Be Excellent To Each Other

FUCKING DOUBLE POSTING

True, but he's my brother and we still love him.

Rothko was an alcoholic manic depressive. I'd bet on Michelangelo

I thought that was politics.

*deep breath*




Which leads on to my pointing out that in the same week that we awarded the video games person, we also awarded several engineers, biologists, and economists. There is room for all of these fields - engineering and design is our largest school, and the idea that drama or history or sociology somehow detract from it is absurd.




This is what people don't realise, particularly with research degrees. You may have written a thesis on the early poetry of Horst Bloerfogmaan, but that doesn't mean you studied lots of textbooks really hard - it means you developed a wide variety of skills to independently advance the knowledge of humankind in a specific area. It's original study, by definition, of something we just didn't know before, and even the obscure and artsy ones demand serious practical investigative and analytical skills.








The whole 'modern art' discussion is a bit of red herring here, I think. Visual art is distinct from most other humanities and even other arts in that you generally get only one of every work - one mona lisa, one David, one piglet curry sprayed over a mannequin of a policeman in a green bra, etc. whereas books or films and music can be fully shared.

Plus a large part of the problem with modern art (generalising to an absurd degree, obv) is that it fetches such huge sums, and has so many arseholes talking such utter shit about any old rubbish, because it's spawned a self-perpetuating investment industry. These paintings and so on make vast sums of money because of dickhead advertisers who pour time and money into finding fashionable artists, buying their crap, then locking it up in a cupboard for 20 years and selling it when they're back in vogue.

So um. A lot of it isn't about artistic merit - it's about who's fashionable in the nobbo circles. And yes I am probably 6 pages late, but shush.





I applied for History and Biology degrees on the same forms. Couldn't decide at all. I'd swing towards history now because it's basically easier to study independently, so I'm far less rusty (and thanks to the skills I've picked up at work, was able to work in a historical field for a bit, which obviously helped).

Excellently, the lecturer who interviewed me seemed impressed rather than dismissive. I'd imagine a lot of people would have decried it as Wrong and Bad to be equally interested in two unrelated fields.

Although I did once see "Biology with Dance" on a course list somewhere, so who knows.





Oh, I love her when she's on form. I sent one of her couplets to a girlfriend years back.


Safe upon the solid rock the ugly houses stand
Come and see my shining palace built upon the stand!

Then there's that bit she wrote in a letter, I forget which, but:

Where you used to be, there is a hole in the world, which I find myself constantly walking around in the daytime, and falling in at night. I miss you like hell.

every time




It is, but I don't really see much difference between a pickled banana stapled to a stuffed wolf's cock being 'valued' at £30 million, and the Microsoft corporation being 'valued' at forty bajillion space dollars. Or a 4p cup of coffee being sold for £2.80, or CODBLOPS going for £50, or a reheated carbonara that I could have made better at home costing £6.





8/10

Absolutely Sinister mate, that was what I was trying to get at, although you nail it here far better than I did. The key point, it seems to me, is the 'self perpetuating' bit - an entirely false, inflated bubble market that's driven by its own investment industry in search of uber-rich mugs, entirely for its own ends and wholly divorced from any concept of 'real market value'. (Harry Enfield was mentioned earlier; I am reminded here of those art shop sketches in his latest series whose strapline is 'Sorry, but I saw you coming' ).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AGSMJojAM4



(By the way, whisper it quietly, but I'd have to say also that one man's 'nobbo' is another man's 'wanker' - wry grin optional in either case. )



Well yes, you're right to an extent here, but Microsoft has tangible assets such as properties, land, huge market share and guaranteed revenues, products, intellectual property, skills base and so on. The market can over value such companies of course, but tends to be pretty good at sussing out the real value of 'real' companies, by and large and in the long term, banking sector therefore excepted. Even if an established, tangible company such as Microsoft is over valued, it is difficult to imagine this being any greater than perhaps 50-100%, as distinct from so-called masterpieces of modern art costing hundreds of millions. As I have been arguing, the 'intrinsic value' of such companies cannot be sustainably divorced from market value for any great length of time, before someone, somewhere shouts 'the Emperor is in the buff!'. So it was with the short lived dotcom bubble. Essentially then, I don't think this is at all analogous to the supposed valuation of modern art works - just ask that Saatchi geezer who can't even give his tat away.

