That opinion was further reinforced after a that performance, the physicality of the performers was breathtaking.
Holding a static pose which was essentially a stress position while observing the main performers, then immediately leaping into performance, the strength, conditioning and discipline required was incredible.
That's what I got from seeing the ballet too. The athleticism is gobsmacking, especially in the petite women. I'm glad I've seen it live, wouldn't mind going again, but it's not something that I'd say other people must see.
If it's a chicken or egg Q I think there's ease of access, tribalisms, aspirations etc all feeding into it and saying football is popular because it has value to more people than other games or sports, it did long before TV and sport news sections.
There's probably a study to be had in this. If interest creates coverage and coverage creates interest then we have a paradox, where did it come from? Chicken and egg as you say.
I rather suspect that a large driver is social; kids get into football because their dad watches it, then it's with them for life to pass on to their kids (see also: religion). I got into American football at school because that's what my little group of mates were into.
Because,
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that taking the global population as a whole (all 9 billion or whatever it is now) there is no such thing as "universally acclaimed culture".
In the UK, football is a national obsession. You can see it in action on this thread even, people talk about it with a degree of irrational passion normally the domain of religious types and Linux users. Meanwhile, over in the US soccer has been a niche interest at best for years and is only relatively recently gaining popularity. Why is that? Demonstrably then, one cannot be objectively "better" than the other.
We could argue that our pondside friends prefer full-contact sportage and that probably has merit, but then their Big Four includes baseball, a sport so exciting that it makes cricket look like the Isle of Man TT. So what gives?
Is it perhaps the case that things are popular today merely because they are popular? Who here started watching (say) Lost or Game Of Thrones or Traitors because people were talking about it at work? And, did you do it because it sounded interesting, or so that you could fit in and join the conversations?
I never used to get the fuss about Pink Floyd, until I went to see Roger Waters tour "The Wall". It was one of the most mind blowing experiences I've ever had. I now think that they're brilliant.
I was never a Pink Floyd fan. I'm still not. But I got tickets to see them one time and went because I could and figured I might regret it if I didn't. It was an astonishing experience, one of the best gigs of my life and I've been to a lot. The music may not be to someone's taste but, objectively, "shit" they are not.
I wonder if we went to the same gig?
First point - reading a book and watching a film are two separate activities. A person can do (and enjoy) both (not at the same time, obvs.)
You'd probably be able to do both at the same time more easily now. Where in an era where streaming companies driving the commissioning of film and TV. Producers are being told to treat their show as the 'second screen' and assume that the viewer is giving at least part of their attention to something else while its on.
kids get into football because their dad watches it, then it's with them for life to pass on to their kids (see also: religion).
There's a geographical link between football and previous mass employment in industry.
We could argue that our pondside friends prefer full-contact sportage and that probably has merit, but then their Big Four includes baseball, a sport so exciting that it makes cricket look like the Isle of Man TT. So what gives?
I think their "running and passing and shooting at a goal team sport" interest gets split between ice hockey and basketball. plus lacrosse as a distant third. which will dilute the stats a bit.
I think things can be "Universally Acclaimed" (ok universal among say the Anglosphere) but its okay to not personally like anything in particular. But personal preference doesn't override objective quality, which definitely exists for most "culture".
Its fine to not like Star Wars or any other film in the "Space Opera" genre. Just the same way its fine not to really like opera or ballet. But even if its not your jam, most people would still recognise thar Star Wars is objectively better that Star Trek V or Battle Beyond the Stars.
You might think films with sharks in them are a load of unrealistic toot. But that doesn't stop Jaws being the best one.
I hate Oasis, but I still know that Morning Glory is objectively a good album and Be Here Now is a lot of tat.
Likewise I love Radiohead, but know that King of Limbs is objectively worse than OK Computer or In Rainbows.
Producers are being told to treat their show as the 'second screen' and assume that the viewer is giving at least part of their attention to something else while its on.
Don't get me started on that. MrsJ asking me what happened in something we were both "watching".
"If you'd put your phone down you wouldn't need to ask!!"
So while Ballet is still not my jam, I can appreciate it as an art form, and try to imagine the levels of commitment and passion to get to a level where people pay to see you, regardless if they genuinely like what you do or are pretending.
