There was a fire in a warehouse that destroyed hundreds of examples of
the finest modern British art.

And the bad news is that it was all insured. Charles Saatchi can afford
to go and get the ******s to produce more.


--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

On Wed, 26 May 2004 16:56:38 +0000 (UTC), "Michael Mcneil"
wrote:

There was a fire in a warehouse that destroyed hundreds of examples of
the finest modern British art.

And the bad news is that it was all insured. Charles Saatchi can afford
to go and get the ******s to produce more.


.... and here's me thinking that I was the only cynic that thought that
sum total of human creativity had improved today...


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

"Michael Mcneil" wrote in message
news:0890b368cb1f9eba6772468019774c0c.45219@mygate .mailgate.org...
There was a fire in a warehouse that destroyed hundreds of examples of
the finest modern British art.

And the bad news is that it was all insured. Charles Saatchi can afford
to go and get the ******s to produce more.

And he wouldn't it be just like one of them to declare the charred remains
to be a new Work O'fArt ;-)

"Michael Mcneil" wrote in message
news:0890b368cb1f9eba6772468019774c0c.45219@mygate .mailgate.org...
There was a fire in a warehouse that destroyed hundreds of examples of
the finest modern British art.

And the bad news is that it was all insured. Charles Saatchi can afford
to go and get the ******s to produce more.


The REALLY bad news is, it will probably mean (or be used as an excuses for)
a hike in insurance premiums.... :~(

Michael Mcneil wrote:

There was a fire in a warehouse that destroyed hundreds of examples of
the finest modern British art.

And the bad news is that it was all insured. Charles Saatchi can afford
to go and get the ******s to produce more.

I've got an old Millets tent in the loft, anyone got
a rotten old shed? Perhaps we can set up a donation
for the poor fella.


--
jc

Remove the -not from email

In message lgate.org,
Michael Mcneil writes
There was a fire in a warehouse that destroyed hundreds of examples of
the finest modern British art.

And the bad news is that it was all insured. Charles Saatchi can afford
to go and get the ******s to produce more.

And were two members of a certain union seen having a punch up while
BBQing Daemon Hirst's cow ?

--
geoff

In message in6tc.591$Uy1.46@newsfe1-win, Jeremy Collins
writes
Michael Mcneil wrote:

There was a fire in a warehouse that destroyed hundreds of examples of
the finest modern British art.
And the bad news is that it was all insured. Charles Saatchi can
afford
to go and get the ******s to produce more.

I've got an old Millets tent in the loft, anyone got
a rotten old shed? Perhaps we can set up a donation
for the poor fella.


Fellerette you mean? ... Tracey Emim

You realise you might have to have sex with that awful woman to try and
recreate the original



--
geoff

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message in6tc.591$Uy1.46@newsfe1-win, Jeremy Collins
writes
Michael Mcneil wrote:

There was a fire in a warehouse that destroyed hundreds of examples of
the finest modern British art.
And the bad news is that it was all insured. Charles Saatchi can
afford
to go and get the ******s to produce more.

I've got an old Millets tent in the loft, anyone got
a rotten old shed? Perhaps we can set up a donation
for the poor fella.


Fellerette you mean? ... Tracey Emim

You realise you might have to have sex with that awful woman to try and
recreate the original

Do you know her? Do you know that she's an awful woman?

And you're wrong anyway, it was all the people she's slept with, including
her twin brother, in the womb, her mother, her friends - not just her
lovers.

The comments I've read so far say more about the commentators than about the
art.

Mary



--
geoff

In message , Mary
Fisher writes

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message in6tc.591$Uy1.46@newsfe1-win, Jeremy Collins
writes
Michael Mcneil wrote:

There was a fire in a warehouse that destroyed hundreds of examples of
the finest modern British art.
And the bad news is that it was all insured. Charles Saatchi can
afford
to go and get the ******s to produce more.

I've got an old Millets tent in the loft, anyone got
a rotten old shed? Perhaps we can set up a donation
for the poor fella.


Fellerette you mean? ... Tracey Emim

You realise you might have to have sex with that awful woman to try and
recreate the original

Do you know her? Do you know that she's an awful woman?

And you're wrong anyway, it was all the people she's slept with, including
her twin brother, in the womb, her mother, her friends - not just her
lovers.

