The Great Art Debate

[TANGODANCER]

Fear not, the government has started to recoup some money already.

"A breakdancing OAP who appeared on Britain's Got Talent has been ordered to pay back thousands of pounds in disability benefits.
Fred Bowers, 74, wowed viewers with routines that included a headspin - but it later emerged that he was claiming £50 a month in Motability allowance.
His benefits were stopped earlier in the year after officials decided he no longer needed the car subsidy - but now he's been told he has to return £3,000.
The Daily Mail quoted the former soldier, from Leicestershire, as saying: "I was overpaid, but it was a mistake by the social.
"I'm not a benefits cheat - I would never do anything dishonest. There was just a mistake, and I was getting more than I should have done.
"I always said I would pay back anything I was found to owe. I was worried I would end up in court, but it doesn't look like that's going to happen."

The paper says he has handed back his car and will have to pay back the excess he received out of his pension at a rate of £10.80 a week.

[superjohnmcginlay]

Maybe you've missed the point of the above dialogue, but tell me, the point of making life easier for Lord Dyson would benefit who exactly? I don't see you getting het up about the 10% tax which is directly affecting far, far more people, and in a way that doesn't mean they have to scale back the footage of their yacht.

Well, Lord Dyson, for a start, who, despite having the temerity to be wealthy, is still a person, after all, with a reasonable claim to the fruits of his own skills, labour and even luck.

If we make it more attractive for Dyson to push on and make his next million, rather than decide not to bother, then that's good for our economy.

If Dyson stays in the country rather than relocating to Switzerland and paying tax into foreign coffers, that's good for British people too.

It's good for people to see Dyson getting rich, in Britain, and aspire to achieve similar.

Who makes him his millions though? Your working man, who gets paid the lowest wage possible according to the market, while Mr Dyson creams off the profits. Then recession comes, who gets hard? Is it Mr Dyson? The fact spending amongst the rich is up would suggest not, no, it's your working man again, on the breadline close to losing his job. Poverty is perhaps the wrong word here, I have used it, and so have others, it may not be poverty, but the working man's standard of life is suffering far more than the rich mans. How is that fair, or good for society?

And if Mr Dyson hadn't done his inventing, what then for these hard working down trodden meatheads?

They'd be making something else. However if they didn't do their working, what then for Mr Dyson? He'd be stuck making three hoovers a week scraping a living. Yeah he did some inventing, and deserves reward for it. Does he deserve as much as he has got though?

Get a load of machines to replace them?

[superjohnmcginlay]

What are we arguing about again?

[CAPSLOCK]

Maybe you've missed the point of the above dialogue, but tell me, the point of making life easier for Lord Dyson would benefit who exactly? I don't see you getting het up about the 10% tax which is directly affecting far, far more people, and in a way that doesn't mean they have to scale back the footage of their yacht.

Well, Lord Dyson, for a start, who, despite having the temerity to be wealthy, is still a person, after all, with a reasonable claim to the fruits of his own skills, labour and even luck.

If we make it more attractive for Dyson to push on and make his next million, rather than decide not to bother, then that's good for our economy.

If Dyson stays in the country rather than relocating to Switzerland and paying tax into foreign coffers, that's good for British people too.

It's good for people to see Dyson getting rich, in Britain, and aspire to achieve similar.

Who makes him his millions though? Your working man, who gets paid the lowest wage possible according to the market, while Mr Dyson creams off the profits. Then recession comes, who gets hard? Is it Mr Dyson? The fact spending amongst the rich is up would suggest not, no, it's your working man again, on the breadline close to losing his job. Poverty is perhaps the wrong word here, I have used it, and so have others, it may not be poverty, but the working man's standard of life is suffering far more than the rich mans. How is that fair, or good for society?

And if Mr Dyson hadn't done his inventing, what then for these hard working down trodden meatheads?