We used to live down the street from the theatre which was the home of Nederlands Dans Theater. I was persuaded to go by MrsJ, and as it was close, and there were free drinks at the interval, it was an easy way to curry favour. I was absolutely hooked. It's hard to put into words why. It was like watching a fluid sculpture, shapes co-ordinated with sounds, like a dream, or some sort of kaleidoscope. I'm not expressing it well at all, but it was mesmerising and since then I've been many many times to see NDT and similar companies. As a fat old bloke with two left feet I can only marvel at the physical abilities of the performers, and since then I've got to know quite a lot of dancers personally and up close they are more athletic than they look on stage. All of which is to say, if you haven't tried, give it a go, without preconceptions and just let yourself be affected. Maybe you'll be pleasantly surprised!!
Meanwhile, over in the US soccer has been a niche interest at best for years and is only relatively recently gaining popularity. Why is that? Demonstrably then, one cannot be objectively "better" than the other.
Not sure about that. In the US C&W music is more popular than Mongolian throat singing, yet is objectively "worse".
I never feel "shame" about it but there's been times I've suddenly had a lightbulb moment and really come to appreciate something I had either dismissed or bounced off, which makes me want to be more open to things even if I don't think I like them
Like, opera, I still think a lot of it is basically caterwauling but I came weirdly to listen to a lot more, especially bel canto stuff as a result of reading a novel set in that era and suddenly it clicked and I was hearing these incredible sounds that I'd just never have heard but also listening with a bit more tolerance and understanding to things I'd previously just disliked.
(actually the exact same thing happened for jazz, again tons I am never going to like but I started listening to bossa nova while reading an sf novel that featured a load of bossa nova and now I love it. Not the way i love metal or punk, you can't really get a pit going for Joao Gilberto)
It's good to like what you like but also not to be closed off, and it's way too easy to be closed off. You might die having never heard your favourite song.
Gravel bikes can **** off though
Is it perhaps the case that things are popular today merely because they are popular? Who here started watching (say) Lost or Game Of Thrones or Traitors because people were talking about it at work? And, did you do it because it sounded interesting, or so that you could fit in and join the conversations?
I think popularity and quality aren't the same thing and things can be popular because of their flaws rather dispite them - Football and 'The Traitors' are two good examples from your list perhaps. Both of them are talking points beyond the bounds of the actual 'thing'. Football causes endless debate becuase the actual gameplay is broken - the score rarely reflects which team played best on the day. In fact if you just look a list results on a pools coupon from a week's matches and be forgiven for thinking neither team turned up to some matches. What sort of completion routinely has '0-0' as an outcome - did their buses both break down? Nobody scored a goal in a game where scoring a goal is the only goal?
Does everyone get their ticket money refunded when that happens?
The disparity between performance and outcome means theres loads to talk about. A nil-nil outcome doesn't mean both teams were rubbish, but it doesn't even mean both teams were even equally matched - one team can run rings round the other and the score way well not reflect that. But it means the moment the match ends the debate about meaning of the results starts. The media has screeds of football coverage every day of the week - regardless of whether any matches have actually been played the day before, regardless of whether its even the football season- it generates so much to talk about. Which is amazing if you like football and absolutely gruesome of you don't 🙂
And The Traitors might have something the same going on - as a game show format its actually broken. The gameplay doesn't actually work. But it seemingly doesn't matter and may actually make it better. It might be why its become some popular.
The Traitors seems to have brought back 'have to talk about it' television which is incredibly admirable really. Shared experiences - don't get many of them anymore.
I don't watch it though - been in the Traitors castle and everything too - even know some of the production team 🙂
Don't get me started on that. MrsJ asking me what happened in something we were both "watching".
"If you'd put your phone down you wouldn't need to ask!!"
Just keep asking her how many bars she's got 🙂
American football = rugby with body armor.
Baseball = rounders with body armor.
Baseball = rounders with body armor.
At least baseball is over on a shorter-than-geological time scale:-)
If interest creates coverage and coverage creates interest then we have a paradox, where did it come from? Chicken and egg as you say.
Seems like it. I think it's about ease of access, a kickabout is simple and cheap. It's an old game and it's had time to grow, a long period of being a generational everyman thing. Easy to get into at a very basic level, get some skills and you can be a local hero or a national legend if you're really good, it's more meritocratic and open now than most sports. I see why kids aspire to be top players and why people are into it.
There are only a very few films where I have read a book before seeing the film and not been at least a little bit disappointed by the filmmaker's interpretation or depiction of characters, places or even worlds, so I absolutely get where he is coming from.