The comments I've read so far say more about the commentators than about the
art.

I reserve the right to dislike her and to question to what extent it's
art.

it's concept over substance.

My test to measure the artistic quality is to ask myself whether if I
had produced the same, would I have received the same adulation / money
?
The answer being a resounding "no", I conclude that it's the artist, not
the art which is important. It seems a huge scam to me.
--
geoff

"geoff" wrote in message
...


My test to measure the artistic quality is to ask myself whether if I
had produced the same, would I have received the same adulation / money
?
The answer being a resounding "no", I conclude that it's the artist, not
the art which is important. It seems a huge scam to me.

So it's about money!

I'm not keen on her work either, nor Damien's (even though he lived just up
the road and is a friend of one of our sons) but more knowledgeable people
than me rate their work highly. Who am I to argue with them?

Mary

Mary
--
geoff

In message , Mary
Fisher writes

"geoff" wrote in message
...


My test to measure the artistic quality is to ask myself whether if I
had produced the same, would I have received the same adulation / money
?
The answer being a resounding "no", I conclude that it's the artist, not
the art which is important. It seems a huge scam to me.

So it's about money!

I'm not keen on her work either, nor Damien's (even though he lived just up
the road and is a friend of one of our sons) but more knowledgeable people
than me rate their work highly. Who am I to argue with them?


Go for it gel, say what you think (as usual) ... a heap of elephant dung
is also a pile of ****

Mary

Mary

Quite contrary ...


--
geoff

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , Mary
Fisher writes

"geoff" wrote in message
...


My test to measure the artistic quality is to ask myself whether if I
had produced the same, would I have received the same adulation / money
?
The answer being a resounding "no", I conclude that it's the artist,
not
the art which is important. It seems a huge scam to me.

So it's about money!

I'm not keen on her work either, nor Damien's (even though he lived just
up
the road and is a friend of one of our sons) but more knowledgeable
people
than me rate their work highly. Who am I to argue with them?


Go for it gel, say what you think (as usual) ... a heap of elephant dung
is also a pile of ****

Oh - how original (1)

Mary

Mary

Quite contrary ...

Oh, how original (2)

Any more where they came from?

Mary


--
geoff

geoff wrote in message ...


Go for it gel, say what you think (as usual) ... a heap of elephant dung
is also a pile of ****



Thus, a lot more useful!

Regards
Capitol

"geoff" wrote
| Go for it gel, say what you think (as usual) ... a heap of elephant dung
| is also a pile of ****

arty But it's how it's arranged, and the concept behind it, that matters.
/arty

Besides, the elephant didn't apply for an arts council grant.

Owain

"John Stumbles" wrote in message


to go and get the ####### to produce more.

And wouldn't it be just like one of them to declare the charred remains
to be a new Work O'fArt ;-)

I may not be an artist but I know what I like. Even Charlie boy had the
sense to keep it all piled in a shed.

Perhaps it was the ultimat accolade. Hang the perpetrator in the Tate
says I.



--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"Owain" wrote in message


"geoff" wrote
| Go for it gel, say what you think (as usual) ... a heap of elephant dung
| is also a pile of ****

arty But it's how it's arranged, and the concept behind it, that matters.
farty

Besides, the elephant didn't apply for an arts council grant.

Mary has the gumption to say what she likes even though not at first
clearly intimating her opinions, however she feels unable to form an
opinion of the crap.

Clearly conditioner in a fancy bottle has been used on her. Or was it
one of those room stink bombs?

Anyone here could have done the same as the artists (?) whose works (?)
were so well done. The point is that if we did, we would either give up
or try to do better. Anyone have the gen on the zoo keeper who entered a
painting by an elephant into a competition run by some experts (?) and
the painting was very well recieved?

They were cut up to find out what they held had merit was some animal's
doodles.




--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
. net...

"geoff" wrote in message
...


My test to measure the artistic quality is to ask myself whether if I
had produced the same, would I have received the same adulation / money
?
The answer being a resounding "no", I conclude that it's the artist, not
the art which is important. It seems a huge scam to me.

So it's about money!

I'm not keen on her work either, nor Damien's (even though he lived just up
the road and is a friend of one of our sons) but more knowledgeable people
than me rate their work highly. Who am I to argue with them?

