA#2, IBB#10
`\|/`
`
porl
Ace wrote:
> And meaning no offence to you or your profession, but we must remind
> ourselves that CE approval does not mean that a piece of kit is good,
> just that it's been designed to pass certain tests. Conversly,
> non-approved kit may be at least as good as, or possibly much better
> than, approved stuff.
And you'd know how...?
Ace
Note that I said 'may be' not 'will be'.
Champ
Because it's a logical conclusion that anyone with basic reasoning
powers can make.
--
Champ
ZX10R
GPz750turbo
Paul Varnsverry
> On 7 Aug 2006 15:46:21 -0700, "Paul Varnsverry" <in...@pva-ppe.org.uk>
> wrote:
> >
> >The cost of getting a range of gloves tested and approved? £2100.
> >Hardly going to make a dent in the annual capuccino budget of the
> >average Italian motorcycle clothing brand, methinks. ;-)
>
> But it's still quite a lot compared with the cost of not getting them
> approved. Why should they bother?
Believe me, it is peanuts compared to their retailer hospitality
budgets. And the price differential to take a "caveat emptor" product
up to "Conformite Europeen" spec will be pennies, given the purchasing
power of the major brands. Also, the £2100 is a front end cost which
will be amortized across possibly tens of thousands of gloves sold
globally per annum.
> And meaning no offence to you or your profession, but we must remind
> ourselves that CE approval does not mean that a piece of kit is good,
> just that it's been designed to pass certain tests. Conversly,
> non-approved kit may be at least as good as, or possibly much better
> than, approved stuff.
Which is precisely what I have said before. There *are* some very good
"caveat emptor" products out there, but the average consumer might have
difficulty distinguishing between good, bad and indifferent. Another
comment posted here previously is that the Nomadic purchasing policies
of the major brands can result in this year's good subcontract supplier
being replaced for next season by a factory that is sytill learning its
craft. The CE mark is the only guaranteed indicator that a product has
been designed and tested to stand up to a crash.
And, no offence taken! :-)
Paul Varnsverry
> "Paul Varnsverry" <in...@pva-ppe.org.uk> wrote in message
> <1154990781....@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >The cost of getting a range of gloves tested and approved? £2100.
> >Hardly going to make a dent in the annual capuccino budget of the
> >average Italian motorcycle clothing brand, methinks. ;-)
>
No it won't, if they include all gloves made from the same basic
materials as a "family" of products. Price to get one model of glove
approved: £2100. Price for ten models: £2100. Price for 20 models:
£2100. the more models approved, the greater the number of gloves sold
across which to amortize development, testing and certification costs.
The major brands have developmental budgets (which appear to focus on
aesthetics), so all they would be doing is spending the same money in a
different area.
porl
I'm the first to admit that my logical reasoning is on par with a
mentalist so speak slowly for me. My question is what implicit or
explicit logic in Ace's statement above would or even could lead you to
believe that non CE approved kit might be better? Unless you've been in
the unfortunate position of personally testing 2 comparable items under
similar situations the only information you have is that they
presumably both passed certain minimum protection requirements and that
one is CE approved, and we are currently accepting that CE approved
means very little.
Surely, using this logic that you speak of, "very little" is slightly
higher than "none". So where exactly is the value in diminishing the CE
tests, and also the Dire's tests, to absolute zero? And is this
associated with the "You're a bit of a wanker if you use protective
gear when riding a bike" school of thought that is so enjoyed by those
of a certain age, with a penchant for denim?
Ace
>
>Champ wrote:
>> On 8 Aug 2006 00:54:46 -0700, "porl" <omy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Ace wrote:
>> >
>> >> And meaning no offence to you or your profession, but we must remind
>> >> ourselves that CE approval does not mean that a piece of kit is good,
>> >> just that it's been designed to pass certain tests. Conversly,
>> >> non-approved kit may be at least as good as, or possibly much better
>> >> than, approved stuff.
>> >
>> >And you'd know how...?
>>
>> Because it's a logical conclusion that anyone with basic reasoning
>> powers can make.
>
>I'm the first to admit that my logical reasoning is on par with a
>mentalist so speak slowly for me. My question is what implicit or
>explicit logic in Ace's statement above would or even could lead you to
>believe that non CE approved kit might be better?
Following the basic logic through it works like this:
* CE approval is not a guarantee of quality, nor is it the
ne-plus-ultra of garment construction. It's just a minimum standard
for the safety elements of a garment.
* Some CE approved products may have been designed solely to meet the
testing criteria, so may have quality issues r even safety ones, in
areas which are not tested.
* Some small scale manufacturers, for example a bespoke leather
manufacturer, may not have the resources, or indeed inclination, to go
through the CE testing process.
* The lack of said testing in no way supposess that their products are
of inferior design, quality or safety performance.
* It's entirely possible, therefore, that their products may be of a
higher quality and better design with safety performance superior to
their CE-approved cousins.
>Unless you've been in
>the unfortunate position of personally testing 2 comparable items under
>similar situations the only information you have is that they
>presumably both passed certain minimum protection requirements
No. Theres no such assumption onnon-approced kit.
>and that
>one is CE approved, and we are currently accepting that CE approved
>means very little.
Are we? That was the main point I was putting across. If you're
agreeing with that then what are you arguing with?
>Surely, using this logic that you speak of, "very little" is slightly
>higher than "none". So where exactly is the value in diminishing the CE
>tests, and also the Dire's tests, to absolute zero?
Who's doing this? I'm certainly not suggesting that there's no value
in CE approval.
> And is this
>associated with the "You're a bit of a wanker if you use protective
>gear when riding a bike" school of thought that is so enjoyed by those
>of a certain age, with a penchant for denim?
You're a wanker anyway, whether you use protective kit or not. But
then you knew that.
BTW that cold southern winter seems to have rotted your brain.
porl
Ace wrote:
> BTW that cold southern winter seems to have rotted your brain.
That's a distinct possibility. However if you'd just like to take a
step or two back to where I asked you to explain *how* a consumer would
be able to tell whether a non-CE approved piece of kit was superior to
a CE approved piece of kit (and Champ helpfully replied "with logic "it
would be appreciated.
Paul Varnsverry
>
> Following the basic logic through it works like this:
>
> * CE approval is not a guarantee of quality, nor is it the
> ne-plus-ultra of garment construction. It's just a minimum standard
> for the safety elements of a garment.
Manufacturers of CE approved kit are required to have a quality control
system in place (Article 11 of the PPE Directive). Manufacturers of
"caveat emptor" products face no such requirement.
On "minimum standard", it is true that a number of products have been
tested which vastly outperform the requirements of the standard. RiDE
reported that an industry meeting will take place to discuss a dilution
of the standards' requirements. RiDE have since informed me that this
move is being proposed and backed by... Italian motorcycle clothing
brands! For some, "minimum" is still too high, too hard to achieve...
> * Some CE approved products may have been designed solely to meet the
> testing criteria, so may have quality issues r even safety ones, in
> areas which are not tested.
See above.
> * Some small scale manufacturers, for example a bespoke leather
> manufacturer, may not have the resources, or indeed inclination, to go
> through the CE testing process.
