On 10/09/15 13:08, Jim Thomas wrote:


"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
On 10/09/15 12:07, Jim Thomas wrote:

It isn't about odds. Britain is one of the last in Europe
to have royal parasites anymore. Britain is free to pull
the plug on them and have anything they like instead.

You just don't like having her face on your coins you okker.

I couldn’t care less. I hardly ever use the coins and she isn't on
the notes.

Thank for verifying that you are indeed an okker.

In article ,
gareth wrote:
And why was Raworth in an outside broadcast from Buckingham Palace when
the Great Parasite of Windsor herself was up in Scotland?

Just why do the BBC go in for these live outside broadcasts, especially
from No 10 at night when there's nobody else around?

In an attempt to give some visual interest. Otherwise it might as well
just be radio.

--
*I like cats, too. Let's exchange recipes.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"News" wrote in message
...
In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes

Frankly I am more fed up with the sycophantic drivel about the Labour
party leadership.

Wait until Saturday. Jeremy will be confirmed as the new leader and
Labour will disappear from view, at least for the rest of my lifetime.

You planning to top yourself soon ?

Seriously, that would not be good.

Bull****. Best thing that could happen, Labour
completely irrelevant for a generation again.

All parties need a serious opposition just to keep them on the straight
and narrow.

Bull****. The Torys did fine the last time Labour
was completely irrelevant for a generation.

Just what the hell does politics in this country have to do with a stupid
Australian prick?

The so-called National Anthem mentions as the first and last words of its
opening line
the two great malignant historical cancers upon humanity, religion and
monarchy.


The tune is such a deep meme that perhaps it is only the words that need
changing,
can anyone finish the following ...

Oh, now, what might have been
In England's pastures green,
Without a queen.
No more a king for us
Will be our great chorus
?
?

Dave Plowman (News) wrote
gareth wrote

And why was Raworth in an outside broadcast from Buckingham
Palace when the Great Parasite of Windsor herself was up in Scotland?

Just why do the BBC go in for these live outside broadcasts,
especially from No 10 at night when there's nobody else around?

In an attempt to give some visual interest.

It doesn’t. Everyone has seen that place
before and that fool standing outside it too.

Otherwise it might as well just be radio.

Even sillier than you usually manage. Its nothing like radio
when they show stuff that is worth showing like the carnage
after the London bombings or the hordes of refugees pouring
over the borders in eastern europe or that dead kid in Turkey
or that arsehole camerawoman kicking and tripping refugees.

On 10/09/15 10:36, Tim Watts wrote:
On 10/09/15 10:05, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 10/09/15 09:55, Brian-Gaff wrote:
Well, I would not go that far. It is just another one of those factoids
pupils of the future need to know for no apparent reason.


I suspect its a ploy to give us all a holiday from immigration, Climate
change, Labour party elections, and crime.
Brian

Frankly I am more fed up with the sycophantic drivel about the Labour
party leadership.

As if anyone cared what a spent force reeking of the 19th century does
to itself...



I do. Because without a decent opposition, the Tories will start going
completely off their rocker (again).

UKIP is the real opposition.

The party that actually represents the little guy and the actual working
class.

Insofar as there is a working class any more.


--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

On 10/09/15 10:40, Jim Thomas wrote:


"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
On 10/09/15 09:07, Jim Thomas wrote:


"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
On 09/09/15 23:24, gareth wrote:
"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...

Better her than President Blair (you *know* he would)

Why assume that the highly-desirable abolishment of monarchy will
result in a president?



Because it usually does?

Usually is completely irrelevant to what can happen.

I guess the Head of State *could* be a duck.

Your point being?

That there doesnt have to be a president.
But in the context of having to make a decision, the point that there is
a 99.99% probability that there will be, is not a fact to be discarded
as irrelevant.

President Corbyn. Has a sort of ring to it.


--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

On 10/09/15 11:41, gareth wrote:
"News" wrote in message
...
In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes

Frankly I am more fed up with the sycophantic drivel about the Labour
party leadership.