Mary, don't you think there might be an element of the King's Suit of Clothes
syndrome here? Isn't it possible the "more knowledgeable" people you speak of
might be more influenced by what's fashionable at any point in time, rather than
by true talent? I don't know about modern art, but I know this certainly
happens in other art forms, particularly interior design, architecture and even
music. Do you remember that piece called "4 minutes 33 seconds" by John Cage,
where the "performer" opens the lid of the piano keyboard, sits for several
minutes in silence and then closes the lid again and takes his bow. Is there
really any talent in that? What do you think when you see all the people
applauding? Are they really experts, or are they brainless Lemmings following a
fashionable trend? It's the same with avant garde modern art. You can guess
what I think.

Peter

Charles Saatchi can afford
to go and get the ******s to produce more.

... and even worse than that, pay them again.

It's hardly the artists' fault that speculators inflate the value of their
work. Always takes a few decades for the avant garde to become mainstream
but, on this occasion, I reckon somebody got cold feet and settled for the
insurance money.

On Wed, 26 May 2004 22:20:15 +0100, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:

I'm not keen on her work either, nor Damien's (even though he lived just up
the road and is a friend of one of our sons) but more knowledgeable people
than me rate their work highly.

It's all a case of the emperors new clothes though, innit? One
'critic' says that it is 'art' and everone else follows suit.

Why is it that when damien hirst pickles a dead rabbit it is "Art"
worth million, but if I were to do exactly the same it'd simply be a
"picked rabbit" worth nothing?

Who am I to argue with them?

Why should you not argue with the self-proclaimed experts? After all
they are the ones calling themselves experts, no-one else!

It's all a scam I tell ye!

sPoNiX

Former Turner prize nominee, Tracey Emin today blasted comments by Ivan
Massow, head of the Institute of Contemporary Arts, who said that most
conceptual art was "nothing but a pile of old crap" as a deliberate
attempt to upstage and leak details of her latest masterpiece "A
Steaming Lump Of **** Wot I Did". Emin immediately called for the
resignation of Massow. She told theSchmews that to leak details of her
new work could seriously affect the shock value and subsequent resale
value was unforgiveable and completely missed the importance her work
has on all art.

Mr Massow wrote in the New Statesman magazine: "It is the product of
over-indulged, middle class (barely concealed behind mockney accents),
bloated egos who patronise real people with fake understanding." Emin
was quick to refute this saying that her latest work explores the real
inner workings of her mind and body and should be viewed as a valued
contribution to the art world.

"Even when Steaming Lump was just on the floor in my studio, guvnor,
gawd bless yuh, I began to realise its importance when it began to not
only attract human interest but also, bleedin' amazingly, fousands of
flies." Emin admits that she did consider including the flies as part of
the exhibit but felt that it may be confused with the work of enfant
terrible of the contemporary art world Damien Hurst.

The Saatchi gallery, which has already expressed an interest in Emin's
latest work and was described by Mr Massow as "anally retentive" refused
to comment except to say that Mr Massow wouldn't understand contempory
art if he stepped in it whilst walking in the park. The gallery later
retracted the statement after realising that "A Stepped In Squishy Dog
**** And Used Condom" would also form part of Miss Emin's latest exhibition.





Article lifted shamelessly from
http://www.satiresearch.com/article.asp?id=248&type=1

"Peter Taylor" wrote in message
...
"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
. net...

"geoff" wrote in message
...


My test to measure the artistic quality is to ask myself whether if I
had produced the same, would I have received the same adulation /
money
?
The answer being a resounding "no", I conclude that it's the artist,
not
the art which is important. It seems a huge scam to me.

So it's about money!

I'm not keen on her work either, nor Damien's (even though he lived just
up
the road and is a friend of one of our sons) but more knowledgeable
people
than me rate their work highly. Who am I to argue with them?

Mary, don't you think there might be an element of the King's Suit of
Clothes
syndrome here? Isn't it possible the "more knowledgeable" people you
speak of
might be more influenced by what's fashionable at any point in time,
rather than
by true talent? I don't know about modern art, but I know this certainly
happens in other art forms, particularly interior design, architecture and
even
music. Do you remember that piece called "4 minutes 33 seconds" by John
Cage,
where the "performer" opens the lid of the piano keyboard, sits for
several
minutes in silence and then closes the lid again and takes his bow. Is
there
really any talent in that? What do you think when you see all the people
applauding? Are they really experts, or are they brainless Lemmings
following a
fashionable trend? It's the same with avant garde modern art. You can
guess
what I think.