They'd be making something else. However if they didn't do their working, what then for Mr Dyson? He'd be stuck making three hoovers a week scraping a living. Yeah he did some inventing, and deserves reward for it. Does he deserve as much as he has got though?

I doubt it. This aint no socialist utopia yet

[Lord Kangana]

The point of Mr Dyson that everbody appears to have totally sidestepped is that he's moved his entire operation to China. He retains the intellectual property rights, which he said he was arguing for. In short, his version of trickle down economics involves making himself very rich from pseudo-slave labour in the far east.

So remind me, what is Dyson doing for Britain again?

[fatshaft]

Following on from the discussion in the 'I don't get...' thread, I thought the question of what constitutes art deserves a thread of its own.

Is Tracey Emin a self-obsessed con artist? Does only painting and sculpture that is recognisable as 'something' count? Is video art 'art'? Was Lowry too simplistic? Was Pollock just a nutter?

Lets have a heated debate.

soooooooooooooooo, anyway..................

If a painting is nice, that's art. Otherwise I don't give a stuff about all these arty farty pretentious wankers.

[William the White]

The point of Mr Dyson that everbody appears to have totally sidestepped is that he's moved his entire operation to China. He retains the intellectual property rights, which he said he was arguing for. In short, his version of trickle down economics involves making himself very rich from pseudo-slave labour in the far east.

So remind me, what is Dyson doing for Britain again?

sssshhh... he might go away and then we'd all be very badly off...

[TANGODANCER]

Following on from the discussion in the 'I don't get...' thread, I thought the question of what constitutes art deserves a thread of its own.

Is Tracey Emin a self-obsessed con artist? Does only painting and sculpture that is recognisable as 'something' count? Is video art 'art'? Was Lowry too simplistic? Was Pollock just a nutter?

Lets have a heated debate.

soooooooooooooooo, anyway..................

If a painting is nice, that's art. Otherwise I don't give a stuff about all these arty farty pretentious wankers.

Aye, just think, the Royal Academy were hesitant about exhibiting Rosetti and co.

[William the White]

Following on from the discussion in the 'I don't get...' thread, I thought the question of what constitutes art deserves a thread of its own.

Is Tracey Emin a self-obsessed con artist? Does only painting and sculpture that is recognisable as 'something' count? Is video art 'art'? Was Lowry too simplistic? Was Pollock just a nutter?

Lets have a heated debate.

soooooooooooooooo, anyway..................

If a painting is nice, that's art. Otherwise I don't give a stuff about all these arty farty pretentious wankers.

Aye, just think, the Royal Academy were hesitant about exhibiting Rosetti and co.

They were pretty and decorative, but emin is much more interesting... as an artist... apart from that I'd burn the tory witch...

[fatshaft]

Following on from the discussion in the 'I don't get...' thread, I thought the question of what constitutes art deserves a thread of its own.

Is Tracey Emin a self-obsessed con artist? Does only painting and sculpture that is recognisable as 'something' count? Is video art 'art'? Was Lowry too simplistic? Was Pollock just a nutter?

Lets have a heated debate.

soooooooooooooooo, anyway..................

If a painting is nice, that's art. Otherwise I don't give a stuff about all these arty farty pretentious wankers.

Aye, just think, the Royal Academy were hesitant about exhibiting Rosetti and co.

I have no idea what you just said. Did he paint pretty pictures?

[superjohnmcginlay]

The point of Mr Dyson that everbody appears to have totally sidestepped is that he's moved his entire operation to China. He retains the intellectual property rights, which he said he was arguing for. In short, his version of trickle down economics involves making himself very rich from pseudo-slave labour in the far east.

So remind me, what is Dyson doing for Britain again?

Paying 10x more tax than before if you believe what he says.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

The point of Mr Dyson that everbody appears to have totally sidestepped is that he's moved his entire operation to China. He retains the intellectual property rights, which he said he was arguing for. In short, his version of trickle down economics involves making himself very rich from pseudo-slave labour in the far east.