Incorrect. The very first companies to achieve CE approval for their
products were the following bespoke manufacturers: BKS, Crowtree, MW,
Hideout. Even ZAK leathers (run single-handedly by one of my former
employees) has gone through the process. On boot approval, Richmond, N.
Yorks based manufacturer Alt-Berg beat industry giants such as BMW,
Hein Gericke and AlpineStars to CE approval by almost ten years!
I still find it surreal that AlpineStars' fabric karting suits have
been tested and approved, using the same tests through which CE
approved motorcycle clothing is put, yet AlpineStars' leather
motorcycling suits have not been through the same process.
> * The lack of said testing in no way supposess that their products are
> of inferior design, quality or safety performance.
> * It's entirely possible, therefore, that their products may be of a
> higher quality and better design with safety performance superior to
> their CE-approved cousins.
Entirely possible, maybe (and I have said as much in previous threads)
but can they prove it? IMO, however, caveat emptor products often fall
down (no pun intended) on retention and design criteria.
Ace
Your wording was, at best, ambiguous. You asked me how I would know,
which I, and presumably Champ, read as meaning "How does Bruce know
that some non-approved kit might be better than some approved kit". I
presume from this post that your response was meant to read as "How
would a consumer be able to tell uf his non-approved kit was as good
as, or better than, approved stuff?".
Well, caveat emptor is the answer - sure, if the buyer is unable to
judge things for himself, or have others' opinions to fall back on,
the approved mark gives him a level of security that what he's buying
wil perform as expected. But I was simply positing that
CE-approved != better.
Ace
wrote:
>Ace wrote:
>> * Some small scale manufacturers, for example a bespoke leather
>> manufacturer, may not have the resources, or indeed inclination, to go
>> through the CE testing process.
>
>Incorrect.
Well no, it's not. I didn't say none of them would, just that some
might not. I know of at least one such wot I bought mine from in
Germany.
>> * It's entirely possible, therefore, that their products may be of a
>> higher quality and better design with safety performance superior to
>> their CE-approved cousins.
>
>Entirely possible, maybe (and I have said as much in previous threads)
Yes, I know you have. I was only going through the logic flow for, the
apparently hard-of-thinking, porl.
>but can they prove it? IMO, however, caveat emptor products often fall
>down (no pun intended) on retention and design criteria.
Aye, I'd not argue otherwise. Although I'm verr pleased with my
Schwabenleder stuff, but thankfully haven't put it to the ultimate
test.
Champ
>> >> And meaning no offence to you or your profession, but we must remind
>> >> ourselves that CE approval does not mean that a piece of kit is good,
>> >> just that it's been designed to pass certain tests. Conversly,
>> >> non-approved kit may be at least as good as, or possibly much better
>> >> than, approved stuff.
>> >
>> >And you'd know how...?
>>
>> Because it's a logical conclusion that anyone with basic reasoning
>> powers can make.
>
>I'm the first to admit that my logical reasoning is on par with a
>mentalist so speak slowly for me. My question is what implicit or
>explicit logic in Ace's statement above would or even could lead you to
>believe that non CE approved kit might be better?
Because CE is a test that *some* manufacturers choose to submit their
kit too. It's entirely possible that other, unsubmitted, kit, is
better.
However, I wouldn't argue that it's sensible *not* to buy CE kit. As
Paul V often points out, without CE the only method of assessing kit
is to rub it between your fingers and say "mmmm".
>And is this associated with the "You're a bit of a wanker if you use protective
>gear when riding a bike" school of thought that is so enjoyed by those
>of a certain age, with a penchant for denim?
No, not really. I think it's horses for courses. Last weekend I had
MKJ leathers (750 quid), Daytona boots (300 quid) Alpinestar GP Plus
gloves (100 quid) and a back protector. If I pop out for a blast
tonight I might wear jeans, trainers and a leather jacket.
--
Champ
ZX10R
GPz750turbo
porl
> >I'm the first to admit that my logical reasoning is on par with a
> >mentalist so speak slowly for me. My question is what implicit or
> >explicit logic in Ace's statement above would or even could lead you to
> >believe that non CE approved kit might be better?
>
> Because CE is a test that *some* manufacturers choose to submit their
> kit too. It's entirely possible that other, unsubmitted, kit, is
> better.
Of course but where does "possible" get us in practical terms for
someone looking for concrete, real world solutions? Or even
hypothetical ones?
> However, I wouldn't argue that it's sensible *not* to buy CE kit. As
> Paul V often points out, without CE the only method of assessing kit
> is to rub it between your fingers and say "mmmm".
Which seems to lead us back to CE approved is better than none-approved
ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL (because if your beginning proposition is that
you're comparing hypothetically quality none-CE approved and crappy
CE-approved it gets us and the OP precisely 10 degrees north of
nowhere). I don't think it's my logic that is flawed here...
Ace
>I don't think it's my logic that is flawed here...
You seem to be arguing against a point that no-one was making. So I
guess it must be your comprehension that's at fault, rather than your
logic.
porl
Ace wrote:
> Your wording was, at best, ambiguous. You asked me how I would know,
> which I, and presumably Champ, read as meaning "How does Bruce know
> that some non-approved kit might be better than some approved kit". I
> presume from this post that your response was meant to read as "How
> would a consumer be able to tell uf his non-approved kit was as good
> as, or better than, approved stuff?".
Why would I give a rat's arse what you think you're capable of deducing
in terms of safety requirements in comparison to the OP who obviously
isn't hence the question? 1, Your experience is subjective, 2, your
conclusions might be flawed and 3, you have a demonstrably inhumanly
high opinion of yourself in pretty much every aspect of your life,
which, by the way, if justified makes your experience even more
untouchably subjective and unsharable.
> Well, caveat emptor is the answer - sure, if the buyer is unable to
> judge things for himself, or have others' opinions to fall back on,
> the approved mark gives him a level of security that what he's buying
> wil perform as expected. But I was simply positing that
> CE-approved != better.
*snigger*
Champ
>
>Champ wrote:
>> On 8 Aug 2006 16:56:53 -0700, "porl" <omy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>
>> >I'm the first to admit that my logical reasoning is on par with a
>> >mentalist so speak slowly for me. My question is what implicit or
>> >explicit logic in Ace's statement above would or even could lead you to
>> >believe that non CE approved kit might be better?
>>
>> Because CE is a test that *some* manufacturers choose to submit their
>> kit too. It's entirely possible that other, unsubmitted, kit, is
>> better.
>
>Of course but where does "possible" get us in practical terms for
>someone looking for concrete, real world solutions? Or even
>hypothetical ones?
Practically, I'd say choose CE kit. In the knowledge that it's not a
*guarantee* that I'm getting the best.
>> However, I wouldn't argue that it's sensible *not* to buy CE kit. As
>> Paul V often points out, without CE the only method of assessing kit
>> is to rub it between your fingers and say "mmmm".
>
>Which seems to lead us back to CE approved is better than none-approved
>ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL (because if your beginning proposition is that
>you're comparing hypothetically quality none-CE approved and crappy
>CE-approved it gets us and the OP precisely 10 degrees north of
>nowhere). I don't think it's my logic that is flawed here...