Well, I know that many people say that they could do the same - or that
their three year old or whtever could. But they don't!

It's too easy for anyone to call another a brainless lemming. It could be
said that the ones who propound their (not very eloquent) opinions on this
ng are brainless lemmings - I'm not saying it. I don't say that of anyone. I
do know that I respect the opinion of those who know more about a subject
than I do and I haven't seen much of that round here when it comes to art.

You might be surprised to see the art which decorates my walls and ceilings
and garden ...

Mary

Peter

"sPoNiX" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 May 2004 22:20:15 +0100, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:

I'm not keen on her work either, nor Damien's (even though he lived just
up
the road and is a friend of one of our sons) but more knowledgeable
people
than me rate their work highly.

It's all a case of the emperors new clothes though, innit? One
'critic' says that it is 'art' and everone else follows suit.

Why is it that when damien hirst pickles a dead rabbit it is "Art"
worth million, but if I were to do exactly the same it'd simply be a
"picked rabbit" worth nothing?

Have you done it?

Has Damien?

Who am I to argue with them?

Why should you not argue with the self-proclaimed experts? After all
they are the ones calling themselves experts, no-one else!

It's all a scam I tell ye!

You're an expert on scam then ;-)

Mary

sPoNiX

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
. net...

"Peter Taylor" wrote in message
...
"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
. net...

"geoff" wrote in message
...


snip


It's too easy for anyone to call another a brainless lemming. It could be
said that the ones who propound their (not very eloquent) opinions on this
ng are brainless lemmings - I'm not saying it. I don't say that of anyone.
I
do know that I respect the opinion of those who know more about a subject
than I do and I haven't seen much of that round here when it comes to art.

You might be surprised to see the art which decorates my walls and
ceilings
and garden ...


Ah but the act of calling supporters of such art "brainless lemmings" is all
part of the overall artistic process. The Fauvist movement at the beginning
of the 20th Century got its name because they were called wild beasts by
people who didn't like their art.

Just as those who like Damien Hirst's work are fully entitled to praise and
buy it (and enjoy it) others have the right to pour (artistic) scorn on them
for doing so. The discussion of art by "those who don't know much about art"
as you put it is essential in a civilized society (or even a ng). There can
be no "right" or "wrong" in such a subjective area, only discussion about
right and wrong.

The issue of art as an investment is relatively modern and, some may say,
injurious to art but the buying and selling of art occurs between consenting
adults and it's their money.

Bob Mannix

Michael Mcneil wrote:
"John Stumbles" wrote in message


to go and get the ####### to produce more.

And wouldn't it be just like one of them to declare the charred remains
to be a new Work O'fArt ;-)

I may not be an artist but I know what I like. Even Charlie boy had the
sense to keep it all piled in a shed.

Perhaps it was the ultimat accolade. Hang the perpetrator in the Tate
says I.

Get Damien Hearst in.
Barrel of formaldehyde, couple of fishtanks, chainsaw, job-done.

"sPoNiX" wrote
| Why is it that when damien hirst pickles a dead rabbit it is
| "Art" worth million, but if I were to do exactly the same
| it'd simply be a "pickled rabbit" worth nothing?

The only way it would be worth nothing is if Ebay don't allow pickled
rabbits. If Ebay allow pickled rabbits then somebody will buy it.

Owain

"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
. net...

"Peter Taylor" wrote in message
...
"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
. net...

"geoff" wrote in message
...


My test to measure the artistic quality is to ask myself whether if I
had produced the same, would I have received the same adulation /
money
?
The answer being a resounding "no", I conclude that it's the artist,
not
the art which is important. It seems a huge scam to me.

So it's about money!

I'm not keen on her work either, nor Damien's (even though he lived just
up
the road and is a friend of one of our sons) but more knowledgeable
people
than me rate their work highly. Who am I to argue with them?

