Stuff And Things

[liadnan]

Hmm. It would seem that my Chambers has enough of a critical mass of members who are more interested in discussing racing scandals -with particular reference to Kieran Fallon (and also Fox)- than actually doing any work to sustain teatime conversation for an hour and a quarter.

I admit to being a prime offender.

Toddled off to The Tate (look, it takes a definite article you fuckers, and nothing you can do is going to make me agree to the contrary) last night for the pre-Raphaelite landscapes exhibition last night, in company with Frankie. Lots of pretty pictures, but my eventual conclusion, and I think Frankie's too, was along the lines of "well, that was nice." It is, perhaps, worth pointing out that "nice" is almost an insult so far as I'm concerned. It was interesting, to be fair, but it didn't blow me away at all.

Still, wine before, whisky in the pub after, ended up far more pissed than I should have been and had a good time all round.

Feel like shite today, but I don't think that's connected.

Comments

[fairymelusine.livejournal.com]

Them pre-raphaelites ... they're tricky. I mean, I totally dig the aesthetic, but did they really have anything to say? About the nature of the universe or anything like that? Or were they just overeducated schoolboys who pouted instead of really pushing themselves into an original idea?

That being said ... I like 'em. But I've a weakness for pouty schoolboys, so.

[liadnan]

I think some of them did, certainly. DGR and Burne Jones in particular. Though I'm not sure what. The nature of Romance, I suppose.

[fairymelusine.livejournal.com]

Is that enough of a statement, really? I guess the simplicity of the thought is somewhat the point ... but I'm not sure if that's a rationalisation or not.

[liadnan]

Well, what were the Impressionists saying about Life the Universe and Everything?

They all create an illusion of depth. As do I.

[fairymelusine.livejournal.com]

They were saying that reality is capable of being squinted at. And that was pretty fucking revelational, I think, even if it looks trite now.

And don't we all, sugarplum? Well, I'd do better if I didn't giggle so often.

pre-raffaelites,

[nikandra.livejournal.com]

aren't they like the Neo-Goths or something?

Sorry, not being very serious about them because I can't take them that seriously. Although, they, and some art critics of the time, did show the importance of some Renaissance artists like Fra Angelico, who had been totally ignored at the time (which is kind of worrying, if you think of it in terms of how art history is shaped and by whom and why, but that's another story, isn't it?)

I like the aesthetics too, and, well, I don't believe taht everything has to have a meaning all the time, but, in teh case of the Pre-R., the message is so obviously the image that it's annoying after a while.

speaking of exhibitions

[nikandra.livejournal.com]

have you seen the Brancusi and the Chadwick ones?

Re: speaking of exhibitions

[liadnan]

No, not yet.
And we need to agree a date for El greco, unless you've been already.

Re: speaking of exhibitions

[nikandra.livejournal.com]

No, I haven't been there yet. When is it good for you? I'm practically free from now on (no more lectures, no more meetings with supervisors, nothing but necessary library visits). The only day that is not good is next Tuesday (we have the WiP seminar and I promised to bring them Monty Pythons -lol).

Aree you interested in going to the others too? I am (especially for the Brancusi one, but then again, I've catalogued so many of the Chadswick catalogues when I was working in an art library that I'd like to see that too).