Wait until Saturday. Jeremy will be confirmed as the new leader and
Labour will disappear from view, at least for the rest of my lifetime.

Or else, Jeremy, speaking as he does for the indiviual and not for the
organised gravy trains, will have a resounding success at the polls.


ROFLMAO!

You really think he is speaking for 'the people'?

Really?





--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

On 10/09/15 13:00, Jim Thomas wrote:
Completely stupid system to have some inbred unelected
fool have any say at all on something like that.

Are we talking about the European Union again? Or the Labour party?


--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

On 10/09/15 13:32, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
gareth wrote:
And why was Raworth in an outside broadcast from Buckingham Palace when
the Great Parasite of Windsor herself was up in Scotland?

Just why do the BBC go in for these live outside broadcasts, especially
from No 10 at night when there's nobody else around?

In an attempt to give some visual interest. Otherwise it might as well
just be radio.

I listen to a huge amount of TV on the computer (courtesy of a freeview
dongle).

99% of all TV might as well be radio.

You don't need to *watch* it at all.
Generally I only bring up the picture for the car chase.



--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 10/09/15 10:36, Tim Watts wrote:
On 10/09/15 10:05, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 10/09/15 09:55, Brian-Gaff wrote:
Well, I would not go that far. It is just another one of those factoids
pupils of the future need to know for no apparent reason.


I suspect its a ploy to give us all a holiday from immigration,
Climate
change, Labour party elections, and crime.
Brian

Frankly I am more fed up with the sycophantic drivel about the Labour
party leadership.

As if anyone cared what a spent force reeking of the 19th century does
to itself...



I do. Because without a decent opposition, the Tories will start going
completely off their rocker (again).

UKIP is the real opposition.

Must be why they got so many MPs elected.

The party that actually represents the little guy and the actual working
class.

Must be why they got so many MPs elected.

Insofar as there is a working class any more.

Yeah, Farage is the epitome of the working class.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 10/09/15 10:40, Jim Thomas wrote:


"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
On 10/09/15 09:07, Jim Thomas wrote:


"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
On 09/09/15 23:24, gareth wrote:
"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...

Better her than President Blair (you *know* he would)

Why assume that the highly-desirable abolishment of monarchy will
result in a president?



Because it usually does?

Usually is completely irrelevant to what can happen.

I guess the Head of State *could* be a duck.

Your point being?

That there doesnt have to be a president.

But in the context of having to make a decision, the point that there is a
99.99% probability that there will be, is not a fact to be discarded as
irrelevant.

It is when Britain can do anything it likes on that.

Britain did after all do its own thing quite
often on the detail of who runs the country
for well over a millennium now and can
obviously do so again if it chooses to.

What others have chosen to do
is clearly completely irrelevant.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 10/09/15 13:00, Jim Thomas wrote:

When Maggie sent Our Boys south, she needed (IIRC) Orders in Council
(i.e. permission) from Brenda before proceeding.

Completely stupid system to have some inbred unelected
fool have any say at all on something like that.

Are we talking about the European Union again? Or the Labour party?

Says he carefully deleting from the quoting what was being talked about.

On Thu, 10 Sep 2015 00:39:28 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

And why was Raworth in an outside broadcast from Buckingham Palace
when
the Great Parasite of Windsor herself was up in Scotland?

The very question we were asking.

Probably because she had stated she didn't want a fuss and knew damn
well that the worlds media would ignore that request. I bet press
passes to cover her normal work of meeting and greeting, opening
railway lines, etc where *very* strictly controlled.

Technically The Queen has to sign off at least any new Acts of
Parliment and as Major said the Queen publically keeps out of
politics (very wisely IMHO) but as the weekly private meetings with
the transient Prime Minister of the day are never disclosed who
*really* knows what she has influenced.

At least The Queen is in the job for life and didn't have much of a
choice. Unlike modern career politicians, of any group, who have
choosen the job and treat it as such to maximise their own personal
gain.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On Thu, 10 Sep 2015 22:00:31 +1000, Jim Thomas wrote:

Remember, the armed forces serve thee Crown, not the Govt.