Indeed. There is a reason we call these "adaptations." The Lord of the Rings movies run to like 11-12 hours and they still left out some of the book.
Yet things like Star Wars get good reviews while the whole saga is farcical bollocks by any objective measure such how fast you can travel through space, how much use wings are in a vacuum, how you could limit the length of a lazer sword etc. It's laughable.
A couple of points here.
A lot of 'zeitgeist' phenomena occurred because they were new, groundbreaking. The Beatles discussed here for instance, looking back today they were just another boy band. But they were one of the first boy bands, nothing had sounded like The Beatles prior to The Beatles. By way of a slightly more recent comparison, look at Nirvana. We could consider The Lord of the Rings to be derivative toss but we forget, our whole idea of elves and dwarves that we have today was created (or at least, first widely popularised) by Tolkien.
Star Wars is no different here. Contemporary sci-fi was rare and family-friendly outings non-existent. 2001: A Space Odyssey was late 60s and hardly a seat-of-your-pants thrill ride. The 70s gave us things like Logan's Run and Westworld, not really things you're going to gather the kids round to watch. Then Star Wars blasted, somewhat literally, onto our screens. There was nothing else like it, it was truly revolutionary and a generation was enthralled. Today sure, it's dated, but it's nearly 50 years old. What other 1977 films are on the family watch list, Herbie in Monte Carlo? Star Wars (along with Star Trek) made sci-fi financially viable again.
As for "farcical":
It is set a "galaxy far, far away" so our rules need not apply. Light speed would get us to the Sun in ~8 minutes, is that any more fantastical than a jet engine would be to the Wright Brothers? Wings would be useless in a vacuum yes, but fighters like the X-Wing also operate within atmospheres. The lightsaber is not a laser sword (and there is no such word as "lazer"), it is focused plasma; real world versions exist, go look on Youtube. In any case, this could be handwaved with "Jedi masters use The Force to control it." Laugh away, after you've googled what the "fi" means in sci-fi.
I read the OP’s post and leapt to page 3 (popular 20th century culture?) to say … opera is magnificent!
When I moved to Leeds in the early 90s I bought an opera north season ticket with my then ‘partner’. We saw several operas over the season. Including the ‘scratch & sniff’ Love for Three Oranges. Opera is like theatre plus an orchestra with the most OTT presentation. Since then I’ve been to a few opera performances and even when the production is weird or lacklustre the combination of story, performance, singing, and orchestra has overcome any individual weakness. It is an amazing experience.
YMMV, other experiences are available.
now, would I listen to opera on my hifi? Not really. Would I spend hours watching opera performances on Blu-Ray? Not so much. But live, or ‘live’ in cinema, it can be great!
I've read quite a lot of science fiction, I have some Asimov on the bookshelf, the level of plausibility is high enough for me to be taken in by th estory and ignore any minor discrepancies. Then there's spoof sci-fi such as 5th element which is a great comic romp. Star Wars I can't take seriously enough to watch.
1977 films? Saturday Night Fever and I had to Google to check that was 77. I couldn't afford the cinema in the late 70s, I needed the money for tyres and bits for the bike. 🙂 At uni the cinema club was cheap and I kept going even when I started work. I sometimes wonder if I'd be living in France, fairly fluent in German and a fan of European cinema if I hadn't been inspired by some of the foreign films they used to screen. My mate was a Saudi abasador's son who'd lived in Paris and had a thing about Adjani with a VHS collection to prove it.
Culture eh ! Get's you into things that change your life. Along with the films I also blame the songs of the House Martins and Jean Jacques Goldman.
@richmtb said
I think things can be "Universally Acclaimed" (ok universal among say the Anglosphere) but its okay to not personally like anything in particular. But personal preference doesn't override objective quality, which definitely exists for most "culture".
But then the examples you go on to mention are subjective not objective. They must be because some other people will not agree with your opinion.
I wonder if we went to the same gig?
Sorry, I missed this. Seemingly not, I was at The Pulse tour (the one where the seating collapsed, I was in the rebuilt section on the next date).
oops, hit quote instead of edit.
i meant 1968. not 1868 lol
TBH I’d have appreciated it more if it was 1868 post futuristic 🙂
I went to the Momentary Lapse of Reason tour at Maine Road in 1988. Before that the Dark Side of the Moon tour at Sheffield City Hall in 1971 (before the album was finalised and released so mostly earlier material - my favourite period).
