Daz Sparks 1,154 Posted March 16 Just now, Fen Canary said: Ultimately they know that people will become annoyed at the museum posting this nonsense, it will help them attract eyeballs and thus more advertising money. They’re simply printing things that are of interest to their readership. It’s no different to the Guardian banging on about Brexit or what a racist hellhole Britain is every other day, just two sides of the same depressing coin Nowt to argue with there. If you rely on a single source of news you will soon become cerebrally malnourished. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
A Load of Squit 5,170 Posted March 16 Here's a radical suggestion, if you don't like these notes under the paintings go to The Fitzwilliam Museum (it's free) and talk to the people who work there about why they've done this. It's much better than relying on the Telegraph. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fen Canary 829 Posted March 16 9 minutes ago, A Load of Squit said: Here's a radical suggestion, if you don't like these notes under the paintings go to The Fitzwilliam Museum (it's free) and talk to the people who work there about why they've done this. It's much better than relying on the Telegraph. Without the Telegraph reporting it (for whatever their reasons for doing so) most of us wouldn’t have been aware a respected institution such as Fitzwilliam was spouting this nonsense. I’m no fan of the Telegraph but they’re not the ones at fault, the museum is Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
A Load of Squit 5,170 Posted March 16 (edited) 12 minutes ago, Fen Canary said: Without the Telegraph reporting it (for whatever their reasons for doing so) most of us wouldn’t have been aware a respected institution such as Fitzwilliam was spouting this nonsense. I’m no fan of the Telegraph but they’re not the ones at fault, the museum is The Telegraph have reported something that other outlets had already reported, taking selective quotes and putting them on X isn't reliable. How do you know that the Fitzwilliam are at 'fault' if you don't ask them what they are doing? This piece in the Guardian has much better reporting. https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2024/mar/10/fitzwilliam-museum-cambridge-woke-tate-national-portrait-gallery-rehang-displays Edited March 16 by A Load of Squit 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Naturalcynic 631 Posted March 16 48 minutes ago, Herman said: I think Daz explains it perfectly. And presumably the same argument applies to those clickbait stories that appear in The Guardian, Indy and Mirror, which result in the left frothing at the mouth in outrage at the wicked Tory scum. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
A Load of Squit 5,170 Posted March 16 4 minutes ago, Naturalcynic said: And presumably the same argument applies to those clickbait stories that appear in The Guardian, Indy and Mirror, which result in the left frothing at the mouth in outrage at the wicked Tory scum. 'frothing at the mouth'. Give your head a wobble. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
littleyellowbirdie 2,551 Posted March 16 (edited) 1 hour ago, Daz Sparks said: In reality, I don't think we are that far apart on this subject. The concept that landscape painting from 200 years ago can evoke deep feelings among most people is ridiculous, the concept that it's a view representative of anyone other than the authors is going in a similar direction. I'm quite obviously not trying to shut down debate, as we appear to be having one now. The point that seems more contentious seems to be the Telegraph's motives for publishing. Which I'm happy stick with my assertion it's motivated by the politics of division, and I am also happy to engage in civilised conversation with you about. The story's pointing at a political culture in an organisation where a bizarre idea like this can not only be raised in an environment where nobody will question it, but the idea will garner enough support in the organisation that it will be adopted in the organisation's literature. Generally, it plays into the narrative that media, business and academia are being used as platforms to push bizarre ideas that are at odds with most people's outlook and don't really have much popular support, nor in this particular case, should it. Edited March 16 by littleyellowbirdie 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Naturalcynic 631 Posted March 16 14 minutes ago, A Load of Squit said: 'frothing at the mouth'. Give your head a wobble. Oh sorry, I forgot that it’s only the right that froth at the mouth. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Herman 9,779 Posted March 16 If you are upset that an art gallery wrote a load of pretensious guff then I have some shocking news for you..... 1 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
littleyellowbirdie 2,551 Posted March 16 11 minutes ago, Naturalcynic said: Oh sorry, I forgot that it’s only the right that froth at the mouth. Yup. Lefties just dribble out of the side a bit. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