As for your other examples, these surely boil down to 'added value'? An espresso coffee may well cost 4p in ingredients, but you have to factor in the rental cost of that central London coffee shop premises, salaries for well presented staff, advertising campaigns to keep your double-thrupple-frappochino-with-toffee-and-raspberries the 'must have' desk beverage iPhone companion for 'right on' twentysomethings, expensive machinery and all the rest. Whilst I'm sure these coffee emporiums are profitable (given the frankly ludicrous prices people are prepared to pay), I don't think they're positively printing their own cash @ 1000% profit margins, either. Whereas, someone who manages to sell a piece of purposeless tat that took perhaps a day to produce and a week to dream up some bullshit 'impressionist' justification for its existence or whatever for millions, tens of millions or even hundreds of millions of pounds IS printing money, and vastly more of it. There's just no comparison.

This actually reduced me to tears.

I've never read poetry; I had no idea that so few mere words could have such utter, devastating power. The pen is mightier than the sword.

I don't disagree that art is a risky investment; I disagree with how rational you think the other parts of the market are. From the Dutch tulip bubble of 1624 up to the dot com bubble and beyond (Google and Facebook's P:E ratios are 30+, and Apples was 45+ at one point), the history of economics is littered with suspect investments people nevertheless made in droves. You keep applying what you doubtless regard as hardnosed common sense to fields you don't understand and where common sense doesn't apply.
And yet from that position of utter ignorance you were still willing to dismiss the whole field of English literature to the dustbin?

Harsh Doc, very harsh.

In terms of investment, well, I understand enough to have done pretty well for myself, better than most? Hey, at least I know enough about it to understand that materials costs, labour rates, land values, comparative property costs and all the rest don't stay static for 10 years, eh. That really would be an embarrassing, schoolboy error!

I wasn't claiming that the market always behaves rationally, far from it - in fact I cited examples where this precisely wasn't the case. However, these were all relatively short lived and self-righting, banking crisis aside, precisely because of the ability to cross reference back to 'real intrinsic value', to a greater or lesser extent, in all but the banks (which of course is yet another indicator of itself as to the importance of 'intrinsic value' - investors mistakenly believed the intrinsic value of financial institutions, as evidenced by audited, credible, public accounts, to be far higher than reality). I've no idea where or how you think your example disproves anything I've been claiming. Compare this to the Saatchi example I gave; he presumably spent untold millions on his modern art collection, yet no-one is prepared to even give it house room for nothing? It's apparently regarded as having no intrinsic value. He's surely been had?

As for your throwing my comments about that poem in my face, I'll treat that with utter contempt. This place really pisses me off at times.

At NO POINT did I dismiss the entire field of English Literature to the dustbin. What I said was, given that degrees are to be 'rationed', we should surely prioritise those that are 'needed' to help our collective economic recovery and are most likely to lead to good, degree-relative employment for students. (True, I also said I would sacrifice all would be poets, composers and sociologists etc. at the altar to get everyone into well paid, well qualified private sector employment within a resurgent private-sector led, low tax economy - but that's a pretty big fucking ask, and even then it is still not consigning what treasures we already have, or indeed the entire field of English Literature into the dustbin! Anyway, is it a pre-requisite to have to do a degree to write great poetry or produce an amazing painting? Just how many of our great authors, poets and artists had to get art or literature degrees before they produced any great works, hmm?)

Why? Because it makes you face up to how many of your strongly-expressed opinions are based on poorly thought out assumptions that cannot withstand the light of day? How can you claim to prefer one engineer over "even a hundred poets" if you have never read any poetry?

How arrogant do you need to be in order to claim with a straight face that you can make a value judgment about something you know absolutely nothing about?

Heh, so you're not going to actually address any of the substantive points I make in response to your own, you're just going to try and personalise the 'debate' even further than you have already.

Way to go, Doc.

I never claimed not to be arrogant - of course I am, but I don't take myself remotely seriously and have admitted more than once to be completely half-arsed in this thread and quite possibly acting like a twat. Nor have I claimed to know anything other than precisely zero about poetry and/or the arts, and have said as much.

The point I was making was that many of our doubtless talented 'proto poets' and 'proto historians' seem to be finding that they can't get ANY decent work beyond McDonalds out there in the marketplace, which is reason enough to claim we should be getting our young people to take other courses/degrees and keep such things as leisure pursuits? Furthermore, given that there's a huge squeeze on degree courses in general, particularly for the poor, I think it's equally perfectly reasonable to say that we, as an interested party to subsidised degrees should be ensuring that those courses that are really needed by our economy should be prioritised aanyway?