You seem to be confusing logic with other stuff. I was just pointing
out that is was logically possible that some non-CE was better than
CE.
Ah's jas foolin wichya.
--
Champ
ZX10R
GPz750turbo
porl
Ace wrote:
> On 9 Aug 2006 01:43:03 -0700, "porl" <omy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >I don't think it's my logic that is flawed here...
>
> You seem to be arguing against a point that no-one was making. So I
> guess it must be your comprehension that's at fault, rather than your
> logic.
You set your stall out here (below) . Where's the objectivity? I simply
asked how you could tell the difference without using CE as a guide, a
process that- if it existed- would be of some use to the OP. I was also
indirectly backed up by the other Paul. The fact you've decided to fold
like a pack of cards has more bearing on your lack of argument than my
comprehension. But feel free to agree to differ.
porl
Goddamn it. Where's Simian?
> I was just pointing
> out that is was logically possible that some non-CE was better than
> CE.
Ok I'm getting suspicious now. That's what Ace pretty much just posted
as well. If you and he are actually reading from the same cue card just
how close are you two getting?
> Ah's jas foolin wichya.
Rascist!
Ace
>
>Ace wrote:
>> On 9 Aug 2006 01:43:03 -0700, "porl" <omy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >I don't think it's my logic that is flawed here...
>>
>> You seem to be arguing against a point that no-one was making. So I
>> guess it must be your comprehension that's at fault, rather than your
>> logic.
>
>You set your stall out here (below) .
>>> And meaning no offence to you or your profession, but we must remind
>>> ourselves that CE approval does not mean that a piece of kit is good,
>>> just that it's been designed to pass certain tests. Conversly,
>>> non-approved kit may be at least as good as, or possibly much better
>>> than, approved stuff.
Which I stick by. I wasn't in any way suggesting that buying non
CE-approved kit was somehow a better option, just that it isn't
necessarily worse.
>Where's the objectivity? I simply
>asked how you could tell the difference without using CE as a guide,
But as I've said, that was not, in fact, the question you asked. Had
you done so this sub-thread wouldn't have developed.
>The fact you've decided to fold like a pack of cards
Yeah, right. Just because you've decided to retrospectively change the
question you were asking doesn't mean you've somehow won the argument,
you know.
Champ
>Champ wrote:
>> I was just pointing
>> out that is was logically possible that some non-CE was better than
>> CE.
>
>Ok I'm getting suspicious now. That's what Ace pretty much just posted
>as well. If you and he are actually reading from the same cue card just
>how close are you two getting?
Believe you me, I'm a lot more worried. Perhaps I should pick an
argument with him over modern art or something.
--
Champ
ZX10R
GPz750turbo
Ace
>Ok I'm getting suspicious now. That's what Ace pretty much just posted
>as well. If you and he are actually reading from the same cue card just
>how close are you two getting?
About, <guesses> oh, 900 miles or so.
Ace
No point, it's all shite.
porl
> >Where's the objectivity? I simply
> >asked how you could tell the difference without using CE as a guide,
>
> But as I've said, that was not, in fact, the question you asked. Had
> you done so this sub-thread wouldn't have developed.
***Quote
Ace wrote:
> And meaning no offence to you or your profession, but we must remind
> ourselves that CE approval does not mean that a piece of kit is good,
> just that it's been designed to pass certain tests. Conversly,
> non-approved kit may be at least as good as, or possibly much better
> than, approved stuff.
>porl wrote:
>And you'd know how...?
***End Quote
Looks pretty much exactly like that's the question I asked.
> Yeah, right. Just because you've decided to retrospectively change the
> question you were asking doesn't mean you've somehow won the argument,
> you know.
*You* are.
Ace
>Ace wrote:
>> And meaning no offence to you or your profession, but we must remind
>> ourselves that CE approval does not mean that a piece of kit is good,
>> just that it's been designed to pass certain tests. Conversly,
>> non-approved kit may be at least as good as, or possibly much better
>> than, approved stuff.
>
>>porl wrote:
>>And you'd know how...?
>
>***End Quote
>
>Looks pretty much exactly like that's the question I asked.
Does it? I suggest you study up on your English a bit then. Without
any other context, it's quite clearly referring to the last statement
I made, and is therefore asking me how _I_ know that non-CE kit may be
better.
>> Yeah, right. Just because you've decided to retrospectively change the
>> question you were asking doesn't mean you've somehow won the argument,
>> you know.
>
>*You* are.
Your mother.
Champ
>On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 10:14:30 +0100, Champ <ne...@champ.org.uk> wrote:
>
>>On 9 Aug 2006 02:01:20 -0700, "porl" <omy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>Ok I'm getting suspicious now. That's what Ace pretty much just posted
>>>as well. If you and he are actually reading from the same cue card just
>>>how close are you two getting?
>>
>>Believe you me, I'm a lot more worried. Perhaps I should pick an
>>argument with him over modern art or something.
>
>No point, it's all shite.
Good start!
--
Champ
ZX10R
GPz750turbo
porl
Ace wrote:
> Does it? I suggest you study up on your English a bit then. Without
> any other context, it's quite clearly referring to the last statement
> I made, and is therefore asking me how _I_ know that non-CE kit may be
> better.
Well I think you're trying to confuse the matter in semantics, which is
I guess an acceptable "out" in this forum. But let's do it your way for
a minute.
How would Ace himself (that being you, let's be clear) tell the
difference in protective qualities between the two types of glove?
Let's assume that you've put aside your lezzer fair attitude on safety
and are picking out some gloves for a loved one, or even someone other
than you. How would you do it?
Big Dave
Champ wrote:
> >>Believe you me, I'm a lot more worried. Perhaps I should pick an
> >>argument with him over modern art or something.
> >
> >No point, it's all shite.
>
> Good start!
A friend of mine works in an art gallery in London. I once asked him
what was the point behind all these piles of bricks and such like being
exhibited as modern art.
"Dave", he said, "there's a saying 'in the trade' : There's a lot less
to it than meets the eye".
Ace
>
>Ace wrote:
>
>> Does it? I suggest you study up on your English a bit then. Without
>> any other context, it's quite clearly referring to the last statement
>> I made, and is therefore asking me how _I_ know that non-CE kit may be
>> better.
>
>Well I think you're trying to confuse the matter in semantics, which is
>I guess an acceptable "out" in this forum. But let's do it your way for
>a minute.
>How would Ace himself (that being you, let's be clear) tell the
>difference in protective qualities between the two types of glove?
Yes, I know that's the question you meant to ask, and one to which
I've given an answer elsewhere, basically agreeing that it would be
difficult.
But in some cases it is possible, like the leathers I bought last
year, where I felt reasonable able to judge the quality and thickness
of the leather, the stitching and the overal workmanship based on my
previous experience of leather kit over the previous 25 years.
The armour is not CE approved, but is marvelously thick and
shock-absorbent, as demonstrated in the shop by simply falling
straight down onto my knees without so much as a hint of pain. It's
also fixed and in exactly the right place for me, and the fit is
absolutely just right, plus there's additional protection on the hips,
kidneys and shins, all of which are often not the case with
CE-approved stuff.