So remind me, what is Dyson doing for Britain again?

Is it not evidence that Britain is already uncompetitive in some crucial respects - not a state of affairs that needs to be made worse.

But, I'll answer your question by quoting a few paragraphs from an article on Dyson and his operations in Malaysia:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/pers ... aysia.html

This is not only a heartwarming story of a determined inventor and entrepreneur getting a handsome reward, but also a demonstration of how our economy can evolve and thrive even if everything we buy nowadays seems to be made in China.

Mr Dyson - who was once a strong supporter of Britain's membership of the European single currency, but we all make errors of judgment - caused something of a stink a couple of years ago when he announced that he was moving production of his cleaners from Wiltshire, not to euroland but to Malaysia. The move cost 865 jobs, and was seen (by the union officials in particular) as another nail in the coffin of British manufacturing.

Well, better that than the business failing altogether, is the obvious riposte. But look what's happened since. Manufacturing costs have come rattling down, with the concomitant impact on profits. Those profits have allowed Dyson to employ 100 extra people in Britain, not simply screwing his machines together, but doing the altogether more rewarding and valuable work of developing new products.

In addition to employing 1,200 people in Malmesbury, the lower production costs mean the company pays more corporation tax for our dear Chancellor to squander on more hospital administrators (or whatever). In short, it's a microcosm of a post-industrial economy.

[TANGODANCER]

Following on from the discussion in the 'I don't get...' thread, I thought the question of what constitutes art deserves a thread of its own.

Is Tracey Emin a self-obsessed con artist? Does only painting and sculpture that is recognisable as 'something' count? Is video art 'art'? Was Lowry too simplistic? Was Pollock just a nutter?

Lets have a heated debate.

soooooooooooooooo, anyway..................

If a painting is nice, that's art. Otherwise I don't give a stuff about all these arty farty pretentious wankers.

Aye, just think, the Royal Academy were hesitant about exhibiting Rosetti and co.

I have no idea what you just said. Did he paint pretty pictures?

Short answer..yes.

[Puskas]

Hmmm..... So is this art?

http://technology.timesonline.co.uk/tol ... 884631.ece

And if you didn't know it was by a computer, and liked it, is it legitimate to change your mind when you find out its origins?

[superjohnmcginlay]

As these evil computers are going to be our masters in the future I think we'd best be nice to them.

[Puskas]

I, for one, welcome our new silicon Overlords

[Zulus Thousand of em]

I, for one, welcome our new silicon Overlords

Are they breast implants?

[Bruno]

kent brockman

[Bruce Rioja]

And if you didn't know it was by a computer

Was it? Or was it done by someone with a computer?

[Dujon]

An interesting article. The 30-second excerpts were a bit short to make any judgment on the extend pieces though.

As far as the provenance of the piece is concerned I suppose you could say that the 'composer' of the piece has no heart or soul and thus the final composition has none either. Bach is said to have based much of his work on mathematics and look (or listen) at what he turned out. Unfortunately the short article did not reveal the parameters the programme needs to produce the final product; is it a detailed instruction list or a vague description that guides the machine? How limiting or how much freedom does the machine have? Who or what decides the instruments to be used, the key in which a piece will be played and the 'mood' of the score?

Perhaps the piece, once produced, can be edited and thus shaped by the person reviewing it. If so, then surely it is a human composition aided by a machine to remove most of the drudgery of score writing? Is that any different from a sculptor who uses modern technology and engineering to produce what most - well, some - would call a work of art?

I have no answer, but what I can say is that some music can bring on a state of melancholy, a quickening of the pulse or just about any other emotion. Of course there is no indication from the composer as to what I'm supposed to experience - why should there be? Whether it's the light and colour of a Constable or Turner, the abstract view of life by an impressionist or cubist, or even the daubing of canvas by an amateur water colour enthusiast, in the end it all comes down to you the viewer and listener.