Mary, don't you think there might be an element of the King's Suit of
Clothes
syndrome here? Isn't it possible the "more knowledgeable" people you
speak of
might be more influenced by what's fashionable at any point in time,
rather than
by true talent? I don't know about modern art, but I know this certainly
happens in other art forms, particularly interior design, architecture and
even
music. Do you remember that piece called "4 minutes 33 seconds" by John
Cage,
where the "performer" opens the lid of the piano keyboard, sits for
several
minutes in silence and then closes the lid again and takes his bow. Is
there
really any talent in that? What do you think when you see all the people
applauding? Are they really experts, or are they brainless Lemmings
following a
fashionable trend? It's the same with avant garde modern art. You can
guess
what I think.

Well, I know that many people say that they could do the same - or that
their three year old or whtever could. But they don't!

But like sPoNiX said, if I was to "compose" a piece of silent music, nobody
would take any notice. John Cage was well known for writing avant garde music
from the early 40's, at least 10 years before he wrote 4'33". I haven't had the
chance to design any avant garde buildings, but I have been trying to dabble
with weird sounds, but nobody has shown any interest. That's because my work is
not fashionable.

It's too easy for anyone to call another a brainless lemming. It could be
said that the ones who propound their (not very eloquent) opinions on this
ng are brainless lemmings - I'm not saying it. I don't say that of anyone. I
do know that I respect the opinion of those who know more about a subject
than I do and I haven't seen much of that round here when it comes to art.

I didn't call anyone a brainless lemming. I asked whether you felt that people
who follow fashion for the sake of it, like the King's courtiers who praised him
for going naked, could be described as such. As far as knowledge of art is
concerned I could be called brainless, but I'm certainly not a lemming.

You might be surprised to see the art which decorates my walls and ceilings
and garden ...

Maybe, but I don't know you well so I have no preconceptions about your taste in
art. Mary, I am not decrying your taste or anyone else's - I merely pointed out
that fashions and trends play a large part in what is classed as "good" and
"bad" art, and free thinkers form their own opinions.

Did you see Dairmuid the gardener on TV last night, building his display for
Chelsea? He had some really weird ideas I thought, but some aspects of it were
clever, and I would have praised him for those. What I didn't like was the
people who gushed with fake praise about the whole thing, not because they
really liked it, but because that's what they thought would enhance their own
personalities. They are the modern King's courtiers in my view, as are many
avant garde art and music fanciers.

Peter

In message , Mary
Fisher writes

Mary

Mary

Quite contrary ...

Oh, how original (2)

Any more where they came from?

Yes, but I have to ration you to two /post
--
geoff

In message , Owain
writes
"geoff" wrote
| Go for it gel, say what you think (as usual) ... a heap of elephant dung
| is also a pile of ****

arty But it's how it's arranged, and the concept behind it, that matters.
/arty

Besides, the elephant didn't apply for an arts council grant.

Even if they had, it would have been truncated

--
geoff

In message , Peter Taylor
writes
"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
.net...

"geoff" wrote in message
...


My test to measure the artistic quality is to ask myself whether if I
had produced the same, would I have received the same adulation / money
?
The answer being a resounding "no", I conclude that it's the artist, not
the art which is important. It seems a huge scam to me.

So it's about money!

I'm not keen on her work either, nor Damien's (even though he lived just up
the road and is a friend of one of our sons) but more knowledgeable people
than me rate their work highly. Who am I to argue with them?

Mary, don't you think there might be an element of the King's Suit of Clothes
syndrome here? Isn't it possible the "more knowledgeable" people you speak of
might be more influenced by what's fashionable at any point in time,
rather than
by true talent? I don't know about modern art, but I know this certainly
happens in other art forms, particularly interior design, architecture and even
music. Do you remember that piece called "4 minutes 33 seconds" by John Cage,
I was going to mention that, but forgot his name and was too lazy to
google it. Thanks, you've put me out of my misery.

Of course, the question which has never been answered is, what key is it
in?

Do you realise that at it's first performance, several sad people burst
into tears because they got so emotional ?
--
geoff

In message , Mary
Fisher writes

"Peter Taylor" wrote in message
.. .
"Mary Fisher" wrote in message
. net...

"geoff" wrote in message
...


My test to measure the artistic quality is to ask myself whether if I
had produced the same, would I have received the same adulation /
money
?
The answer being a resounding "no", I conclude that it's the artist,
not
the art which is important. It seems a huge scam to me.