>Let's assume that you've put aside your lezzer fair attitude on safety
>and are picking out some gloves for a loved one, or even someone other
>than you. How would you do it?
As in the above example, where I, as an experienced buyer, was able to
get something which I have no doubt is better than any of the other
leathers, CE-approved or not, that I tried on at the time, having
looked in about ten different shops in the area. Had I limited myself
to CE-approved kit I'd definitely have got something which would not
have been so good (for me).
Phil Launchbury
<Devils advocate>
You could try religion..
</DA>
Phil
--
Phil Launchbury, IT PHB
Triumph Tiger 955i
'I'm training the bats that live in my cube
to juggle mushrooms'
porl
TLDR
Champ
wrote:
>
>Champ wrote:
>> >>Believe you me, I'm a lot more worried. Perhaps I should pick an
>> >>argument with him over modern art or something.
>> >
>> >No point, it's all shite.
>>
>> Good start!
>
>A friend of mine works in an art gallery in London. I once asked him
>what was the point behind all these piles of bricks and such like being
>exhibited as modern art.
Assuming that this converstion happened less than 60 years ago, then
you weren't talking about modern art. That era is generally accepted
to have finished in 1945. You were talking about post-modern art.
--
Champ
ZX10R
GPz750turbo
Champ
<ph...@launchbury.org.uk> wrote:
>In article <dq9jd252bpaolbc0u...@4ax.com>, Champ wrote:
>> On 9 Aug 2006 02:01:20 -0700, "porl" <omy...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Champ wrote:
>>
>>>Ok I'm getting suspicious now. That's what Ace pretty much just posted
>>>as well. If you and he are actually reading from the same cue card just
>>>how close are you two getting?
>>
>> Believe you me, I'm a lot more worried. Perhaps I should pick an
>> argument with him over modern art or something.
>
><Devils advocate>
>
>You could try religion..
>
></DA>
Ace and I mostly agree on religion, I'm afraid.
--
Champ
ZX10R
GPz750turbo
Ace
>On 9 Aug 2006 03:40:51 -0700, "Big Dave" <flyi...@btopenworld.com>
>wrote:
>>A friend of mine works in an art gallery in London. I once asked him
>>what was the point behind all these piles of bricks and such like being
>>exhibited as modern art.
>
>Assuming that this converstion happened less than 60 years ago, then
>you weren't talking about modern art. That era is generally accepted
>to have finished in 1945. You were talking about post-modern art.
It doesn't make any difference - it's all shite.
<I'm trying, OK?>
Grimly Curmudgeon
drugs began to take hold. I remember "Big Dave"
<flyi...@btopenworld.com> saying something like:
>Champ wrote:
>> >>Believe you me, I'm a lot more worried. Perhaps I should pick an
>> >>argument with him over modern art or something.
>> >
>> >No point, it's all shite.
>>
>> Good start!
>
>A friend of mine works in an art gallery in London. I once asked him
>what was the point behind all these piles of bricks and such like
Sure they weren't just getting some building work done?
--
Dave
GS850x2 XS650 SE6a
Every post contains Nutri-Ceramide-R and Pre-Biotics
for your reading pleasure.
Folding@Home Team UKRM http://www.tinyurl.com/jkxwv
Champ
>On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 13:50:33 +0100, Champ <ne...@champ.org.uk> wrote:
>
>>On 9 Aug 2006 03:40:51 -0700, "Big Dave" <flyi...@btopenworld.com>
>>wrote:
>
>>>A friend of mine works in an art gallery in London. I once asked him
>>>what was the point behind all these piles of bricks and such like being
>>>exhibited as modern art.
>>
>>Assuming that this converstion happened less than 60 years ago, then
>>you weren't talking about modern art. That era is generally accepted
>>to have finished in 1945. You were talking about post-modern art.
>
>It doesn't make any difference - it's all shite.
>
><I'm trying, OK?>
Good effort, but I don't think your heart is in it. Do you really
think that something like "The Scream" by Munch, or Matisse, or
Gaugin, or Modigliani, or Picasso, or or or... is all shite?
--
Champ
ZX10R
GPz750turbo
Ace
Look, whether someone else has arbitrarily limited 'Modern Art' to
some past era is irrelevant. We were talking about modern art, not
Modern Art.
Big Dave
Champ wrote:
> >A friend of mine works in an art gallery in London. I once asked him
> >what was the point behind all these piles of bricks and such like being
> >exhibited as modern art.
>
> Assuming that this converstion happened less than 60 years ago, then
> you weren't talking about modern art. That era is generally accepted
> to have finished in 1945. You were talking about post-modern art.
Within the last (ahem) years, but a bit less than 60.
We were talking about the pile of bricks in which ever gallery it was
and the "house filled with concrete" kind of stuff. It seemed that in
the late 80s and early 90s a lot of people were taking the piss a bit
with "installation" type things.
Big Dave
Champ wrote:
> Good effort, but I don't think your heart is in it. Do you really
> think that something like "The Scream" by Munch, or Matisse, or
> Gaugin, or Modigliani, or Picasso, or or or... is all shite?
"The Scream". I like that.
Wasn't it nicked a year or three back? Have they found it again yet?
Champ
>>>>Assuming that this converstion happened less than 60 years ago, then
>>>>you weren't talking about modern art. That era is generally accepted
>>>>to have finished in 1945. You were talking about post-modern art.
>>>
>>>It doesn't make any difference - it's all shite.
>>>
>>><I'm trying, OK?>
>>
>>Good effort, but I don't think your heart is in it. Do you really
>>think that something like "The Scream" by Munch, or Matisse, or
>>Gaugin, or Modigliani, or Picasso, or or or... is all shite?
>
>Look, whether someone else has arbitrarily limited 'Modern Art' to
>some past era is irrelevant. We were talking about modern art, not
>Modern Art.
Ah, ok. So you mean Contemporary Art.
Yeah, that mostly is rubbish.
--
Champ
ZX10R
GPz750turbo
ogden
There is no "it", he reproduced it several times, with examples hanging
in museums and collections all over the place.
Wikipedia suggests the one stolen in 2004 still hasn't been found.
--
ogden
Big Dave
Champ wrote:
> You were talking about post-modern art.
Missed that bit. I stand corrected - we were talking about post-modern
art then.
(I'm not much good with teminaology)
Vermeer, Breugel, Lely and a bit of Rembrandt
That's more my kind of thing.
Big Dave
Grimly Curmudgeon wrote:
> We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
> drugs began to take hold. I remember "Big Dave"
> <flyi...@btopenworld.com> saying something like:
>
> >Champ wrote:
> >> >>Believe you me, I'm a lot more worried. Perhaps I should pick an
> >> >>argument with him over modern art or something.
> >> >
> >> >No point, it's all shite.
> >>
> >> Good start!
> >
> >A friend of mine works in an art gallery in London. I once asked him
> >what was the point behind all these piles of bricks and such like
>
> Sure they weren't just getting some building work done?