Makes a lot more sense for the govt of the day to decide what the armed
forces do.

One small step to Military Dictatorship.

--
Cheers
Dave.

On 11/09/15 05:05, Jim Thomas wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 10/09/15 13:00, Jim Thomas wrote:

When Maggie sent Our Boys south, she needed (IIRC) Orders in Council
(i.e. permission) from Brenda before proceeding.

Completely stupid system to have some inbred unelected
fool have any say at all on something like that.

Are we talking about the European Union again? Or the Labour party?

Says he carefully deleting from the quoting what was being talked about.

Good grief. Total sense of humour failure. You must be a lefty****


--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

On 11/09/15 09:17, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Thu, 10 Sep 2015 22:00:31 +1000, Jim Thomas wrote:

Remember, the armed forces serve thee Crown, not the Govt.

Makes a lot more sense for the govt of the day to decide what the armed
forces do.

One small step to Military Dictatorship.


Exactly - and it just goes to show how ignorant of not too distant
history people are.

It was set up like this *exactly* for the reason to have double checks
in place after the civil war.

But then it is Rodney...

"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ll.co.uk...
On Thu, 10 Sep 2015 00:39:28 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

And why was Raworth in an outside broadcast from Buckingham Palace
when
the Great Parasite of Windsor herself was up in Scotland?

The very question we were asking.

Probably because she had stated she didn't want a fuss and knew damn
well that the worlds media would ignore that request. I bet press
passes to cover her normal work of meeting and greeting, opening
railway lines, etc where *very* strictly controlled.

Technically The Queen has to sign off at least any new Acts of
Parliment and as Major said the Queen publically keeps out of
politics (very wisely IMHO) but as the weekly private meetings with
the transient Prime Minister of the day are never disclosed who
*really* knows what she has influenced.

Not a shred of evidence that she has ever actually influenced
anyone on anything except possibly how that fool of an uncle
of hers was treated at times.

At least The Queen is in the job for life

Pity about when that individual goes barking mad etc.

and didn't have much of a choice.

She always had the choice of making an obscene
gesture and doing that fool of an uncle of hers did.

Unlike modern career politicians, of
any group, who have choosen the job

Beats that fool of an uncle of hers
who never wanted the job.

and treat it as such to maximise their own personal gain.

Corse none of her ancestors has ever done anything like that, eh ?

"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message
ll.co.uk...
On Thu, 10 Sep 2015 22:00:31 +1000, Jim Thomas wrote:

Remember, the armed forces serve thee Crown, not the Govt.

Makes a lot more sense for the govt of the day to decide what the armed
forces do.

One small step to Military Dictatorship.

A ****ing great step in fact.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 11/09/15 05:05, Jim Thomas wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 10/09/15 13:00, Jim Thomas wrote:

When Maggie sent Our Boys south, she needed (IIRC) Orders in Council
(i.e. permission) from Brenda before proceeding.

Completely stupid system to have some inbred unelected
fool have any say at all on something like that.

Are we talking about the European Union again? Or the Labour party?

Says he carefully deleting from the quoting what was being talked about.

Good grief. Total sense of humour failure. You must be a lefty****

You never could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article o.uk,
Dave Liquorice wrote:

On Thu, 10 Sep 2015 22:00:31 +1000, Jim Thomas wrote:

Remember, the armed forces serve thee Crown, not the Govt.

Makes a lot more sense for the govt of the day to decide what the armed
forces do.

One small step to Military Dictatorship.

Which is where we ended up after Charles I was bumped off.

Taint going to happen again, you watch.

Not that change wasn't needed, mind, but we in this country were lucky
that we were able to go from the divine right of Charlie to rule in 1625
or so to the beginnings of a constitutional monarchy once James had left
in 1690 or so. We also got a Bill of Rights out of the deal.

Nothing to do with luck.

