RMweb Premium Northroader Posted February 2, 2018 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 2, 2018 (edited) Northroader Read what I wrote again, with seaside postcard humour in mind. Kevin As a form of penance for opening my mouth and putting my size eleven in it, I thought I’d backtrack through this thread and find said pre raff, and I’m afraid I got lost on the way. The last preraff was page 286 post 7146, and I realised the one you were on about happened so far back as to be lost in mists of the web. Looking at the date for the one I quote is 14th Jan. 14th Jan!???, that’s only just over a fortnight ago, and it seems so much has been said since. My, don’t we go at a lick? Still, I fancy the same things were roughly expressed with that one as previous one, so the point is taken, I think perhaps maybe yes? Edited February 2, 2018 by Northroader Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nearholmer Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 Northroader Think, if I may put it this way, long and hard about the subject of post 7600, the read what I said in 7608. Maybe it’s a things that fades with the passing of the years. Anyway ........ rail, steam, and speed: 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium St Enodoc Posted February 2, 2018 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 2, 2018 Maybe it’s a things that fades with the passing of the years. The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium TheQ Posted February 2, 2018 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 2, 2018 Northroader Think, if I may put it this way, long and hard about the subject of post 7600, the read what I said in 7608. Maybe it’s a things that fades with the passing of the years. Anyway ........ rail, steam, and speed: Proper Norfolk would say.. Hold yew Hard, Bor.. or Go yew Steady, Bor.. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hroth Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 Pre-raffs - the new witch hunt........ Sad that the New Puritans have to dig so deep to find a new subject to be outraged by. Their brains seem to lack a "context filter" so that anything that exhibits the undraped human form, male or (especially) female is now deemed to be pornographic and unsuitable for public display. Having performed (at great risk to my moral self) a count, I find that "Hylas and the Nymphs" is equivalent to 3 OSNCTI or "Old Sun Page 3s". Its a pretty minimal titillation level. In addition the ferns and associated greenery clearly label it as High Art. If Hylas had been kneeling on the edge of an equivalently populated jacuzzi, it would have been a completely different matter! We must Strike Back against this Prudery!!! Of course, Waterhouse seemed to produce a lot of tempting young women..... Personally, I suspect that Manchester Art Museum has a Pre-raff exhibition up its sleeve, and the withdrawl of Hylas et al is just a bit of attention grabbing... 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwardian Posted February 2, 2018 Author Share Posted February 2, 2018 Manchester City Art gallery hosted a major contemporary pre-raff exhibition, and purchased many of the works, which provided it with the basis of its pre-raff collection. I believe Birmingham did something similar. So, part of the context of this picture is that it is a prominent part of a significant collection. Clearly the sirens must have been alluring in order to pull off this stunt, because, IIRC, Hylas batted for the other team. One possible feminist interpretation that would allow the picture to survive would be that the sirens are taking revenge, in the form of Hylas, both upon ancient Greek patriarchy that stereo-typed them as proto-Eve seductresses, and upon the artist for objectivising them physically. On the other hand the pre, or, possibly, post-feminist interpretation is, presumably, that the nymphs are desperate for Hylas to come home with them as they need a man to change a light bulb/wire a plug/extract a spider from the bath/open a jam jar etc. All of which proves that, where art is concerned, it is really very easy to talk complete b0ll0cks. Cue the curator of the Manchester City Art Gallery ... 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wagonman Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 Proper Norfolk would say.. Hold yew Hard, Bor.. or Go yew Steady, Bor.. Thar's trew. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nearholmer Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 What they’ve done is very overtly an ‘attention grabber’. They talk about it as a way of ‘initiating a conversation’, but it sniffed to me of initiating a few more visitors through the front door, because attendances are flagging, or of the gallery director promoting their own name on the telly, in the papers, and on social media. I’m not aware that, before they took the painting down, there was some storm of controversy whirling around the topic of ‘nakedness in old paintings’. In all the times I’ve sat on trains and tubes, and in coffee shops, earwigging other peoples’ conversations, I’ve heard a great many interesting things, but not this being talked about. And, SWMBO very much has her finger on the pulse of what ‘the woman on the Clapham Facebook page’ is talking about, and it isn’t this. A storm that they’ve created in their own tea cup. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwardian Posted February 2, 2018 Author Share Posted February 2, 2018 What they’ve done is very overtly an ‘attention grabber’. They talk about it as a way of ‘initiating a conversation’, but it sniffed to me of initiating a few more visitors through the front door, because attendances are flagging, or of the gallery director promoting their own name on the telly, in the papers, and on social media. I’m not aware that, before they took the painting down, there was some storm of controversy whirling around the topic of ‘nakedness in old paintings’. In all the times I’ve sat on trains and tubes, and in coffee shops, earwigging other peoples’ conversations, I’ve heard a great many interesting things, but not this being talked about. And, SWMBO very much has her finger on the pulse of what ‘the woman on the Clapham Facebook page’ is talking about, and it isn’t this. A storm that they’ve created in their own tea cup. Oh, Kevin, so young and yet so cynical?!? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nearholmer Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 You’re too kind, Sir, too kind. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wagonman Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 What they’ve done is very overtly an ‘attention grabber’. They talk about it as a way of ‘initiating a conversation’, but it sniffed to me of initiating a few more visitors through the front door, because attendances are flagging, or of the gallery director promoting their own name on the telly, in the papers, and on social media. I’m not aware that, before they took the painting down, there was some storm of controversy whirling around the topic of ‘nakedness in old paintings’. In all the times I’ve sat on trains and tubes, and in coffee shops, earwigging other peoples’ conversations, I’ve heard a great many interesting things, but not this being talked about. And, SWMBO very much has her finger on the pulse of what ‘the woman on the Clapham Facebook page’ is talking about, and it isn’t this. A storm that they’ve created in their own tea cup. Quite so. Who's next for the prudish clear out? Alma Tadema? Rubens? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Northroader Posted February 2, 2018 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 2, 2018 To answer your question, I was walking across Trafalgar Square on Tuesday, admiring the sheer watery exuberance of the fountains: 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hroth Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 Now you know why dolphins and porpioses are always grinning...... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Compound2632 Posted February 2, 2018 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 2, 2018 Well, it must be a novel move to try to attract visitors to your gallery not to see a painting that isn't there. I dare say it's actually a rather interesting artistic concept, which could spread. Will the next model railway exhibition I attend be principally remembered for the layouts that aren't there? 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwardian Posted February 2, 2018 Author Share Posted February 2, 2018 Will the next model railway exhibition I attend be principally remembered for the layouts that aren't there? Well this topic is. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hroth Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 Well, it must be a novel move to try to attract visitors to your gallery not to see a painting that isn't there. I dare say it's actually a rather interesting artistic concept, which could spread. Will the next model railway exhibition I attend be principally remembered for the layouts that aren't there? As I was going down the stair, I met a man who wasn't there. He wasn't there again today, I wish that man would go away! As for non-existent* artistic expression, may I draw your attention to 4' 33" by John Cage? * Ok, it exists, but you know what I mean...... 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Compound2632 Posted February 2, 2018 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 2, 2018 (edited) As for non-existent* artistic expression, may I draw your attention to 4' 33" by John Cage? Ah, but not even Cage managed the removal of pre-existing sound. Of course, he might have announced a performance of the piece and then not have played it. Edited February 2, 2018 by Compound2632 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Regularity Posted February 2, 2018 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 2, 2018 Ah, but not even Cage managed the removal of pre-existing sound. Of course, he might have announced a performance of the piece and then not have played it.Actually, it is incredibly difficult for the orchestra to perform. They have to be there and make no noise whatsoever for the full 273 seconds. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwardian Posted February 2, 2018 Author Share Posted February 2, 2018 Ah, but not even Cage managed the removal of pre-existing sound. Of course, he might have announced a performance of the piece and then not have played it. I suggest staring at this for 4 minutes and 33 seconds. I think that does the job? 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tom Burnham Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 Now back on display. They've certainly "encouraged debate" within the CA parish council, if nowhere else... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-42917974 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Regularity Posted February 2, 2018 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 2, 2018 Well, I think that Romeo and Juliet should be banned for promoting under-age sex. Even if it wasn’t under-age at the time. I also think we should ban bananas and cucumbers for being phallic, tomatoes for looking like orchids, and for obvious reasons. In fact, any food that isn’t cuboid in shape. I mean, why stop at art? Why not expand into literature? Why stop at all... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Andy Hayter Posted February 2, 2018 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 2, 2018 (edited) Bananas and cucumbers? Have you seen a spear of asparagus? Stiff, hot, oozing butter from its head. Oooops - Sorry wrong thread I thought I was on the literary thread. Edited February 2, 2018 by Andy Hayter Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Regularity Posted February 2, 2018 RMweb Gold Share Posted February 2, 2018 If yours is as thin as that... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium nick_bastable Posted February 2, 2018 RMweb Premium Share Posted February 2, 2018 If yours is as thin as that... enough can we have some trains please ? Nick 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nearholmer Posted February 2, 2018 Share Posted February 2, 2018 Yes. I’m playing trains at the moment, and got distracted into reading that news piece, whereupon one, utterly reliable, carriage of the circulating train derailed, on a perfectly straight section of track, for no discernible reason. The train was clearly upset by it all. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now