None of this strikes me as hugely unreasonable, but as per usual you and others have seen your collective arses over it. Another day, another flaming at BEEX, right Doc?

I've done the substantive replies to you before Cavey; I've done the googling and the statistics and the homework and the argument construction. It never changes your opinions one iota. It inevitably results in you re-stating your position in fractionally more patronising language. I'll pass, thanks.

You are me, 4 pages back.

Except I never bothered with the evidence, natch.

BTW, that poem gave me goosebumps. The power of art, eh Philistine?

I reckon I've admitted I'm wrong about stuff, and apologised for it, more times than the rest of the entire board put together, yourself very much included. I've changed my views on many, many things, following enlightened discussions with people here. Including in this very fucking thread, to you, only yesterday, re. Corporation Tax. Blimey, that's one short memory you have there, matey. (And let's be frank here Doc, I think it's a tad rich you lecturing me about being arrogant anyway; you're surely no stranger to this foible yourself, wouldn't you say?)

As for statistics, these can often be presented selectively to supposedly prove or disprove a particular POV. I'm not saying you do this in particular, but it certainly has been known generally. If I'm not convinced by something, even in the face of supposed and/or partial empirical data, I'm quite within my rights to say so, and why. Hell, that's surely a much better approach than retorting with personal, disingenuous insults or straw man arguments; at least I attempt to constructively engage my opposition, which incidentally is pretty much the entire board most of the time.

Amusingly, you're absolutely correct: Doc has indeed resorted to mere cunt calling, putting words into my mouth and character assassination, just as you did 4 or so pages back, rather than to actually engage or answer any of the substantive points actually raised. In his case, I'll admit to being somewhat hurt and dismayed; his is an intellect that I hold, or at least did hold, genuine respect for, for one thing.

In your case though, especially in the light of this latest nasty little 'me too' post, I can only reiterate my previous sentiments. More to be pitied than scorned.

My god, you're tedious. Every single thing you type reinforces my opinion that you a shallow, self obsessed superior cretin. I'm slightly sad with myself for revealing that last post of yours. I honestly have no idea why you deem to lower yourself to posting here. Bored of polishing your sportscars?

I'm glad you have a low opinion of me. If I was the sort of person you liked, I would be just... like... you.

Apologies to the rest of you, btw. Most out of character for me.

No, I think you'll find it's entirely in character, as you so amply and repeatedly demonstrate in this thread?

Still, you're right about one thing though. The Cayman is indeed due for a good 'Autoglym' and it's a lovely, sunny day to do it, well reminded.

I don't really want to get involved in this, as it's become quite messy, and there are so many strings of this discussions wrapping around each other that I think I'd just confuse things further. However, I do feel it's important to say that this is quite true. Yes, Cavey does get embroiled into a fair few heated debates on here, and those debates do tend to lean into aggro at times, but I've also seen him apologise or simply reconsider or retract something more than just about anyone else.

Many thanks Sinister mate, hugely appreciated and very kind of you to stick your head above the parapet on my behalf.

I know there are many things we disagree on, but that's precisely the point - why else would I stick around, other than if I enjoyed testing my half-arsed theories about things (and changing them), in the face of robust, informed debate with intelligent, other-minded, interesting people? Frankly, the last thing I want to do is hang around some Torygraph forum or somesuch, with everyone agreeing with each other. Besides, most Tories are, in fact, pretty horrible people.

Watch what your saying Cavey or you may find yourself immortalised in a signature quote

I had written out a post on my phone when I was in the middle of washing the dishes (I come up with things I want to say on here at the most awkward times) and I thought I had posted it but it appears not.
*checks phone* Ah, I had tried to post at the same time as you so it's stuck at the new post alert screen. Anyway, I was just saying that I have really enjoyed this thread and your posts have led to a more interesting discussion. Obviously some of your views or perhaps just your way of expressing those views can rub some people up the wrong way, but I think this thread and board as a whole benefit from having you as a member and it certainly makes discussions and debates take interesting turns and look to different viewpoints.
It would have been easy for you to skim over the poem that was posted, but instead you took the time to read it and then didn't stop yourself from posting to say how you felt about it despite your reaction being at odds with your stated views on art throughout this thread. To me, that is a good attribute to have.

Meh! Well, I do have an unstoppable habit of landing myself well and truly in it!