Both fantastic experiences.
When reading books are you not similarly constrained by the vision of the author?
No, how can I be? I’m reading words that describe certain things, but my own mind makes a visual reference that may be significantly different from what the author had in mind.
Sometimes an author describes a location in such a way that I get a vivid picture of the place, and in one particular instance a film that was made of the book actually used the place I imagined as the actual location in the film!
The book is Stardust, by Neil Gaiman, and when I first read it, and the description of the village of Wall, I instantly thought of Castle Combe, and I was in the village, which is only five miles from where I live, when they were setting up to film there. I later met Neil at a book signing, and I asked him if he knew of Castle Combe when he wrote the book, and he said no, it was pure coincidence!
Ah but he probably watched Dr Dolittle as a kid 🙂
5th element which is a great comic romp. Star Wars I can't take seriously
Why not take it as a comic romp also?
My mate was a Saudi abasador's son
I think a mate's dad had one of those in metallic orange.
TBH 5th element is a visual treat, Jean Paul Gaultier’s vision of the clothing just blows my mind.
Star Wars is more realistic in a gritty dystopian view of the future/past.
Dont think any of them are meant to taken seriously:-)
I like what I like. Some other people like some of what I like, I like some of what other people like. I am glad we don't all like the same stuff, that everyone else likes.I would'nt like that at all
See, I like Star wars, and doctor who, but take it for what it is..childrens sci-fi.. to try to make it 'high brow' is a tall order.
That said, Andor is brilliant sci-fi - the best starwars 'thing' yet, by a very wide margin.
They aren't "children's sci-fi," they're family sci-fi.
I stand corrected 😉
star wars is a good example of a very simple story.
compare it to the depth and complexity of say " the algebraist"
Zoos. Just don't get them. Large animals going slowly nuts in enclosures the size of tennis courts, or birds in tiny cages.
star wars is a good example of a very simple story.
compare it to the depth and complexity of say " the algebraist"
Yep, I suppose some things work well as entertainment but it’s a fine line of being too clever that the majority of audience can’t follow what’s going on, Shakespeare has a lot of rudeness and humour as well as it’s plot so something for everyone.
I think sometimes you want entertainment and it doesn’t need to be deep.
I look forward to how the Dune films continue as that went deeeeep 🙂
compare it to the depth and complexity of say " the algebraist"
I looked it up. Intriguing and I've not read any of his books yet. But I tend to find books that have a lot of abstract fictional place names and concepts or are too far removed from 'normality' in structure hard going. Same kind of thing with historic biographies - so many names, dates an places to try to remember as I go. It's not because I'm not interested, I just process that info less easily, working memory for some things more than others.
I could say 'nah, it's too detailed!" which sounds like a critique of the writer. I'd really mean 'too much mental effort, give me something that feels less like hard work'. There are books that are still an effort to get through but it's a good effort, like a climb it's rewarding. Reading one at the mo that feels like it'll be worth it, slow going but the complexity is more in the landscapes and emotive aims.
So I think a lot of what we say is good/bad or interesting/boring relates to our cognitive function type as much as the 'acclaimed value'.
Zoos. Just don't get them. Large animals going slowly nuts in enclosures the size of tennis courts, or birds in tiny cages.
Or also many endangered animals involved in successful breeding programs to save them from extinction.
Depends which way you look at it really. In reality, it's probably both.
The documentary about Chester Zoo on channel 4 is a good watch and will leave you in no doubt about the commitment and dedication of the staff to conservation cause.
https://www.channel4.com/programmes/the-secret-life-of-the-zoo
compare it to the depth and complexity of say " the algebraist"
Complexity is not necessarily a good thing, especially if it comes at the expense of emotional engagement.
compare it to the depth and complexity of say " the algebraist"
Based on the Wikipedia plot summary it sounds like the very worst elements of the rebooted Star Wars stuff.
The original trilogy was very simple. The rebooted stuff threw in lots of complexity, McGuffins and generally deviated from SW lore so much that it spoiled it.
I think art for some is 'type 2' fun. It's not immediately nice, but the challenge it poses is stimulating. Everyone has their own kink.
Celebrity strictly bake gogglebox = bike park.
5 hour operas in German = bikepacking the Munros.
