Be Excellent To Each Other

I properly love you, by the way.

EDIT - for your brain, I mean. Not your manly manliness. Although you are.

Yo!

I'm not paying for that bike.


Fucking "crack in the floor", for example.

I was trying to agree with you and the land rover thing, not just a picture of me. But, yes, rarity does > value.



I went to see that. Quite liked it. Liked how they got it in there more, though. Was one of mine and mrsA's first dates.

Rothko, people, please. The reason he's so expensive is partly because he pioneered "colour field" painting and to appreciate them you really have to see them in the flesh. I'm not a huge fan myself and think anybody dropping 157mUSD on it is fucking deluded as even in this inflated art market I don't for one instance think that price is going anywhere except down.

I'm not a huge fan of modern or conceptual art, but as I've said before, it doesn't feel fair singling it out as being all rubbish, as nearly all of what purports to be art of any category isn't any good by any critical definition I care to apply. You only have to wander around the Frieze exhibition each year to see the massive volume of pretentious crap being punted out. The cynic in me thinks it's commerce at play that makes conceptual art so popular. You don't need any particular talent other than chutzpah as everything gets made for you. If you're lucky enough to get established you're laughing. It's like winning the lottery every fucking weekend for doing fuck all work. The dealers love you as well, because you're not actually having to toil to produce those agonisingly beautiful works, you've just got a load of underpaid people assembling your shit and selling it to order.

I know I 'm going to be fighting to get Dad's TR4A when he dies, and not just because it's lush.

Although it does need modern brakes.

When we move house and I get a garage, I'm getting an MGB and fitting it with, among other things, modern shocks and brakes. And a Rover V8.

I heard something on the radio about art over the years, and that the stuff that is expensive now from earlier periods is the stuff that was considered a bit shit back then. Not sure how true that is, but I can see why.

But that's clearly not true though Doc. Intrinsic value does change, since it's rooted in the 'real world' where living costs, land costs, construction costs, labour, materials and all the rest change. If you're saying intrinsic value doesn't change in 10 years, why not 20, 30, 50, 100 or 500? My house is 500 years old and probably cost around £5 to buy back then. According to your argument, this is its intrinsic value? What about the intrinsic value of a brand new house a quarter the size than cost £80,000 to construct? Etc.

You must be positively gagging to have my babies, then.

There are two Jimmy Carrs, and nobody wants either.

Yes, longer term factors like inflation or changes in labour supply can affect things, but they are very small over a decade. C'mon Cavey! Do you really believe you house has 4x more intrinsic value today than it did in the 90s?

http://m.npr.org/story/128109067?url=/b ... 12-million 21 min podcast on the economics of art pricing. It's very good. Covers the "this is all just a bubble" angle with a commendably cynical eye too.

What what what?

The cost of building a building since, say, 2000, and has gone up significantly less than the cost of buying the finished product has increased over that period. And of course the cost of building it is already staggeringly less than the cost of buying the thing at the end.

This thread is brilliant!

I have to say, I am (obviously given my career choices) a huge fan of apprenticeships and think it's a crying shame that they aren't really suggested to school pupils as a suggestion for what to do upon reaching school leavers age. Instead you are told to go to university, or college if you don't get into uni. Apprenticeships were in my experience rarely mentioned (if ever) and any hints I picked up about them made me think they involved working in a crappy garage for not even approaching minimum wage. Instead, I think they should be viewed as a brilliant career choice for anyone interested in studying a subject covered by an apprenticeship and if I knew then what I knew now, I would have favoured an engineering apprenticeship over a university degree in engineering without hesitation (if I had been sensible enough to apply for an engineering degree when I was 16; clue-I wasn't).
Through my apprenticeship I have gained an SVQ Level 2 in engineering and I've only got 12-18 months left 'til I acheive the SVQ Level 3. I have an NC in engineering and I am in the middle of an HNC in Engineering Systems which all going well will lead to an HND next year and eventually a degree.
Had I started this apprenticeship when I was 17, I would have been earning £30000+ by the age of 21 with a pension and by now five years experience post apprenticeship as well as presumably a degree in Electrical engineering.
Had I gone to university to study a degree in engineering at the age of 17, by the time I was 21 I would have had no real earnings to speak of and instead be in debt. I would have no work experience and would be searching for a graduate role which would have a lower salary than the one I'm on now.