LOL
Probbly - judging by how much they paid for it...
Big Dave
Big Dave wrote:
> (I'm not much good with teminaology)
And I'm shite at typnig...
Champ
wrote:
>
The pile of bricks ("Equivalent VIII" by Carl Andre,) was in 1972. it
was part of 8 pieces (Equivalent I to VII), which should really have
been shown together. In isolation, VIII was particularly meaningless.
"House", by Rachel Whiteread, was in 1993. Actually, that one I found
quite interesting, and really, that's what contemporary art does - it
tries to pique your interest.
--
Champ
ZX10R
GPz750turbo
Big Dave
Champ wrote:
> The pile of bricks ("Equivalent VIII" by Carl Andre,) was in 1972. it
> was part of 8 pieces (Equivalent I to VII), which should really have
> been shown together. In isolation, VIII was particularly meaningless.
Streuth. Was it that long ago?
> "House", by Rachel Whiteread, was in 1993. Actually, that one I found
> quite interesting, and really, that's what contemporary art does - it
> tries to pique your interest.
16 years ago, Bloody Hell. The conversation must have been sometime
around then.
I remember wondering about the problems involved in filling a house
with concrete then stripping the bricks away afterwards. In which case,
I suppose it worked on me - it "piqued my interest".
Ace
No, I mean modern art. The capitalisation of Contemporary implies that
it too may have, or take on, some special meaning. Just use adjectives
to mean what they say and we'll all understand each other.
Paul Varnsverry
> On 8 Aug 2006 23:57:26 -0700, "Paul Varnsverry" <in...@pva-ppe.org.uk>
> wrote:
>
> >Ace wrote:
>
> >> * Some small scale manufacturers, for example a bespoke leather
> >> manufacturer, may not have the resources, or indeed inclination, to go
> >> through the CE testing process.
> >
> >Incorrect.
>
> Well no, it's not. I didn't say none of them would, just that some
> might not. I know of at least one such wot I bought mine from in
> Germany.
>
> Aye, I'd not argue otherwise. Although I'm verr pleased with my
> Schwabenleder stuff, but thankfully haven't put it to the ultimate
> test.
Now how did I know that was the manufacturer you were speaking of
before I scrolled down to see their name? ;-)
Champ
>On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 15:21:16 +0100, Champ <ne...@champ.org.uk> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 16:11:05 +0200, Ace <see...@virgin.net> wrote:
>
>>>Look, whether someone else has arbitrarily limited 'Modern Art' to
>>>some past era is irrelevant. We were talking about modern art, not
>>>Modern Art.
>>
>>Ah, ok. So you mean Contemporary Art.
>
>No, I mean modern art. The capitalisation of Contemporary implies that
>it too may have, or take on, some special meaning. Just use adjectives
>to mean what they say and we'll all understand each other.
heh. Let's try and be more precise here. Do you mean art that is
contemporary (i.e. produced around now, or in the very recent past (<
10 years). Or do you mean art that is produced in the modern era,
which is a pretty vague definition too, but might be assumed to be
from 1900 onwards. Or do you mean something else?
Look, if we're going to have a proper argument here, you're going to
have to pull your weight. Why not just say "all art after yyyy is
shite"?
--
Champ
ZX10R
GPz750turbo
Big Dave
Champ wrote:
> Look, if we're going to have a proper argument here,
"Is this the 5 minute argument or the full half hour?"
Krusty
> fOn Wed, 09 Aug 2006 17:26:46 +0200, Ace <see...@virgin.net> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 15:21:16 +0100, Champ <ne...@champ.org.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > Ah, ok. So you mean Contemporary Art.
> >
> > No, I mean modern art. The capitalisation of Contemporary implies
> > that it too may have, or take on, some special meaning. Just use
> > adjectives to mean what they say and we'll all understand each
> > other.
>
> heh. Let's try and be more precise here. Do you mean art that is
> contemporary (i.e. produced around now, or in the very recent past (<
> 10 years). Or do you mean art that is produced in the modern era,
> which is a pretty vague definition too, but might be assumed to be
> from 1900 onwards. Or do you mean something else?
I don't think you can use time to define it, assuming Ace is referring
to the sort of stuff I hate too. Maybe just call it 'abstract'?
--
Krusty
www.MuddyStuff.co.uk
Off-Road Classifieds
'02 MV Senna '03 Tiger 955i '96 Tiger '79 Fantic Hiro 250
Champ
wrote:
>> heh. Let's try and be more precise here. Do you mean art that is
>> contemporary (i.e. produced around now, or in the very recent past (<
>> 10 years). Or do you mean art that is produced in the modern era,
>> which is a pretty vague definition too, but might be assumed to be
>> from 1900 onwards. Or do you mean something else?
>
>I don't think you can use time to define it, assuming Ace is referring
>to the sort of stuff I hate too. Maybe just call it 'abstract'?
Ah, but Abstract Art is quite a specific thing too. But I guess you
mean art which is non-representational i.e. not a "picture of
something".
Almost no music is representational, so why do you want visual art to
be. Something like Rothko
(http://images.google.co.uk/images?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLG,GGLG:2005-42,GGLG:en&q=rothko)
can generate an emotional response without being a picture of
something.
--
Champ
ZX10R
GPz750turbo
Phil Launchbury
<Adds Champ to auto-da-fe list>
Champ
<ph...@launchbury.org.uk> wrote:
>In article <2hmjd2dq2nvbjrqbd...@4ax.com>, Champ wrote:
>> On Wed, 9 Aug 2006 11:47:59 +0100, Phil Launchbury
>><ph...@launchbury.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>><Devils advocate>
>>>
>>>You could try religion..
>>>
>>></DA>
>>
>> Ace and I mostly agree on religion, I'm afraid.
>
><Adds Champ to auto-da-fe list>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto_de_fe
The actual auto-da-fe doesn't sound too bad. Probably a bit boring.
Not too keen on the later events, mind
--
Champ
ZX10R
GPz750turbo
Krusty
> On 9 Aug 2006 15:44:07 GMT, "Krusty" <dontw...@nowhere.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> >> heh. Let's try and be more precise here. Do you mean art that is
> >> contemporary (i.e. produced around now, or in the very recent past
> (< >> 10 years). Or do you mean art that is produced in the modern
> era, >> which is a pretty vague definition too, but might be assumed
> to be >> from 1900 onwards. Or do you mean something else?
> >
> > I don't think you can use time to define it, assuming Ace is
> > referring to the sort of stuff I hate too. Maybe just call it
> > 'abstract'?
>
> Ah, but Abstract Art is quite a specific thing too.
Which is why I said abstract rather than Abstract.
> But I guess you
> mean art which is non-representational i.e. not a "picture of
> something".
Not necessarily - just something which requires a demonstrable skill to
produce, other than imagination (talking for myself here, not trying to
second-guess Ace's opinion). In many (most?) cases that does mean
something representational I suppose.
> Almost no music is representational, so why do you want visual art to
> be.
I don't want it to be, I just don't like it when it isn't. If people
want to paint coloured blocks or exhibit unmade beds that's up to them,
but as far as I'm concerned there's no skill involved in that
whatsoever[1], & that's the one thing left I can appreciate even if I
don't like the end result.