"Tim Watts" wrote in message
news
On 11/09/15 09:17, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Thu, 10 Sep 2015 22:00:31 +1000, Jim Thomas wrote:

Remember, the armed forces serve thee Crown, not the Govt.

Makes a lot more sense for the govt of the day to decide what the armed
forces do.

One small step to Military Dictatorship.


Exactly

Nope.

- and it just goes to show how ignorant of not too distant history people
are.

Some of us have noticed that the world
has moved on just a tad since Cromwell.

It was set up like this *exactly* for the reason to have double checks in
place after the civil war.

Yes, that was certainly understandable at that time.

But even you should have noticed
that things are just a tad different now.

On 11/09/15 10:32, Jim Thomas wrote:

But even you should have noticed
that things are just a tad different now.

Like the Crimea?

Human nature is remarkably resilient to evolution.

"Tim Watts" wrote in message
...
On 11/09/15 10:32, Jim Thomas wrote:

But even you should have noticed that things are just a tad different
now.

Like the Crimea?

Yep, even you should have noticed that Britain hasn't actually
been stupid enough to get involved there anymore.

Human nature is remarkably resilient to evolution.

Have fun listing the full civil wars that have happened
in the great democracies in the last century.

Yes, plenty of places like Ireland and Greece and Yugoslavia
and Spain lagged a long way behind the great democracies
on that, but even you should have noticed that the great
democracies haven't had a full civil war in quite a while
now, let alone a military coup.

And Liz would never have done a damned thing if Maggie
had chosen to do what she didn’t approve of anyway.

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
In an attempt to give some visual interest. Otherwise it might as well
just be radio.

I listen to a huge amount of TV on the computer (courtesy of a freeview
dongle).

99% of all TV might as well be radio.

You don't need to *watch* it at all.
Generally I only bring up the picture for the car chase.

That doesn't surprise me at all. I wouldn't expect you to understand
anything about the arts.

--
*How come you never hear about gruntled employees? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article o.uk,
Dave Liquorice wrote:
Probably because she had stated she didn't want a fuss and knew damn
well that the worlds media would ignore that request. I bet press
passes to cover her normal work of meeting and greeting, opening
railway lines, etc where *very* strictly controlled.

Saw a nice spoof on Facebook earlier.

Basically, she was so horrified at the cost of the anniversary
celebrations (a couple of new hospitals etc), that she didn't want it
again.

--
*A fine is a tax for doing wrong. A tax is a fine for doing well*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In message , Jim Thomas
writes
"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message

and didn't have much of a choice.

She always had the choice of making an obscene
gesture and doing that fool of an uncle of hers did.

To the rest of us, she had a choice. To her, she didn't. QEII sees her
job as a duty, without choice. You can debate that for as long as you
like, but just remember, HM does not see any choice.
--
Graeme

On 11/09/15 10:25, Jim Thomas wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 11/09/15 05:05, Jim Thomas wrote:


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 10/09/15 13:00, Jim Thomas wrote:

When Maggie sent Our Boys south, she needed (IIRC) Orders in Council
(i.e. permission) from Brenda before proceeding.

Completely stupid system to have some inbred unelected
fool have any say at all on something like that.

Are we talking about the European Union again? Or the Labour party?

Says he carefully deleting from the quoting what was being talked about.

Good grief. Total sense of humour failure. You must be a lefty****

You never could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

Nope. I leave bull**** to others...


--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

On 11/09/15 10:32, Jim Thomas wrote:


"Tim Watts" wrote in message
news
On 11/09/15 09:17, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Thu, 10 Sep 2015 22:00:31 +1000, Jim Thomas wrote:

Remember, the armed forces serve thee Crown, not the Govt.

Makes a lot more sense for the govt of the day to decide what the armed
forces do.

One small step to Military Dictatorship.


Exactly

Nope.

- and it just goes to show how ignorant of not too distant history
people are.

Some of us have noticed that the world
has moved on just a tad since Cromwell.

But not it seems, you, and the rest of the humourless puritanical Left.



It was set up like this *exactly* for the reason to have double checks
in place after the civil war.