I think more has to be done to highlight the benefits of apprenticeships to students as well as employers.

Having said that, I still think there is value in degrees that don't necessarily have an obvious career path after them. Loads of students finish school and have no idea what they want to do with their life so why not go and study a subject which interests you? The value in a History degree isn't just the increased knowledge in History that you gain, but also the skills you learn in your time at university-those directly related to your classes such as communication, problem solving, time management, report writing etc and even those related to student life in general-money management, independance, handling difficult relationships with roommates, tolerance and all the other life lessons you go through.

I would agree that employers seem to place far to much importance on someone having a degree, but I don't agree that people don't benefit from completing a degree even if it is in an area like English lit and they go on to work as a manager in some company.

As for art...if we are including poetry in modern art, I could provide an example of something beautiful.

The value of building land has also shot up over that time period.

If anything though, the cost of materials and labour to build a house now is *less* than it was in the 80s/90s due to the abundance of foreign labour, newer, cheaper practices such as timber frame and reduction in amount of manual labour required.

That's land prices, though.

People with those "useless" history degrees are in demand within the military & security services. Why? Because their degree proves that they can sift through a ton of information & present it in a useful/meaningful way. If you can't transfer any skills from your degree to working life then yes, it was a waste of time but if you've half a brain you'll get something useful out of the daftest of courses.

Aside from that I think it's important to encourage creative types & thinkers anyway because I can see the benefit in having a well cultured society. It's a quality of life thing*, London** would be intolerable if it had no art galleries, museums, theatres, etc. It would be full of bored, unhappy & confused people and with nothing to distract them they'll become increasingly stressed by other people living in such close proximity & violence/crime would increase.

That second paragraph is obviously an extreme scenario but it's not really that long ago that people lived like that***. However even if all creative media & history was somehow destroyed people would still be able to remember things & pass it on as folk-tales & songs. It does explain why this "useless stuff" is important though.
*Not to be confused with standard of living. Though a high SOL will obviously improve your QOL.
**It could apply to any large city or town, but London's the obvious choice for an example because of the scale of it. It's incredible when you think about it though, millions of people living stacked on top of each other & huddling up daily on trains & buses with just a minimal amount of trouble.
***In some parts of the world they still do

Ah, but has its "intrinsic" value increased? Or is it just inflation and scarcity of supply having an effect? Any more so than, with, say, a Rothko?

Even with the land prices, it still costs a lot less to put a building up than it does to buy it.

But as I said above to K - is that an increase in "intrinsic" value, whatever that is? It seems to me it's just an increase due to scarcity of supply and an increase in demand.

Has the intrinsic value of the land changed though? I don't know. I don't think anything has intrinsic value, it's all based on market fluctuations and speculation.

But wait - Glasgow has loads of museums, theatres and art galleries!!?

"Rope lying in a tangled mess all over the fucking deck" made me a bit uncomfortable. It's essentially drilled into me to coil them & I was ready for jumping the barrier to do so

I was looking forward to listening to that but there doesn't appear to be any podcast link on that page and iTunes only has the last 12 episodes.

This makes you a prick tease in my mind

I have realised that through skim reading this thread and seeing discussion about 'useless' degrees and modern art I have confused art created in the modern age with 'modern art'. Shush.

I'm going to post this bit of a poem as an example of beautiful art. It is by Edna St Vincent Millay. I find it particulary poignant given recent sad news and I also find it relates to other sad memories as well.

There are a hundred places where I fear to go,
-so with his memory they brim.
And entering with relief some quiet place
Where never fell his foot or shone his face
I say,
"There is no memory of him here!"
And so stand stricken, so remembering him.

Ah, try the non-mobile site:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2010/06/ ... 12-million

The entire series is worth listening to, by the way. They cover all sorts of great stories.

Aye, but just imagine what it'd be like if everyone there was an uncultured knuckle dragging thug.

I wonder how much this thread has 'cost' the economy?

The students would be up in arms!

I wish Meatloaf was as good at committing suicide.

Gaywood and I spoke about this on our way to Owen's funeral - I could put a hidden field in people's profiles for their working hours and their salary. When they visit during work it could figure out how much it has cost their employer, and add it all up for a Beex running total

Fanks. I've been looking around for some interesting stuff that I wouldn't ordinarily listen to while walking the doogles.

Fair enough, your opinion.

