🚀 go-pugleaf

Peter Huebner <p.w.h...@gmail.com> looked up from reading the
entrails of the porn spammer to utter  "The Augury is good, the signs
say:

>In article <fhn0malo3cq4sd652...@4ax.com>, Xoc...@gmx.com 
>says...
>> 
>> "Trimble Bracegirdle" <no-spam@never.spam> looked up from reading the
>> entrails of the porn spammer to utter  "The Augury is good, the signs
>> say:
>> 
>> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pollock
>> >
>> >In the UK our traditionally favourite fish for eating e.g. 'fish & chips'
>> >is Cod or Haddock.
>> >I believe in the USA people just refer to 'whitefish' without much 
>> >distinction as
>> >to the type.
>> >
>> >But the horrible depletion & low stocks of Cod in the Atlantic meant
>> >Pollock has been come the widely used alternative - particularly in
>> >manufactured meal type products like Fish Fingers .
>> >Apparently McDonalds fish burger things are made of Pollock.
>> >But UK Fish n Chip shops don't use it - has to be Cod or Haddock.
>> >
>> >Apparently there are a number of different sub species .
>> >We often see 'Alaska Pollock' on packet ingredients.
>> >There are a number of different spellings for these fishes.
>> >
>> >"Pollock and other species of gadids are plagued by parasites, one of which 
>> >is the cod worm, Lernaeocera branchialis, a copepod crustacean.
>> >At its final stage, the female parasite, with fertilized eggs, clings to the 
>> >gills of the fish and metamorphoses into
>> >a plump, sinusoidal, wormlike body, with a coiled mass of egg strings at the 
>> >rear." (Wikipedia)
>> >Good Monster for a Comp. Game !
>> >@@@
>> >
>> >I'm a fan of the painter Jackson Pollock.
>> >Takes a lot of nerve to just chuck paint around - & vast amounts of practice 
>> >to get some meaning into it.
>> 
>> Unless you're doing "modern art" in which case you just literally throw
>> paint (or other substances) at a canvas then give it a pretentious
>> title, and the modern art snobs will convince themselves that they see
>> in the painting what the title indicates they should see.
>> 
>> Reminds me of the INXS, Suicide Blond story;
>> Apparently the guy they hired to do the video showed up and said he
>> loved the song and how he thought the song was a metaphor for the
>> deforestation of the Amazon basin or somesuch, when in fact it's just
>> about a girl who dyed her hair, as the band immediately told him.
>> 
>> He read meaning into it that it never had.
>> 
>> Xocyll
>
>mmmh. The thing is - if you look at the whole body of work of, say, 
>Kandinsky or Picasso, you will see that these guys had well mastered 
>representative art; they moved beyond it (and not by throwing paint at a 
>canvas, although I can in no way vouch for Pollock).
>
>However, if I see some pretentious prat standing in front of a red 
>canvas with a white circle and a black like on it, "reading meaning into 
>it" then "pratt" is all I can think. Which doesn't mean that I can't 
>still enjoy looking at it, if it's well done. I like Liechtenstein, 
>Warhol, Rubens Toulouse Lautrec, Rembrandt and Edvard Munch too. Some 
>stuff appeals to me, visually, some doesn't and that's the end of the 
>story for me. Matter of taste. 
>
>People trying to "read meaning" in to poetry totally destroyed my 
>ability to put up with it .... The Lit Crit fraternity (and sorority) 
>are the biggest bunch of verbose wankers I can think of, apart from 
>Wittgenstein.

I remember seeing the beginnings of that in high school English class,
dissecting plays and poems for deeper meaning, and I can only assume it
gets even worse in University.

Once you've gotten used to that kind of thing, you do it to everything,
seeing meanings that aren't there and never were, assuming that because
some very talented people use multiple layers of meaning that everyone
in the field does.

The kind of idiocy I'm talking about is like the 1990 purchase by the
National Gallery of Canada of "Voice of Fire" for 1.76 million dollars.
It's 3 blocks of color, 2 blue, one red, and while they say it would
sell for upwards of 30 million today (to some fucking moron) as far as
I'm concerned it's worth what it would take to duplicate (which would
likely be less than a grand.)

What exactly does it have to do with voice or fire?  Not a thing

If it could be done by a small child, it's not really art.
Far too much of "modern art" falls into that category.

>It's there to enjoy, enjoy it or not, but don't try to despoil it with 
>comments like 'throw paint at a canvas' - in many cases that is just 
>slander, and not warrented.

But in many cases it is most certainly warranted as the "artists" have
never done representational art because they can't, it's random mess
with a pretentious name (when they aren't using shit or meat or rotting
vegetables to be shocking.)

Xocyll
-- 
I don't particularly want you to FOAD, myself. You'll be more of 
a cautionary example if you'll FO And Get Chronically, Incurably, 
Painfully, Progressively, Expensively, Debilitatingly Ill. So 
FOAGCIPPEDI. -- Mike Andrews responding to an idiot in asr