Yes, that was certainly understandable at that time.

But even you should have noticed
that things are just a tad different now.

Pity you haven't.


--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

On 11/09/15 11:01, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
In an attempt to give some visual interest. Otherwise it might as well
just be radio.

I listen to a huge amount of TV on the computer (courtesy of a freeview
dongle).

99% of all TV might as well be radio.

You don't need to *watch* it at all.
Generally I only bring up the picture for the car chase.

That doesn't surprise me at all. I wouldn't expect you to understand
anything about the arts.

TV is not Art.

Or, I suppose it is, to you.

No doubt you watch Corrie every might.



--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
That doesn't surprise me at all. I wouldn't expect you to understand
anything about the arts.

TV is not Art.

Of course not. No motion pictures or photography can be art to one who
uses the word 'lefty****'. A true judge of culture.

--
*A bicycle can't stand alone because it's two tyred.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
That doesn't surprise me at all. I wouldn't expect you to understand
anything about the arts.

TV is not Art.

Of course not. No motion pictures or photography can be art to one who
uses the word 'lefty****'. A true judge of culture.

OTOH, something is not art unless I decide it is. Alleged artists pop
up and say "This xyz is my latest work of art". My reaction is "Excuse
me? It's not art unless I say so".

My point is that art is in the eye of the beholder, not the producer.
Thus I can exclude unmade beds and similar ilk, such as an empty room
with the lights going on and off from time to time.

You, of course, are entirely at liberty to decide that an unmade bed
*is* art, and for you it then would be.

Possibly so. But to say a well crafted TV drama at its best - including
the skills of writing, acting, directing, lighting, camera operation etc
isn't art is just typical of ******s like Turnip.

--
*Why is the man who invests all your money called a broker? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 11/09/15 19:47, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:

In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
That doesn't surprise me at all. I wouldn't expect you to
understand
anything about the arts.

TV is not Art.

Of course not. No motion pictures or photography can be art to one who
uses the word 'lefty****'. A true judge of culture.

OTOH, something is not art unless I decide it is. Alleged artists pop
up and say "This xyz is my latest work of art". My reaction is "Excuse
me? It's not art unless I say so".

My point is that art is in the eye of the beholder, not the producer.
Thus I can exclude unmade beds and similar ilk, such as an empty room
with the lights going on and off from time to time.

You, of course, are entirely at liberty to decide that an unmade bed
*is* art, and for you it then would be.

Possibly so. But to say a well crafted TV drama at its best - including
the skills of writing, acting, directing, lighting, camera operation etc
isn't art is just typical of ******s like Turnip.

Now now. It can demonstrate all those skills and be technically
excellent. Art is something else.

Art is not Craft.

Oddly, they use different words on that basis.


--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.

"News" wrote in message
...
In message , Jim Thomas
writes
"Dave Liquorice" wrote in message

and didn't have much of a choice.

She always had the choice of making an obscene gesture and doing what
that fool of an uncle of hers did.

To the rest of us, she had a choice. To her, she didn't.

In fact she always had the same choice that fool of an uncle of hers did.

QEII sees her job as a duty, without choice.

Irrelevant to whether she always had a choice.

You can debate that for as long as you like, but just remember, HM does
not see any choice.

She always had a choice.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 11/09/15 10:32, Jim Thomas wrote:


"Tim Watts" wrote in message
news
On 11/09/15 09:17, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Thu, 10 Sep 2015 22:00:31 +1000, Jim Thomas wrote:

Remember, the armed forces serve thee Crown, not the Govt.

Makes a lot more sense for the govt of the day to decide what the
armed
forces do.

One small step to Military Dictatorship.


Exactly

Nope.

- and it just goes to show how ignorant of not too distant history
people are.

Some of us have noticed that the world
has moved on just a tad since Cromwell.

But not it seems, you, and the rest of the humourless puritanical Left.

I have nothing whatever to do with the left
at all and am well to the right of center.

It was set up like this *exactly* for the reason to have double checks
in place after the civil war.

