h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I vaguely remember a petard being a barrel of explosives used to breach defensive walls . Maybe we should rename this thread 'can you explain Picasso's petard to me?'

best fishes.....tod

The Kelvingrove is where I saw it Edward. It had gone last time I was there.
Glad it's back though

(If it ever went, that was just something someone told me, think about it)

It did go. To The St Mugo's Museum of Religious Art and Culture. Now it's back. The Kelvingrove re-opened after a long refurbishment.

Unfortunately they've taken away the stuffed cassowary, which was always my favourite exhibit.

Petards...the jury is out. Fart is probably the most likely explanation...but a sapper blown in the air by his own explosive - but as with so many of these there's no paper trail so it's probably just made up*.




* 'Posh' is another one. It is emphatically *not* from 'Port Out Starboard Home'. Most likely it's from the Romani, 'push' = money.

I like Sorolla,( Sergent is your Brithish Sorolla, in some ways. They were friends)

(the link from Museo Reina Sofia doesnt work)


I don't know much about Sorolla. The only thing I know is that I like his paintings and aquarels because of the light in them. I should say, from them, since you can really appreciate that Mediterranean light, the intensity of white, the blues of the sea, the naked bodies under the sunlight in a beach... all that is what comes to my mind when I think of Sorolla.
I don't need any more explanations about his paintings, although I'm sure that when I learn a bit more, it will help me to enjoy his work even more.

I don't like those people who consider themselves "specially sensitive" because they can enjoy what others can't
It's not the Emperor New Clothes tale but a question of liking or disliking. Again ,in some way we are in the same grounds with the music( UK vs American music thread)or with literature.

Even if someone came here and offered a list of criteria to prove or consider objetively the artisticity(?) of a work, it would be logic and respectable the fact that someone would say, "- ok, but I don't like it.

However,

It is not fair to dismiss something you don't like with " that's the Emperor Tale" or "a child could have done it" Although with some "artists" ...
I don't like at all Tapies or Antonio Saura, but probably there is "something" for others. (On the other hand, I haven't seen all their work)

***
I don't enjoy Warhol either, nothing about him moves me( maybe curiosity about his weird life). But I understand that he showed a new way of looking at cotidian things. THe relevance of his works belongs to his epoch mainly, I think, that's the reason it tells me nothing.

I think that Art should be considered as a whole. At least that is for me. I think that when a piece of creative work (even those not intended to be considered Artistic ) appeals to people of any epoch, that probably is Art with capital letters.




I'll read a bit more about Ramachandra* ideas of art

* linked by courtesy of Ed The Graceful Linker

...

>> ...hoist by his own petard - whatever a petard is. <<

Ask the Grenadeers!
It's a bomb planted in a tunnel dug from the outside of a besieged fortress or city to blow up (down?) the walls. All too often those who placed the device were blown UP (hoist) before they could escape the tunnel. But you knew that. I just wanted to save others the trouble of looking it up.

>> The rip-off aspect was part of his schtick. But *not* the whole of it. <<

He killed Jim Morrison. Nuff said.

~jwf~

>> ...the British ceramasist ,< is that a word? <<

Yes but it's spelled like 'ceramics'; hence ceramicist.
It's a fancy name for Potter, hairy or otherwise.

~jwf~

>> Oh go on, jwf, those are my favourite bits. <<

Fine.
One of the essential elements of the Art Industry is delusion; both self delusion and public delusion (sometimes called fraud).
Delusion is also a central and necessary part of the drug and homosexual 'cultures'. It's sorta what you call a marriage made in...

~jwf~

Just realised that my first post on this thread is quote of the day!


p.s. Mar - 'artisticity' - artistry maybe?
Or is that just the study of old paintings?

>> Does knowing all that change our perception of the piece?
Should it? <<

Should is such a difficult question; it is based on the very personal and highly variable relationships each of us has with our shoulders. My own shoulders tell me I should always know as much as possible about the context of any work of art.

One example that rushes to mind is the song "Strangers In The Night" which I always thought was a fair bit of tune-smithing and at the time it was a big hit I found it relavent to my own explorations of 'free love'. But I was leter 'disallusioned' when I discovered it was a gay love song about some unsavoury encounter in a men's washroom at Grand Central Station.

~jwf~

i think it's really Jackson Pollox

Petard vs fartist

It does seem pretty certain that petard was a bomb rather than neckwear...

Pet followed by an o (rather than an a) suggests the french fartist 'Le Petomane' who had a stage career.

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a1_394.html

There was a TV prog/film made about him, which I've seen (recorded), but don't know origins.

and we got to the 5th dot before we had thread drift!

I was coming to that, Ictoan! It's taken me a while to compose this... & make a cup of tea...

Now, back to art.

As I understand it our 'arts and crafts' are pretty much the same thing.
Also, art was at one time used for magic, too (Shakespeare's Ariel & his cloak?)...

Today's Art (rather than art) seems to have become a meld of the two.
Certainly, I for one have this feeling (as posted previously) that Art is "something on this canvas more than just paint".

When I hear "Art", it's somehow *expected* to be part Magic and rarely is.

Judging by your posts, some of you feel that magic almost routinely. I'm envious.

not just art and craft but consider as well artifice, artificial, artisan, artisan, artful, artichoke, artifact and some would say artillary as well.

All to do with humans making something.

Artifarti too.

Topic drift, what's topic drift?

Art that thinks its art while being made is suspicious. Discuss.

>>It's a fancy name for Potter, hairy or otherwise

Which is how Grayson Perry describes himself. As did Bernard Leech.

La Petomane...
>>There was a TV prog/film made about him, which I've seen (recorded), but don't know origins.

See the mention here:
A4113811

So...this damned unmade bed

The point to remember is that it's not art as in 'artefact'. It's 'Conceptual Art'. The bed itsef is not the piece. And, yes, any eejit could cart their own bed in off the street. (although what there ed is doing in the street...)

Ms Emin is portraying her life as an artustic statement. We all put up masks to hide ourselves from the gaze of the world. What Emin has chosen to do, time and time again, is to yank off her mask and show herself to us in all her naked, sordid, embrassing glory. Unlike the rest of us, she's no hypocrite. This self presentation takes many forms; appearing pissed off her on live TV, embroidering the names of everyone she's ever slept on a tent, displaying pictures of herself w*nking. (but, btw, those sketches are *very* technically accomplished).

And, yes, it involves being a horribly egotistical show-off. She has no shame.

So...back to her bed. What it represents is Emin at her lowest, most squalid ebb. She says that it's the bed that she spent a couple of weeks in, in a squalid, self-pitying, self-destuctive, suicidal haze. And there it is, spunk and period stains, vodka bottles, fag ends, vodka bottles and all. And, no, it's not big and it's not clever, and yes, it's blatsnt self publicising...but at least she's honest. And no worse than the rest of us.

One helluva dame.