> Something like Rothko
> (http://images.google.co.uk/images?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGL
> G,GGLG:2005-42,GGLG:en&q=rothko) can generate an emotional response
> without being a picture of something.
The only response that generates in me is "oh look, another talentless
(or lazy, or self-indulgent) 'artist' ripping off the gullible
luvvies"[1]. The musical equivalent would be me playing Chopsticks on
the piano.
[1] As proven by the toddler's 'Abstract Art' on That's Life many years
ago.
Champ
wrote:
>> > I don't think you can use time to define it, assuming Ace is
>> > referring to the sort of stuff I hate too. Maybe just call it
>> > 'abstract'?
>> But I guess you
>> mean art which is non-representational i.e. not a "picture of
>> something".
>
>Not necessarily - just something which requires a demonstrable skill to
>produce, other than imagination (talking for myself here, not trying to
>second-guess Ace's opinion). In many (most?) cases that does mean
>something representational I suppose.
>
>> Almost no music is representational, so why do you want visual art to
>> be.
>
>I don't want it to be, I just don't like it when it isn't. If people
>want to paint coloured blocks or exhibit unmade beds that's up to them,
>but as far as I'm concerned there's no skill involved in that
>whatsoever[1], & that's the one thing left I can appreciate even if I
>don't like the end result.
There's virtually no skill involved in a lot of popular music. If you
like/liked punk (and you're of the right generation) then much of it
is childishly simple to play. Doesn't make it unenjoyable, tho. Of
course, the real skill was to *think* of the song, to construct
something that, tho easy to play, sounded good. For me, this
analagous with non-representational art - it may be easy to produce,
but it's not easy to invent.
--
Champ
ZX10R
GPz750turbo
Krusty
> On 9 Aug 2006 16:20:31 GMT, "Krusty" <dontw...@nowhere.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> >> Almost no music is representational, so why do you want visual art
> >> to be.
> >
> > I don't want it to be, I just don't like it when it isn't. If people
> > want to paint coloured blocks or exhibit unmade beds that's up to
> > them, but as far as I'm concerned there's no skill involved in that
> > whatsoever[1], & that's the one thing left I can appreciate even if
> > I don't like the end result.
>
> There's virtually no skill involved in a lot of popular music. If you
> like/liked punk (and you're of the right generation) then much of it
> is childishly simple to play. Doesn't make it unenjoyable, tho. Of
> course, the real skill was to think of the song, to construct
> something that, tho easy to play, sounded good. For me, this
> analagous with non-representational art - it may be easy to produce,
> but it's not easy to invent.
But a lot of it *is* easy to invent, & generally speaking that's the
stuff I dislike. In fact, hang on a sec...
...there you go, I've just created two Abstract masterpieces - a sofa
with some remote controls & magazines carefully placed on it, & a small
fluffy bunny squashed between two parts of a ground anchor. Should I
phone the Tate & ask them if they'll exhibit them? All I need to do is
come up with some bullshit to explain the meaning of them[1], & I'll be
a bona fide modern artist.
[1] "The rabbit represents the soft, vulnerability of life when encased
in the hard reality of life in a modern crime-ridden city".
Scraggy
>
> Ah, but Abstract Art is quite a specific thing too. But I guess you
> mean art which is non-representational i.e. not a "picture of
> something".
>
> Almost no music is representational, so why do you want visual art to
> be. Something like Rothko
> (http://images.google.co.uk/images?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLG,GGLG:2005-42,GGLG:en&q=rothko)
> can generate an emotional response without being a picture of
> something.
The artist was a boater, the clues are there.
http://www.discountboatingholidays.co.uk/grfx/narrowboat_2.jpg
http://www.etc.cmu.edu/projects/atl/images/rothko/Rothko-WhiteOverRed.jpg
Chris Deuchar will be here shortly to wibble about this.
--
I don't care to belong to a club that accepts people like me as
members. Groucho Marx
Champ
wrote:
>> >> Almost no music is representational, so why do you want visual art
>> >> to be.
>> >
>> > I don't want it to be, I just don't like it when it isn't. If people
>> > want to paint coloured blocks or exhibit unmade beds that's up to
>> > them, but as far as I'm concerned there's no skill involved in that
>> > whatsoever[1], & that's the one thing left I can appreciate even if
>> > I don't like the end result.
>>
>> There's virtually no skill involved in a lot of popular music. If you
>> like/liked punk (and you're of the right generation) then much of it
>> is childishly simple to play. Doesn't make it unenjoyable, tho. Of
>> course, the real skill was to think of the song, to construct
>> something that, tho easy to play, sounded good. For me, this
>> analagous with non-representational art - it may be easy to produce,
>> but it's not easy to invent.
>
>But a lot of it *is* easy to invent, & generally speaking that's the
>stuff I dislike. In fact, hang on a sec...
>
>...there you go, I've just created two Abstract masterpieces - a sofa
>with some remote controls & magazines carefully placed on it, & a small
>fluffy bunny squashed between two parts of a ground anchor. Should I
>phone the Tate & ask them if they'll exhibit them? All I need to do is
>come up with some bullshit to explain the meaning of them[1], & I'll be
>a bona fide modern artist.
The test would be if anyone liked it. I could probably write a song,
of some low quality. Doubt many people would bother with it, tho.
--
Champ
ZX10R
GPz750turbo
My advice as your attorney is to buy a motorcycle
Simon Gates
>
>> You seem to be confusing logic with other stuff.
>
> Goddamn it. Where's Simian?
*waves*
Hi porl!
I see they haven't barbied the awkward out of you over there.
And for the record, I have two pairs of gloves.
Ace
wrote:
>Ace wrote:
You tell me. I do recall asking your opinion at the time, or more
likely after I'd already decided on them, but I think you were already
familiar with the brand beforehand.
Ace
>Look, if we're going to have a proper argument here, you're going to
>have to pull your weight. Why not just say "all art after yyyy is
>shite"?
That would imply that I knew something about it, which I wouldn't
pretend in my wildest lying moments.
No, I'll just say that all art that's not specifically designed to
look "nice" is shite. I fundamentally disagree with your stated view
that it's the job of 'art' to provoke a reaction - it's the job of art
to look nice, and nothing else.
<better, I think>
Ace
>On 9 Aug 2006 15:44:07 GMT, "Krusty" <dontw...@nowhere.invalid>
>wrote:
>>I don't think you can use time to define it, assuming Ace is referring
>>to the sort of stuff I hate too. Maybe just call it 'abstract'?
That's far too specific a definition. "Shite" is good enough, as I'm
not trying to categorise it in anyone else's terms.
>Ah, but Abstract Art is quite a specific thing too. But I guess you
>mean art which is non-representational i.e. not a "picture of
>something".
Ahh, maybe that _is_ what I mean then.
>Almost no music is representational, so why do you want visual art to
>be.
Why must you insist on sullying the name of music by calling it 'art'?
Something like Rothko
>(http://images.google.co.uk/images?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLG,GGLG:2005-42,GGLG:en&q=rothko)
>can generate an emotional response without being a picture of
>something.