Yes, that was certainly understandable at that time.

But even you should have noticed
that things are just a tad different now.

Pity you haven't.

You never could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

On 11/09/15 20:47, Jim Thomas wrote:


You never could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

You couldn't find a can of Fosters in the bottom of a paper grocery bag.

You okker.

"Jim Thomas" wrote in message
...


"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 11/09/15 10:32, Jim Thomas wrote:


"Tim Watts" wrote in message
news On 11/09/15 09:17, Dave Liquorice wrote:
On Thu, 10 Sep 2015 22:00:31 +1000, Jim Thomas wrote:

Remember, the armed forces serve thee Crown, not the Govt.

Makes a lot more sense for the govt of the day to decide what the
armed
forces do.

One small step to Military Dictatorship.


Exactly

Nope.

- and it just goes to show how ignorant of not too distant history
people are.

Some of us have noticed that the world
has moved on just a tad since Cromwell.

But not it seems, you, and the rest of the humourless puritanical Left.

I have nothing whatever to do with the left
at all and am well to the right of center.

It was set up like this *exactly* for the reason to have double checks
in place after the civil war.

Yes, that was certainly understandable at that time.

But even you should have noticed
that things are just a tad different now.

Pity you haven't.

You never could bull**** your way out of a wet paper bag.

Prick.

On 11/09/15 22:11, Tim Streater wrote:

My criterion for initially filtering is: could I do that. If I can, and
since I am not, in my opinion, an artist, then it is not art. Thus, an
unmade bed is not art. A simple pencil drawing of someone's face, or of
a landscape, however, is. Simples.


Is a court artist's sketch art - or just a facsimile?

"Chris Hogg" wrote in message
...

On Fri, 11 Sep 2015 22:11:19 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Chris Hogg
wrote:
(Tracy Emin is actually a very fine artist).

In your opinion (which I hasten to add is a perfectly valid opinion).

My criterion for initially filtering is: could I do that. If I can, and
since I am not, in my opinion, an artist, then it is not art. Thus, an
unmade bed is not art. A simple pencil drawing of someone's face, or of
a landscape, however, is. Simples.

I would absolutely agree with you. An unmade bed is not art. I should
have qualified my comment about Tracy Emin. She is quite capable of
good traditional or conventional art, the sort that we both would
recognise as art. 'My bed', and much of her other 'conceptual' stuff
is/was something of an aberration, IMO.

PS: Why has 'simple' become plural these days. I know it's widely
used, but why the change? I don't understand...

meerkat

On 12/09/15 08:11, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Fri, 11 Sep 2015 22:11:19 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , Chris Hogg
wrote:
(Tracy Emin is actually a very fine artist).

In your opinion (which I hasten to add is a perfectly valid opinion).

My criterion for initially filtering is: could I do that. If I can, and
since I am not, in my opinion, an artist, then it is not art. Thus, an
unmade bed is not art. A simple pencil drawing of someone's face, or of
a landscape, however, is. Simples.


Oddly enough Tracy's unmade bed brought back memories of squats and low
rent shared houses I have known, and brought a smile to my face. As a
symbol of a certain sort of lifestyle, I reckoned it made its point, and
that's probably what I would call 'art'...a symbol for a larger idea.

I would absolutely agree with you. An unmade bed is not art. I should
have qualified my comment about Tracy Emin. She is quite capable of
good traditional or conventional art, the sort that we both would
recognise as art. 'My bed', and much of her other 'conceptual' stuff
is/was something of an aberration, IMO.

When I knew Anthony Gormley, back in the day, he also was capable of
some superb drawing and painting. That he also needs to be radical and
fashionable and do massive 'installations' is a sad sign of the times
and the way art is funded not by rich patrons, but by faceless
bureaucrats and luvvies.


PS: Why has 'simple' become plural these days. I know it's widely
used, but why the change? I don't understand...

comparethemarket.com

--
New Socialism consists essentially in being seen to have your heart in
the right place whilst your head is in the clouds and your hand is in
someone else's pocket.