So it's about money!

I'm not keen on her work either, nor Damien's (even though he lived just
up
the road and is a friend of one of our sons) but more knowledgeable
people
than me rate their work highly. Who am I to argue with them?

Mary, don't you think there might be an element of the King's Suit of
Clothes
syndrome here? Isn't it possible the "more knowledgeable" people you
speak of
might be more influenced by what's fashionable at any point in time,
rather than
by true talent? I don't know about modern art, but I know this certainly
happens in other art forms, particularly interior design, architecture and
even
music. Do you remember that piece called "4 minutes 33 seconds" by John
Cage,
where the "performer" opens the lid of the piano keyboard, sits for
several
minutes in silence and then closes the lid again and takes his bow. Is
there
really any talent in that? What do you think when you see all the people
applauding? Are they really experts, or are they brainless Lemmings
following a
fashionable trend? It's the same with avant garde modern art. You can
guess
what I think.

Well, I know that many people say that they could do the same - or that
their three year old or whtever could. But they don't!


A) the people who can get away with such things tend to be already
established, if you or I did it, nobody would take any notice

If I went along and said look at this fantastic new composition of mine
- it's four and a half minutes silence, do you really think I'd be taken
seriously?

B) why would I do something which I fail to see any artistic merit in ?

--
geoff

On Wed, 26 May 2004 18:29:16 +0100, Jerry. wrote:


"Michael Mcneil" wrote in message
news:0890b368cb1f9eba6772468019774c0c.45219@mygate .mailgate.org...
There was a fire in a warehouse that destroyed hundreds of examples of
the finest modern British art.

And the bad news is that it was all insured. Charles Saatchi can afford
to go and get the ******s to produce more.


The REALLY bad news is, it will probably mean (or be used as an excuses for)
a hike in insurance premiums.... :~(

This reminds me of something I read a few years back.
Apparently CS owned a work of modern 'art' consisting of a head sculpted
from frozen blood (the artist's own IIRC).

CS's woman (Nigella Lawson [1]) had the builders in to extend the house or
some such - electrical work was included in the plan so guess what
happened to the freezer and the blood....


[1] Yes the one who cooks Shepherd's pie with Venison and calls it
'Rudolph Pie' 8-)

--
Ed Sirett - Property maintainer and registered gas fitter.
The FAQ for uk.diy is at www.diyfaq.org.uk
Gas fitting FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/GasFitting.html
Sealed CH FAQ http://www.makewrite.demon.co.uk/SealedCH.html

On Thu, 27 May 2004 21:35:26 +0100, geoff wrote:

In message , Owain
writes
"geoff" wrote
| Go for it gel, say what you think (as usual) ... a heap of elephant dung
| is also a pile of ****

arty But it's how it's arranged, and the concept behind it, that matters.
/arty

Besides, the elephant didn't apply for an arts council grant.

Even if they had, it would have been truncated

tusk, tusk.....


..andy

To email, substitute .nospam with .gl

Ed Sirett wrote
This reminds me of something I read a few years back.
Apparently CS owned a work of modern 'art' consisting of a head sculpted
from frozen blood (the artist's own IIRC).

CS's woman (Nigella Lawson [1]) had the builders in to extend the house or
some such - electrical work was included in the plan so guess what
happened to the freezer and the blood....

Did he keep a cool head when he discovered it?

geoff wrote
Do you remember that piece called "4 minutes 33 seconds" by John Cage,

I was going to mention that, but forgot his name and was too lazy to
google it. Thanks, you've put me out of my misery.

Of course, the question which has never been answered is, what key is it
in?

Do you realise that at it's first performance, several sad people burst
into tears because they got so emotional ?


Now come on Geoff, shape up! It's in B# of course! I heard that every time he
played it, John Cage insisted the piano was detuned to A=435.

You can watch a complete performance of it on line if you have Real Player.
It's at
http://home.flash.net/~jronsen/cagelinks.html Scroll down to where it says
Online Video Item 4 or search for 4'33". It even has background sounds of jet
airliners and a police siren!

I reckon they are all practical jokers really. I can just see John Cage or
Tracey Emin getting home after a long day at the silent piano or at the Tate,
and laughing their socks off at all the idiots who've been taken in.