Yeah and it's shite. < he says without looking>.
OK, I'll have a look. Oh, coloured blocks. How clever.
Krusty
> >> There's virtually no skill involved in a lot of popular music. If
> you >> like/liked punk (and you're of the right generation) then much
> of it >> is childishly simple to play. Doesn't make it unenjoyable,
> tho. Of >> course, the real skill was to think of the song, to
> construct >> something that, tho easy to play, sounded good. For
> me, this >> analagous with non-representational art - it may be easy
> to produce, >> but it's not easy to invent.
> >
> > But a lot of it is easy to invent, & generally speaking that's the
> > stuff I dislike. In fact, hang on a sec...
> >
> > ...there you go, I've just created two Abstract masterpieces - a
> > sofa with some remote controls & magazines carefully placed on it,
> > & a small fluffy bunny squashed between two parts of a ground
> > anchor. Should I phone the Tate & ask them if they'll exhibit them?
> > All I need to do is come up with some bullshit to explain the
> > meaning of them[1], & I'll be a bona fide modern artist.
>
> The test would be if anyone liked it.
I disagree - the test would be if it was taken seriously as a piece of
art. I'm fairly sure it would be if it was exhibited alongside
'genuine' pieces, & the luvvies would gather around it discussing my
motivation & commenting on how the colour of the DVD remote against the
dark red of the sofa reminds them of blah blah blah. And I'd be
standing in the corner absolutely pissing myself.
> I could probably write a song,
> of some low quality. Doubt many people would bother with it, tho.
I really don't think that analagy holds, but why don't you try it?
Write something, record it using a PC, & setup a MySpace account. You
never know, you might be the next Gnarles Barkley ;-)
Grimly Curmudgeon
<dontw...@nowhere.invalid> saying something like:
>But a lot of it *is* easy to invent, & generally speaking that's the
>stuff I dislike. In fact, hang on a sec...
>
>...there you go, I've just created two Abstract masterpieces - a sofa
>with some remote controls & magazines carefully placed on it, & a small
>fluffy bunny squashed between two parts of a ground anchor. Should I
>phone the Tate & ask them if they'll exhibit them? All I need to do is
>come up with some bullshit to explain the meaning of them[1], & I'll be
>a bona fide modern artist.
My whole fucking life is Art, you Philistine.
Why, this very minute I have placed an empty tin of herring on the
radiator in the sure and certain knowledge that in the morning it will
emphasise the recreational chaos that is life and counterpoint the rigid
logic-driven entity of the desktop, both real and virtual.
So there.
--
Dave
GS850x2 XS650 SE6a
Every post contains Nutri-Ceramide-R and Pre-Biotics
for your reading pleasure.
Folding@Home Team UKRM http://www.tinyurl.com/jkxwv
Krusty
> We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
> drugs began to take hold. I remember "Krusty"
> <dontw...@nowhere.invalid> saying something like:
>
> > But a lot of it is easy to invent, & generally speaking that's the
> > stuff I dislike. In fact, hang on a sec...
> >
> > ...there you go, I've just created two Abstract masterpieces - a
> > sofa with some remote controls & magazines carefully placed on it,
> > & a small fluffy bunny squashed between two parts of a ground
> > anchor. Should I phone the Tate & ask them if they'll exhibit them?
> > All I need to do is come up with some bullshit to explain the
> > meaning of them[1], & I'll be a bona fide modern artist.
>
> My whole fucking life is Art, you Philistine.
>
> Why, this very minute I have placed an empty tin of herring on the
> radiator in the sure and certain knowledge that in the morning it will
> emphasise the recreational chaos that is life and counterpoint the
> rigid logic-driven entity of the desktop, both real and virtual.
*Genius* I'll give you 5 million quid for it.
Paul Varnsverry
> On 9 Aug 2006 08:31:52 -0700, "Paul Varnsverry" <in...@pva-ppe.org.uk>
> wrote:
> >
> >Now how did I know that was the manufacturer you were speaking of
> >before I scrolled down to see their name? ;-)
>
> You tell me. I do recall asking your opinion at the time, or more
> likely after I'd already decided on them, but I think you were already
> familiar with the brand beforehand.
Dr. Willson [1] purchased a suit from them in the late 80s or (more
likely) early 90s. Impressive leather and well made. The impact padding
was visco elastic foam, which felt thick and absorbant, but in fact
loses most of its impact energy attenuation when warm/moist (so
perspiration is rather a negative!). On the whole, however..
<cues re-opening of arguments from earlier in the posting> :-)
...very good "caveat emptor" kit.
[1] For relevance, check out the history of the standards on either my
company web site, under the "Standards" menu, or the BMF Riderspace
under the "Briefing Room" menu.
Champ
wrote:
>Champ wrote:
>
>> >> There's virtually no skill involved in a lot of popular music. If
>> you >> like/liked punk (and you're of the right generation) then much
>> of it >> is childishly simple to play. Doesn't make it unenjoyable,
>> tho. Of >> course, the real skill was to think of the song, to
>> construct >> something that, tho easy to play, sounded good. For
>> me, this >> analagous with non-representational art - it may be easy
>> to produce, >> but it's not easy to invent.
>> >
>> > But a lot of it is easy to invent, & generally speaking that's the
>> > stuff I dislike. In fact, hang on a sec...
>> >
>> > ...there you go, I've just created two Abstract masterpieces - a
>> > sofa with some remote controls & magazines carefully placed on it,
>> > & a small fluffy bunny squashed between two parts of a ground
>> > anchor. Should I phone the Tate & ask them if they'll exhibit them?
>> > All I need to do is come up with some bullshit to explain the
>> > meaning of them[1], & I'll be a bona fide modern artist.
>>
>> The test would be if anyone liked it.
>
>I disagree - the test would be if it was taken seriously as a piece of
>art. I'm fairly sure it would be if it was exhibited alongside
>'genuine' pieces, & the luvvies would gather around it discussing my
>motivation & commenting on how the colour of the DVD remote against the
>dark red of the sofa reminds them of blah blah blah. And I'd be
>standing in the corner absolutely pissing myself.
You seem to think that people who like contemporary are all luvvies.
I'm sure some of them are, but where do the likes of me and Darsy fit
in?
Champ
>On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 16:34:49 +0100, Champ <ne...@champ.org.uk> wrote:
>
>>Look, if we're going to have a proper argument here, you're going to
>>have to pull your weight. Why not just say "all art after yyyy is
>>shite"?
>
>That would imply that I knew something about it, which I wouldn't
>pretend in my wildest lying moments.
>
>No, I'll just say that all art that's not specifically designed to
>look "nice" is shite. I fundamentally disagree with your stated view
>that it's the job of 'art' to provoke a reaction - it's the job of art
>to look nice, and nothing else.
>
><better, I think>
Lovely. Thanks for being so specific and clear.
So, Athena it is, then.
Ace
>You seem to think that people who like contemporary are all luvvies.
>I'm sure some of them are, but where do the likes of me and Darsy fit
>in?
Heh heh.