Joking aside, that's really, really lovely of you to say so Gilly.
(Of course, I entirely agree with you about my total lack of diplomatic skills; I wish it were not so, but I don't seem to be able to change. I guess it's 'Captain Caveman' for a reason; I wasn't the one who came up with this not entirely complimentary moniker, many years ago now...)


Thanks again Gill; in my mind I wasn't trying to say 'poetry/art is crap' or indeed that it wasn't worthy of our investing in it for that matter, but as usual my powers of conveying my actual thoughts in words were/are rubbish. Still, it was certainly a huge eye opener for me; such a short piece and yet, even as crass and insensitive chump such as myself could not help but be moved by it. And I was 'only' thinking of my beloved dog whom I lost two years or more ago now, let alone (heaven forbid) my Soulmate or other loved one. In that respect I have been hugely fortunate, though of course, I guess such terrible things will catch up with all of us in time.

Anyway, many thanks again Gill, your very kind comments have been most gratefully received.

Having slept on it, I reckon it's time to flounce, guys. (My trademark, to be sure )

It's pretty clear that my position is totally untenable here for various reasons; if this were a pub, I'd hardly carry on visiting with half of the other patrons wishing I were crisped in a chemical fire. I will say though that I have immensely enjoyed my 5 years at WoS and BEEX; have met many lovely people along the way and had some great discussions. Sorry I've acted like a knob more times than I care to remember, but hey, there's been plenty of good laughs too.

Many thanks for the very kind messages and support both above and in private, which are hugely appreciated gals and guys. I wish all of you the very best.

Cavey

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBzJGckMYO4

Didn't see this, as I was seething all day yesterday.

I'd like to apologise to the forum once again and explain my behaviour. You may notice that I don't usually get involved in the more intellectual debates on here. It's not that I don't care about them, or have an opinion, but rather that I'd not like to drag my personal politics and situation into a place that, for me, functions entirely as a distraction from work. This debate was different however and I felt strongly enough to offer an opinion. Cavey and I are obviously very far apart in our world views and I accepted that and stepped away. Sadly, I couldn't help myself when he flip-flopped and sadly chipped in with an utterly childish 'me-too' post, followed by a personal attack on Cavey.

Cavey, if you read this, I apologise for voicing my opinion of you in such a direct way. Please understand that my feeling haven't changed and what I posted was 100%, but the very act of posting it was most 'un-excellent' and I apologise.

Anyway. Back to the mom jokes and big head jibes, please.

Your mum can flounce properly.

Clearly I need more practice.

*heads off to make a death penalty thread*

Poofs

Sorry to drag this up, but I don't see a problem with Cavey kicking around here. As long as he doesn't attack people personally, I think he should feel himself welcome here. And, hey, whilst his worldview is vastly different from those of many people here, every argument needs a counter-argument.

Goodness, I don't think anyone does.

Yeah, I feel exactly the same way. If it wasn't for Cavey it would all be your Mum jokes and why Myps phones are shite.

I personally hope we haven't seen the last of him.

Assuming you mean 'Cavey is welcome', then absolutely.

He certainly shouldn't take my comments as representative of the whole forum.

Ah, yeah - to clarify. I don't think anyone does 'see a problem with Cavey kicking around here'. And I hope that Cavey doesn't think anyone does, either.

I certainly am sorry to see him go, does that leave me as the last token tory-boy, there must be more of us city boy capitalist bastards kicking around? Please don't give me a wedgie or anything, you northern working class thugs!

When are you considered middle class? I'm most certainly working class right now, but I'd quite like to know if I ever become upwardly mobile

Well, it is my belief, and I put it to the honoured house, that we are all working class these days.
If you have to go out and do a job to be able to live, then you are working class, middle class was traditionally the land owners, upper class was aristocracy.

Amusingly, this definition means that people who live their life on benefits are middle class

Are you blind?

Who said that?

I'm sure we can work up some sort of rota to periodically remind us of how shit Labour is in the meantime.

Either that or he has no mirrors in his house.

Hahah

There's a difference between arguing and insulting, and actually wishing someone wasn't here.

No there isn't. Badger-lover.

Yah, deffo, dahling. mwah!

They they came for Removed by Request,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't into his shit rat comic.

They came first for Dimrill,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a goat lover.

They they came for Cavey,
and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a tory boy.

Then they came for me
and I didn't speak up because I was too busy LOLing or whatever.

Man, you missed off loads.

Your mum, for one.

Unlike you, your mum always comes.

ZING!

Boom! Kissy! Ka-fucking-BOOM!