This is a group where people pedal around muddy hills in the rain and call it fun. I'd imagine most of us have unorthodox tastes!
star wars is a good example of a very simple story.
compare it to the depth and complexity of say " the algebraist"
I reckon I could make a pretty convincing argument that the Star Wars universe as at least as deep and complex a world as anything Banks has created. The Algerbrist for instance has a pretty standard religio-hegemonic baddy, (a common theme in Banks works) an 'unknowable' group of aliens that act in accordance with Clarke's dictum of any advanced society not unlike the Jedi and Sith operate in SW. and the hero is revealed to be a bit of rebel. Banks is a brilliant world-builder and story-teller without a doubt, but his plots are pretty straightforward. Anyway, some of the longest surviving stories we have are pretty simple: Gilgamesh, Odyssey...
Zoos - see, I should be shamed into liking them because of the conservation work? It is a fair comment. Only put this up as an example as they are in the news today, many struggling due to increasing costs. Yet whenever I visit one, they all have the same promo animals of lions, elephants, large sea mammals or birds all suffering for the cause. Kind of think of Zoos as Victorian cultural relics that should really be stopped.
Zoos - see, I should be shamed into liking them because of the conservation work? It is a fair comment. Only put this up as an example as they are in the news today, many struggling due to increasing costs. Yet whenever I visit one, they all have the same promo animals of lions, elephants, large sea mammals or birds all suffering for the cause. Kind of think of Zoos as Victorian cultural relics that should really be stopped.
I couldn't agree more. I spent a year in Kenya with the old job and it reinforced that point for me, unless there is a genuine conservation aim, e.g. reintroduction to the wild, then they should be wound down.
Yet things like Star Wars get good reviews while the whole saga is farcical bollocks by any objective measure such how fast you can travel through space, how much use wings are in a vacuum, how you could limit the length of a lazer sword etc. It's laughable.
Its set in a galaxy far, far away. You're thinking with your earthling blinkers on.
I don't think there's anything that's universally recognised as great.
I don't know what the threshold is for 'mainstream popularity', but it's nowhere near 100% of the population.
At a guess, the proportion of the population that goes out of its way to watch football is what, less than 30%. Ballet? Less than 0.1%.
Not liking these things doesn't make you special, it makes you ordinary. Sorry!
Zoos - see, I should be shamed into liking them because of the conservation work? It is a fair comment. Only put this up as an example as they are in the news today, many struggling due to increasing costs.
its a missed opportunity that they don't have a meat counter in the visitor shop
Mac - we visited one in Belgium years ago. In the cafe they had various Zoo sourced meats.
If you think The Beatles were just a proto-boyband you need to listen again. They grew organically to change culture in this country with their wit and innovation, creating their own material musically and lyrically that has influenced/been copied by the succeeding generations of musicians, not just a record company created cash cow based on appeal to teenage girls. It's fine if you don't like them but to dismiss them in this way is ignorant of their true influence on popular culture
its a missed opportunity that they don't have a meat counter in the visitor shop
Indeed...
Mac - we visited one in Belgium years ago. In the cafe they had various Zoo sourced meats.
see thats the kind of can-do attitude modern zoos need. Diversify - come for the penguins, stay for the bush-tucker challenge, leave with a fur hat.
But then the examples you go on to mention are subjective not objective. They must be because some other people will not agree with your opinion.
What I'm saying is that its not just "subjective" there is definitely objective good or bad in pretty much every medium.
Someone disagreeing with something or having a different view doesn't change this.
If I said "Jaws the Revenge is the best Jaws film" or "Jurassic Park 3 is so much better than the first one" that doesn't change the fact that the original films are objectively better it just means I'm wrong.
Art...or rather modern/contemporary art...like some of the drivel that Hockney has painted or the likes of 3 random blocks of colour on a canvas and people fawn over it....weird...IMHO
See, I really rate Hockney, the bold colours and great appreciation of light and shade, really speak to me.
This is 1868, though, can it really be considered modern ot over 60 years old? 🤔
That's why I typed 'some of the drivel that Hockney.....' My wife and I had a wander around his gallery at Salts Mill, some of the stuff, a child could have done in reception class. (The above picture isn't one of them..not my cup of tea but I'd not include that in my definition of 'crap art')
That's why I typed 'some of the drivel that Hockney.....' My wife and I had a wander around his gallery at Salts Mill, some of the stuff, a child could have done in reception class. (The above picture isn't one of them..not my cup of tea but I'd not include that in my definition of 'crap art')
So given that he can paint what you consider "good", why do you suppose he chooses to paint things that you consider "crap", or "drivel"?