Peter

In message , Peter Taylor
writes
Ed Sirett wrote
This reminds me of something I read a few years back.
Apparently CS owned a work of modern 'art' consisting of a head sculpted
from frozen blood (the artist's own IIRC).

CS's woman (Nigella Lawson [1]) had the builders in to extend the house or
some such - electrical work was included in the plan so guess what
happened to the freezer and the blood....

Did he keep a cool head when he discovered it?

Nah, she probably gave him some though
--
geoff

In message , Peter Taylor
writes
geoff wrote
Do you remember that piece called "4 minutes 33 seconds" by John Cage,

I was going to mention that, but forgot his name and was too lazy to
google it. Thanks, you've put me out of my misery.

Of course, the question which has never been answered is, what key is it
in?

Do you realise that at it's first performance, several sad people burst
into tears because they got so emotional ?


Now come on Geoff, shape up! It's in B# of course! I heard that every time he
played it, John Cage insisted the piano was detuned to A=435.

So you're saying it's in B#flat then ...

I bet my parents wish I had learned that piece when I was young


You can watch a complete performance of it on line if you have Real Player.
It's at
http://home.flash.net/~jronsen/cagelinks.html Scroll down to where it says
Online Video Item 4 or search for 4'33". It even has background sounds of jet
airliners and a police siren!

Err .. I'll pass on that one, despite the fact that I accidentally
missed it on the radio a couple of months ago


I reckon they are all practical jokers really. I can just see John Cage or
Tracey Emin getting home after a long day at the silent piano or at the Tate,
and laughing their socks off at all the idiots who've been taken in.

Exactly

A bit like the current egg card adverts

--
geoff

"Andy Hall" wrote
| geoff wrote:
| Besides, the elephant didn't apply for an arts council grant.
| Even if they had, it would have been truncated
| tusk, tusk.....

Howdah people come up with these puns ...

Owain

Ed Sirett wrote:
On Wed, 26 May 2004 18:29:16 +0100, Jerry. wrote:


"Michael Mcneil" wrote in message
news:0890b368cb1f9eba6772468019774c0c.45219@mygate .mailgate.org...
There was a fire in a warehouse that destroyed hundreds of examples of
the finest modern British art.

And the bad news is that it was all insured. Charles Saatchi can afford
to go and get the ******s to produce more.


The REALLY bad news is, it will probably mean (or be used as an excuses for)
a hike in insurance premiums.... :~(

This reminds me of something I read a few years back.
Apparently CS owned a work of modern 'art' consisting of a head sculpted
from frozen blood (the artist's own IIRC).

CS's woman (Nigella Lawson [1]) had the builders in to extend the house or
some such - electrical work was included in the plan so guess what
happened to the freezer and the blood....

Black pudding?

In message , Owain
writes
"Andy Hall" wrote
| geoff wrote:
| Besides, the elephant didn't apply for an arts council grant.
| Even if they had, it would have been truncated
| tusk, tusk.....

Howdah people come up with these puns ...

Don't you think you should hide now ?

--
geoff

geoff wrote
So you're saying it's in B#flat then ...

Sort of - depends on the temperature and the coefficient of expansion of the
piano strings - but there or thereabouts.


I bet my parents wish I had learned that piece when I was young

I tried to learn it but it was too hard. I was only 6 and the piano lid was too
heavy. Besides, I could tell the time at that age.


You can watch a complete performance of it on line if you have Real Player.
It's at
http://home.flash.net/~jronsen/cagelinks.html Scroll down to where it says
Online Video Item 4 or search for 4'33". It even has background sounds of
jet
airliners and a police siren!

Err .. I'll pass on that one, despite the fact that I accidentally
missed it on the radio a couple of months ago

Oh NO!! Did you miss it? That was the best performance I never heard! I've got
it on tape somewhere if you'd like to not hear it.

I reckon they are all practical jokers really. I can just see John Cage or
Tracey Emin getting home after a long day at the silent piano or at the Tate,
and laughing their socks off at all the idiots who've been taken in.

Exactly

A bit like the current egg card adverts

Never watch adverts, but I expect you're right!

OK, it's time for me to go to "My Bed" and think of "All the people I ever slept
with". On second thoughts no, the thought of Tracey Emin puts you off don't it?
G'night. )

Peter