BroadstairsR 2,174 Posted March 16 14 minutes ago, littleyellowbirdie said: Yup. Lefties just dribble out of the side a bit. I apologise to you for my reaction by not realising that your posting about Kent was ironic. I have since investigated the topic and admit my mistake. Lay off the clumsy generalisations though. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mr Angry 1,563 Posted March 16 2 hours ago, Naturalcynic said: Oh come on. I know the truth sometimes hurts, but don’t shoot the messenger. And not all trees set out with the deliberate intention of inciting far-right hatred. After all, when walking close to a weeping willow recently its newly formed leaves rustling in the breeze were definitely hissing “Tory scum”, or at least that’s how it sounded to me. Incidentally, is Angela Rayner related to a weeping willow? I think that the Ents on Lord of the Rings hated Hitler. That’s if I’ve understood the allegory correctly. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
littleyellowbirdie 2,551 Posted March 16 40 minutes ago, BroadstairsR said: I apologise to you for my reaction by not realising that your posting about Kent was ironic. I have since investigated the topic and admit my mistake. Lay off the clumsy generalisations though. No worries, and thank you; much appreciated! 🙂 Anyway, back to the garden to mulch more branches from trees... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TheGunnShow 5,940 Posted March 16 3 hours ago, littleyellowbirdie said: Nope. In fact, I’ve done some research on YouTube and all trees do it. Here’s another bunch of them. You can clearly hear the sort of s sounds in there. Surreptitious idolatry of hitler I tell you. The Fitz is right. Nature is fascist. This reminds me of the memorable report at Brighton some years ago where fans got stuck into an energetic shout of SEAGULLS! Someone thought they said Sieg Heil! Close enough, I guess. 😉 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Rock The Boat 1,332 Posted March 16 44 minutes ago, TheGunnShow said: This reminds me of the memorable report at Brighton some years ago where fans got stuck into an energetic shout of SEAGULLS! Someone thought they said Sieg Heil! Close enough, I guess. 😉 You've triggered me now, Gunny. Wasn't there a club a while back whose fans were accused by an opposition director of chanting 'black' when they were actually singing 'fat'? People are gonna see what they want to see and hear what they want to hear. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Fen Canary 829 Posted March 16 7 hours ago, A Load of Squit said: The Telegraph have reported something that other outlets had already reported, taking selective quotes and putting them on X isn't reliable. How do you know that the Fitzwilliam are at 'fault' if you don't ask them what they are doing? This piece in the Guardian has much better reporting. https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2024/mar/10/fitzwilliam-museum-cambridge-woke-tate-national-portrait-gallery-rehang-displays How is that better reporting when it completely ignores the wording that has proven controversial? It’s just as partisan as anything in the Telegraphs piece, you just choose not to see it because it’s from “your” side Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
littleyellowbirdie 2,551 Posted March 16 The Guardian piece definitely explains where the Fitz was coming from, and also points to how they've made such a mess of it. They've set themselves a mission of an inclusive revamp with more emphasis on modern pieces, but there's no getting around the fact that, before a certain point in time, the peak of diversity was Normans and Saxons. They've decided this is a problem where they have to say something to address it given the overall aim of the revamp.That is their stupid mistake. It goes without saying that society wasn't diverse or inclusive in the days of Constable, but the art's still there for anyone who wants to appreciate it; there was no need to create an issue, but the Fitz created one with an unnecessary and crasse commentary that pretty much condemns a large part of our cultural history as a political inconvenience. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Barbe bleu 827 Posted March 16 (edited) 12 hours ago, Herman said: If you are upset that an art gallery wrote a load of pretensious guff then I have some shocking news for you..... Sanity returns. "Art gallery talks absolute b*llocks is a given and isn't something that needs reporting. Money talks though Edited March 16 by Barbe bleu Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
littleyellowbirdie 2,551 Posted March 17 9 hours ago, Barbe bleu said: Sanity returns. "Art gallery talks absolute b*llocks is a given and isn't something that needs reporting. Money talks though If they talk **** about the art itself then that's one thing; if they start talking **** like "“The darker side of evoking this nationalist feeling is the implication that only those with a historical tie to the land have a right to belong,” then they're stepping out of their lane and what's more, they are making the statement, not anyone else. That's a statement of a censor, not an art gallery. Personally, I don't agree that that implication exists at all in the first place. The gallery is out of line and should amend. 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