I really like Hockney, and I really like a lot of what you'd consider bollocks, inc Rothko, and Pollock. Rather than getting excited about what you don't like, appreciate what you do.
Which is?
So given that he can paint what you consider "good", why do you suppose he chooses to paint things that you consider "crap", or "drivel"?
I've no idea, never thought about it and couldn't really care less. Hockney was an example...plenty of other pieces of 'art' aren't to my taste either. the artists can and do paint stuff I like/appreciate. A bit like bands and music for me I suppose. Just because I like Band A doesn't mean I like everything that they do.
This is a can of shit. It's not art (although the sculpture I squeezed out this morning was pretty amazing and it's a pity more people didn't get to see its splendors.)
In the UK, football is a national obsession.
To an extent, however there are very, very few people in my larger circle of friends who actually give a damn.
I was never a Pink Floyd fan. I'm still not. But I got tickets to see them one time and went because I could and figured I might regret it if I didn't. It was an astonishing experience, one of the best gigs of my life and I've been to a lot. The music may not be to someone's taste but, objectively, "shit" they are not.
Conversely, I saw Pink Floyd at the Bristol Hippodrome, on the ‘Wish You Were Here’ tour, where they played three songs that would ultimately turn up on ‘Animals’.
It was ok. It could easily be argued that dressed up shop mannequins with a light show and sound system might have been equally as effective. There was zero interaction with the audience, Nick was the only one who showed any animation, and that’s ‘cos he’s the drummer!
Honestly, I’ve seen Nick’s band ‘Saucerful of Secrets’ twice, and they’re a far better live experience. I recommend them to anyone who likes the pre-DSOTM material, and Nick actually chats to the audience as well. Nice bloke, met him a couple of times at his garden open days.
Zoos. Just don't get them. Large animals going slowly nuts in enclosures the size of tennis courts, or birds in tiny cages.
That’s becoming very much a minority of cases; most collections of larger animals are now in park-like surroundings giving the animals large areas to move around - I think Longleat was the first such example, which has become the template that others are using.
Bristol has now got a big open park the other side of the M5 from Cribbs Causeway, just off the B4055 towards Easter Compton. I went there with Jo in June 2020, they didn’t have all the animals moved there at that point, but it was obviously going to be much better for the inhabitants than the original location in Clifton.
In the UK, football is a national obsession.
To an extent, however there are very, very few people in my larger circle of friends who actually give a damn.
Yeah, like reform voters, just because 'kicky ball' fans are stupid, loud and annoying, doesn't make them a majority.
One comment to this above was 'understanding leads to appreciation' and it sounds like that's what you're trying to do. Perhaps for some it's more about the introduction or first experience that leads to interest, and that creates the appreciation?
There’s some truth to this, especially in art and sculpture, but I’m most cases where I look at something, especially sculpture, I can usually understand what the artist is saying, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to like it; for example, Henry Moore’s work, while I appreciate the skill that’s gone into the works, they don’t elicit any emotion, on the other hand I absolutely love Anthony Gormley’s work, in particular because he literally puts so much of himself into many pieces, using his own body to create the original mould that the final piece is cast from.
I do like some abstract art, as well as more realistic pieces, but there’s no common ground between what I like and that that I’m indifferent to. The Royal Academy Summer Exhibition is something I’ve been to on quite a few occasions over the years, and it’s brilliant for finding things I like and things I don’t.
Just don't get me started on "Studio Furniture"(even though thats kind of what I make.. ahem)
No mate it is just two planks of rotten and scabby wood. Nailing them together does not mean it is a table worth $30.000
Used to know a bloke did watercolours. Amazing detail and skill.which i think art wise is very difficult to achieve. which were being dont for commercial earn a crust so to speak.
His own personal stuff were abstract, and it probably took me a year(inc explanations from the artist) before i really got the gist of the subject matter.
So its probably the same for any abstract work, in that you might not initially 'get it' but it is clear there is more to this understanding of how an artist thinks then tries to convey those thoughts that show the depth of the subject.
If that makes sense to anyone 😆
In the UK, football is a national obsession.
To an extent, however there are very, very few people in my larger circle of friends who actually give a damn.