Ace
>On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 21:07:45 +0200, Ace <see...@virgin.net> wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 16:34:49 +0100, Champ <ne...@champ.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>Look, if we're going to have a proper argument here, you're going to
>>>have to pull your weight. Why not just say "all art after yyyy is
>>>shite"?
>>No, I'll just say that all art that's not specifically designed to
>>look "nice" is shite. I fundamentally disagree with your stated view
>>that it's the job of 'art' to provoke a reaction - it's the job of art
>>to look nice, and nothing else.
>>
>><better, I think>
>
>Lovely. Thanks for being so specific and clear.
>
>So, Athena it is, then.
MWHID.
ogden
>
> On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 16:49:04 +0100, Champ <ne...@champ.org.uk> wrote:
>
> > Something like Rothko
> >(http://images.google.co.uk/images?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rls=GGLG,GGLG:2005-42,GGLG:en&q=rothko)
> >can generate an emotional response without being a picture of
> >something.
>
> Yeah and it's shite. < he says without looking>.
>
> OK, I'll have a look. Oh, coloured blocks. How clever.
To be fair, an image on a web site is hardly the best way to view a
Rothko. If you were inclined to give him a chance you might want to find
one near you and get a good close look at the real thing (iirc, about 6
inches is a good viewing distance for a large Rothko, but I cba to dig
out my Taschen on the subject)
But (and there's always a but), the only emotional response Rothko
manages to invoke in me is boredom. I get what he was trying to do, but
it just doesn't work for me.
On a similar note, I never really "got" impressionist painting til I
spent some time in galleries. Seeing stuff in the flesh, and learning a
bit about what you're looking at, turns it from an alien world into
something potentially quite inspiring. And that includes "modern art",
even if the majority of it is utter cack.
--
ogden
Lozzo
I just counted up the ones I own, *not* including the company samples I
use on a regular basis. I have 11 pairs of gloves.
--
Lozzo
GSX-R1000 K1
GSF600SW
"Loz has a god, and this god of his has 16 valves" (tm) Pip, May '06
Krusty
I was specifically thinking of the specially invited opening night
crowd, including the critics. If they take it seriously, then it
automatically becomes a piece of art, regardless of whether anyone
actually likes it or not.
Verdigris
> On Wed, 09 Aug 2006 16:34:49 +0100, Champ <ne...@champ.org.uk> wrote:
>
>>Look, if we're going to have a proper argument here, you're going to
>>have to pull your weight. Why not just say "all art after yyyy is
>>shite"?
>
> That would imply that I knew something about it, which I wouldn't
> pretend in my wildest lying moments.
>
> No, I'll just say that all art that's not specifically designed to
> look "nice" is shite. I fundamentally disagree with your stated view
> that it's the job of 'art' to provoke a reaction - it's the job of art
> to look nice, and nothing else.
>
> <better, I think>
What about things specifically designed to look horrifying, or in other
ways not nice? "Guernica" might qualify, or indeed "The Scream" which has
been mentioned already. If an artist is trying to capture the essence of
something unpleasant like war, or insanity it's not going to be "nice".
In fact, if it's trying to capture something truly beautiful it's not
going to be "nice". "Nice" is Hallmark, and kittens painted on black
velvet.
--
Simon - UKRM~verdigris,plus,com
Tiger - A return to good sense.
Z1000 - Less sense, more sensation.
MAG BOTAFOT#36 two#22 HLR#pi BONY#62 BHaLC#3 LotR#7
DR
to have written:
>On a similar note, I never really "got" impressionist painting til I
>spent some time in galleries.
ISTR that you wear glasses - short sighted? Take them off, then paint
what you see. Instant impressionism, it is possible that the
impressionists simply couldn't see properly.
--
Darren Robinson
Wicked Uncle Nigel
<flyi...@btopenworld.com> typed
>
>> "House", by Rachel Whiteread, was in 1993. Actually, that one I found
>> quite interesting, and really, that's what contemporary art does - it
>> tries to pique your interest.
>
>16 years ago, Bloody Hell.
"I don't know what good art is, but I can't fucking subtract."
--
Wicked Uncle Nigel - Podium Placed Ducati Race Engineer As featured in
Performance Bikes
WS* GHPOTHUF#24 APOSTLE#14 DLC#1 COFF#20 BOTAFOT#150 HYPO#0(KoTL) IbW#41
SBS#39 OMF#6 Enfield 500 Curry House Racer "The Basmati Rice Burner",
Honda GL1000K2 (On its hols) Kawasaki ZN1300 Voyager "Oh, Oh, It's so big"
Suzuki TS250 "The Africa Single" Yamaha Vmax Honda ST1100 wiv trailer
Grimly Curmudgeon
<blueb...@talktalk.net.invalid> saying something like:
>ISTR that you wear glasses - short sighted? Take them off, then paint
>what you see. Instant impressionism, it is possible that the
>impressionists simply couldn't see properly.
That explains why Tolouse Luatrec painted a lot of crotches.
Big Dave
Champ wrote:
> There's virtually no skill involved in a lot of popular music. If you
> like/liked punk (and you're of the right generation) then much of it
> is childishly simple to play. Doesn't make it unenjoyable, tho.
Most Punk is a piece of piss to play, agreed.
Its playing it with the right attitude that's not quite so easy.
> course, the real skill was to *think* of the song, to construct
> something that, tho easy to play, sounded good.
Agreed.
Why didn't somebody explain that to Yes in the early 1970s?
Big Dave
Wicked Uncle Nigel wrote:
> >16 years ago, Bloody Hell.
>
> "I don't know what good art is, but I can't fucking subtract."
>
I was hoping no-one would spot that...
Thanks. Mate.
porl
Krusty wrote:
> Not necessarily - just something which requires a demonstrable skill to
> produce, other than imagination (talking for myself here, not trying to
> second-guess Ace's opinion). In many (most?) cases that does mean
> something representational I suppose.
Art doesn't require skill unless a particular style necessitates it.
It's not a display of prowess or a recognition of brush ability. It's a
product of creativity that may or may not be renderered with a degree
of skill.
A carpenter might put up an outstanding integrated bookcase cunningly
using space optimally. He might have had a grand vision to inspire him
but you don't need to know about that, you can look at it and say "Nice
work pal, well skilly, I can see where all that training and dedication
went"
An artist might show you a painting/stack of bricks/stuffed kitten. She
might have learned taxidermy, mixing mortar or refined an exquisite
brush technique to produce it. But really you don't need to know about
that. You can look at it and say "Hmm, that speaks to me, and helps me
see things with a different perspective"
...or the bookcase might fall down and the painting be shite. But you
see where I'm coming from? If you stop thinking of art with a capital A
it's much easier to get your head round. It doesn't have to be GOOD. It
just IS. Therefore any subjective opinion is irrelevant as regards its
definition.
As for Is it Even art or not? You might as well say Is it a bookcase or
is it furniture? There are always blurred distinctions at the border of
ideas (See Plato). For my money isfthe intention is that it is to be
art then it is. Whether I like it or not doesn't change its origin.
(c)Brought to you by Porl's boring and repetitive arguments Vol 1