I can see the value in an object that has cultural and artistic history, not just necessarily in money either. Why don't you just stick to your silly little porkers and bikes?

Don't forget the reproduction rights of owning said work for posters and prints. With each new auction generating more interest for them too.

I don't think repro rights are automatically transferable with the original artwork if the artist is still alive, though I could be wrong. I'm sure KissyFur or MaliA will be along in a moment to tell me whether I'm right or wrong. Obviously in this case it would be Rothko's estate as he topped himself, what, 40 years ago?

Sometimes in this instance, the investor will already own other works by the artist consequently inflating the value of their collection.

I know some dealers do this to protect the value of their collections in a classic example of "too big to fail" idiocy that screwed the banking sector.

Either way. Cates a thicky.

Of course, if the art trade collapses I'm sure we'll all survive, rather than having to avoid hungry packs of dogs and eat mud.

I'm surprised the 'Art Pamphlet' trade is still going now the internet means everyone has tits-on-tap.

That's true, I don't have a degree for a start.

(Seriously though, what I'm trying to suggest here is that there is surely *some* connection between 'intrinsic, demonstrable value' and 'real value' - this isn't solely driven by market value alone, i.e. just what someone is prepared to pay. Still, it's difficult to quantify).

You'll forgive me then good sir if our dialogue must end here. I must discuss these matters with my learned friends.

You wouldn't understand.



I don't like all modern art (and Conceptual art, is 99% cock cheese) but I can still see it's creative and cultural and influential merits if I don't find it visually appealing.

Hey, even if we do end up living in a dogs n' mud neo-neolithic dystopia, we'll still have the joys of art to entertain us.

I'd say the more "intrinsic, demonstrable" use something has, the more you're right. Tin, for instance, is bought because it's useful, and the amount people will pay is strongly related to how useful it is to them. Art has pretty much no "use", so it's value is almost purely based on intrinsics - the history, the name, how fashionable that type of art is, the buyers taste. Even the crappy chocolate box smudges my local art club produce are going to sell for more than their "intrinsic" value, because some people like watercolour pictures of kittens in baskets. What's the "intrinsic" value of a Rembrandt? I'd guess about the same as a same size print of the same picture - ie about 20 quid off the internet.

Just cropped out of the right of that picture is Grim...'s avatar.

It's actually a tattoo on my cock shaft. You'll notice the lovely veining and nudist beach tan of my skin.

Did you get it done by the same bloke who does those sculptures on the head of a pin?

All fair comment mate, I'm even more half-arsed than usual in this thread.

Still, I guess in the case of art, wouldn't intrinsic value be a function of age, notoriety of the artist, rarity, labour time and, surely most importantly, MASS appeal? I mean, almost everyone would agree that the works in the Sistine Chapel are beautiful - they have mass appeal. The artist was a genius and the works took a great deal of effort and time. They are hundreds of years old and irreplaceable. They are therefore high in intrinsic value, even though they're art and have no mundane, material use?

Whereas something that looks like child's impression of a badly painted front door would surely be thought pretty shite by most people and (presumably) didn't take long to produce - so I can't see how this could have a high intrinsic value?

Do you not think that this could mean that there are some things you just don't understand and might be missing out on? FWIW I agree with you on that painting but to dismiss it and everyone who likes things I can't appreciate as "wankers" would feel incredibly arrogant. I'm open to the possibility that if I had a greater appreciation of art then my tastes might evolve, just like they have done with music and all sorts of other things.

I could say the same about a Porsche Boxster that's no faster on track than a Lancer Evo FQ Whatsit Edition costing 1/3rd as much.

Well to be fair Mark, the "wankers" comment was pretty tongue-in-cheek mate! If I took everything desperately to heart that's said to me on these boards, even this very thread, I'd be a broken man.

Of course there are a great many things that I don't understand to put it fecking mildly, most especially in the sphere of the arts. I'm obviously just not 'getting' this work, that much is clear.

We've done this before, Doc. There's not *that* much of a price difference between a high spec Evo and low spec Cayman, but they're completely different animals anyway.

Friday afternoon arguing! I know how you feel.

Michaelangelo would have kicked Rothko's ass in a fight, though.

Michaelangelo was a big limp-wristed whoopsy.

Sure, but he's a fucking Ninja Turtle isn't he.

Your mother birthed a limp-wristed whoopsy.

A Cayman is a reptile but what's an Evo?