For a lot of men it's just an easy way of making conversation, like talking about the weather. The rules and tactics are so simple that a monkey can understand them, it crosses social groups, and of course, celebrity culture means that most people can name plenty of footballers and join in fairly vacuous conversations. (I can't - I have no interest at all.)
As to actually going to matches, I'd say that the people in my office who talk most loudly about football are least likely to attend a match, and no-one actually plays, whereas we've got a few current and ex rugby players and more people who go to watch local rugby. (Or cricket or American football, and we have plenty of cyclists.) But, football chat dominates the office sports talk.
It is many factors in life for me. I hate the trend for the latest thing being the best and accepted way. To my mind something has to be proved to be the way to follow for many years before being mainstream . I cannot abide the fact that we are expected to follow current fashions for being all caring and being persecuted for not fitting in with current trends. If you are a caring soul you will accept every ones point of view. Hypocrisy come to mind . Lets be "green" and ride our bikes. h yeah, and drive to do so or buy a new bike every few years. To suggest such a thing seems to be heresy. Just why in an increase in cyclists a good thing? Not in my experience. As for so called culture. Most much is crap. Indeed why have it? Film? Or any telly. Why sit inside ? Why buy if you can mend. Can't mend. Learn. Phones. Why carry it everywhere? You don't need to have every update. Your kids are where you want them to be. You decided to buy milk before you left home. Wait until next month before talking to a mate in Scotland. . Modern life is crap.
being persecuted for not fitting in with current trends
Who's doing the persecuting? How bad is this persecution?
Some people seem to being getting their knickers in a twist about something they've invented in their head. Nobody cares what you like or don't like.
Jewelry. I just don't get it. Functional stuff, I get. I wear a watch because it's useful to know what the time is. I wear a wedding ring so that people know I'm married. But wearing rings and bracelets and piercings that have no functional purpose is just stupid.
Tattoos too, but I've found that trying to explain this to tattoo wearers doesn't seem to achieve much.
I wear a wedding ring so that people know I'm married. But wearing rings and bracelets and piercings that have no functional purpose is just stupid
So wearing rings and bracelets etc. is "stupid", but wearing a wedding ring 'so people know I'm married' is somehow not stupid? 😄
Who are these people that need to know you are married?
I get it if you'd said the wedding ring is a symbol of commitment to your partner & a symbol of your love for each other, blah blah.
Maybe your wedding ring prevents all the single girls and boys flocking to you as you walk into a pub? 😉
Haha I think that's a sticky wicket...
You need to wear a wedding ring?
It's just a symbolic decoration like any other jewelry or tattoo or whatever!
Or are you such an undeniable stud, you have to wear a gold ring in a desperate attempt to prevent all the thirsty women from hitting on you wherever you go? 🤣
I cannot abide the fact that we are expected to follow current fashions for being all caring and being persecuted for not fitting in with current trends.
Wait, what? Did you really just say that you can't abide being nice to people? 👀
If you are a caring soul you will accept every ones point of view. Hypocrisy come to mind .
Well, no, this is woolly thinking because it predisposes the idea that all "points of view" are equal and thus equally worthy of respect. Racism and homophobia are points of view, do we accept those? How about Nazis? #Godwin
It's ok not to tolerate intolerance, I see no hypocrisy in this.
Modern life is crap.
None of the things you list are mandatory. Go buy a cow and live in a tent if you like, no-one's stopping you (up in Scotland at least).
Tattoos too, but I've found that trying to explain this to tattoo wearers doesn't seem to achieve much.
What on earth were you expecting to achieve, "terribly sorry, I had no idea, I'll have it lasered off immediately"?
A simple apology would be nice.
Blimey, who else are you waiting for an apology from?
But wearing rings and bracelets and piercings that have no functional purpose is just stupid.
I very much doubt that you reduce your appearance to the purely functional.
A simple apology would be nice.
For what?
Do you also accost people in the street if you don't like their shoes?
This is a troll, right?
Haha I think that's a sticky wicket...
You need to wear a wedding ring?
It's just a symbolic decoration like any other jewelry or tattoo or whatever!Or are you such an undeniable stud, you have to wear a gold ring in a desperate attempt to prevent all the thirsty women from hitting on you wherever you go? 🤣
I use a chastity belt.
I use a chastity belt.
At least that way you don't get strangers dissing your aesthetic choices. Or maybe you do ...