# BBC news online, or is it the onion in disguise?! **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [September 29, 2004, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685 "2004-09-29T17:19:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2004, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685/201 "2004-09-30T19:09:04Z")
> [@pulykamell](#): > > And that’s fine. I have no problem with this stance. I just don’t like the implication you seem to make that it’s all bullshit. If this is what you had said all along, I wouldn’t have argued with you. My opinion is that it IS almost all B.S. I do not assert this as fact. I believe it. You’re welcome to believe differently. I will just have to think that you’re wrong. And if it comes up in discussion, I will state my beliefs, defend them if necessary, and try to explain them. It’s just like religion. If I believe in Religion A, and you believe in Religion B, and the subject is broached - I will have to admit that I think the beliefs of your Religion B are bunk. You can counter back that I just don’t have an informed opinion, or whatever, and don’t see the deeper truths, but… that’s not useful. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2004, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685/202 "2004-09-30T19:09:16Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > You have the freedom to regard my opinion as uninformed; I have the freedom to regard yours as the product of a century-old practical joke. Just sayin’. You have such constitutional “freedom,” but you have no valid basis for such a statement. It’s far more indicative of your ignorance than of anything else. ---
**Author:** ![Bruce\_Daddy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/85f322/32.png) [@Bruce\_Daddy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bruce_Daddy)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2004, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685/203 "2004-09-30T19:09:45Z")
> [@pulykamell](#): > > Piet Mondrian. > > [This is the work he’s most well-known for.](http://www.uazg.hr/likovna-kultura/images27/Mondrian.jpg) MS Paint called, wants to thank Piet for the publicity. ---
**Author:** ![Homebrew](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/c89c15/32.png) [@Homebrew](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Homebrew)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2004, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685/204 "2004-09-30T19:11:20Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > Quite a long post for such a cheap insult. It wasn’t an insult. It’s a point about looking at but not seeing. ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2004, 7:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685/205 "2004-09-30T19:12:16Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > Read it again without the change to understand the analogy I was actually making. The analogy you were making was flawed. My original is “I don’t like thing A because it has property B.” Yours is “I don’t like thing A because ‘thing A’ has property B.” It would be as if I said I didn’t like abstract art because it has too many t’s in it. ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2004, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685/206 "2004-09-30T19:19:11Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > So CanGam, have your views on the subject undergone any change at all in the course of this thread? Do you still think that anyone who sees anything of value in any abstract art has just been sold a bill of goods by a convincing artspeaker? Or do you understand that some people other than you could actually very easily distinguish a Kandinsky from an Orangutan. Are you saying that it simply holds no interest for you, or that you’re the only one who sees such art with absolute clarity? My views havben’t changed. Yes, I think people who purchase abstract art \*thinking it a work of genius \* are, in general, being duped. Caveats to that - if Van Gogh is ‘abstract’, then certainly there are some exceptions to the generality. Also - purchasing them at reasonable prices because one finds them ‘pretty’ - that’s not a sign of being duped. Some of the paintings actually look pretty. Kandinsky actually has too many straight lines for most orangutans, I’ve learned that. They’re so messy with rulers. I am by no means the only one who sees art with “such clarity”. > [@lissener](#): > > You have such constitutional “freedom,” but you have no valid basis for such a statement. It’s far more indicative of your ignorance than of anything else. Ah, I forgot, I’m speaking to **King Lissener, Ultimate Arbiter of Art**. :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![Larry\_Mudd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/f14d63/32.png) [@Larry\_Mudd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Larry_Mudd)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2004, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685/207 "2004-09-30T19:22:36Z")
This is reminding me of something funny from back around '92, when the company I worked for moved into a new, larger building. The building manager was charged with acquiring art to put on the walls, made the rounds of the galleries, and came back with about a dozen large canvases, some of which were abstracts, one of which was hung in the lobby immediately adjacent from where I worked all day. I found the painting amusingly inappropriate for a corporate setting. It was _lewd._ Lurid hues, pink, magenta, and diffuse yellow. The magenta bits were often highlighted with glittery gold & silver. All suggestive curves. I commented on this quite a bit, soliciting people’s opinions on what they thought about it. This eventually resulted in a long critical discussion with the woman who selected the paintings. She insisted that it just an inkblot test. “It’s _abstract!_ It doesn’t mean anything – you’ve just got a dirty mind.” She argued that it was perfectly appropriate because the colours matched the carpet (which was burgundy, but whatever,) and that the you found the same colours and curves in flowers. She told me to let it alone. I couldn’t, of course, and contacted the artist through the gallery. I made a very guarded request for a statement on the piece, and got a very detailed e-mail in response. As it happened, it was from a serious about orgasms. Her orgasms. She described how she started with photomontage of pictures her lover took of her masturbating to orgasm, arranged so that limbs flowed into other body parts, following their lines, deeply recursive. She took a cartoon from this, following the lines of the actual limbs, absent any charoscuro, taking her shading instead from where they were flush with blood. The metallic paints, she said, mapped “the flow of erotic energy.” There were no recognizable body parts in the finished composition (apart from maybe one dominating, very stylized cunnicle.) I gave a copy of the statement to Ms. Building Manager, who shrugged it off, saying it didn’t matter by what process the painting was arrived at, because the end result was “abstract,” and therefore neutral. It was fun to see her blush, though. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2004, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685/208 "2004-09-30T19:22:48Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > The analogy you were making was flawed. My original is “I don’t like thing A because it has property B.” Yours is “I don’t like thing A because ‘thing A’ has property B.” It would be as if I said I didn’t like abstract art because it has too many t’s in it. ANd what I was saying is that your understanding of Property B is flawed; and that the analogy I made is, in fact, closer to what you’re suggesting than you realize. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2004, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685/209 "2004-09-30T19:26:00Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > Ah, I forgot, I’m speaking to **King Lissener, Ultimate Arbiter of Art**. :rolleyes: So you’re not willing to admit that there are opinions and opinions? That some opinions are more well informed than others? “I don’t know anything about nuclear physics, but I know what I like!” ---
**Author:** ![Terminus\_Est](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/terminus_est/32/3087_2.png) [@Terminus\_Est](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terminus_Est)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2004, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685/210 "2004-09-30T19:26:58Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > Ah, I forgot, I’m speaking to **King Lissener, Ultimate Arbiter of Art**. :rolleyes: You have such a big hard-on for **lissener** , that you’re ignoring everyone else in the thread that has told you the same thing. ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2004, 7:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685/211 "2004-09-30T19:27:46Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > ANd what I was saying is that your understanding of Property B is flawed; and that the analogy I made is, in fact, closer to what you’re suggesting than you realize. Heh. Then the words “abstract art” require no skill? That’s what I’m suggesting? I’ve never really thought of words or phrases requiring no skill before… ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2004, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685/212 "2004-09-30T19:29:53Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > Heh. Then the words “abstract art” require no skill? That’s what I’m suggesting? I’ve never really thought of words or phrases requiring no skill before… :rolleyes: Or . . . that what you’re commenting on is superficial and irrelevant to the value of abstract art. ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2004, 7:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685/213 "2004-09-30T19:30:46Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > So you’re not willing to admit that there are opinions and opinions? That some opinions are more well informed than others? “I don’t know anything about nuclear physics, but I know what I like!” Amusing turn of phrase. Opinions about aesthetics are all of equal value, in my book. When it comes to opinions about facts… (IE : ‘The nuclear reactor has a .01% chance of meltdown.’ “I think that’s too high!”) … then there are degrees of relevance. ---
**Author:** ![tdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/94ad74/32.png) [@tdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tdn)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2004, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685/214 "2004-09-30T19:31:42Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > Can someone honestly tell me that the piece by Mondrian with the squares and colors took skill? I mean, with a straight face? Sure. He had to conceptualize it. What you may think of as randomness was, in fact, well planned out. He had to conceptualize the shapes and proportions. He had to decide what combinations would produce the feeling he wanted. He had to choose the colors that would work right in the composition. And finally, he had to have the technique to apply the paint to the canvas. What’s so hard to understand about that? You remind me of people that say “That ain’t poetry! It don’t rhyme!” ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2004, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685/215 "2004-09-30T19:32:24Z")
> [@Terminus Est](#): > > You have such a big hard-on for **lissener** , that you’re ignoring everyone else in the thread that has told you the same thing. Well, obviously, not all of the people telling me how ignorant I am can be the “ultimate” arbiter of art, and **lissener** has prior claim on the title. ---
**Author:** ![Terminus\_Est](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/terminus_est/32/3087_2.png) [@Terminus\_Est](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Terminus_Est)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2004, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685/216 "2004-09-30T19:33:06Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > Opinions about aesthetics are all of equal value, in my book. It’s quite clear from this thread that you think your opinion trumps everyone else’s. ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2004, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685/217 "2004-09-30T19:33:31Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > :rolleyes: > > Or . . . that what you’re commenting on is superficial and irrelevant to the value of abstract art. Well, that could be the case, if we were in some sort of thought-police state where I wasn’t allowed to have different values than you. ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2004, 7:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685/218 "2004-09-30T19:34:49Z")
> [@tdn](#): > > Sure. > > He had to conceptualize it. What you may think of as randomness was, in fact, well planned out. He had to conceptualize the shapes and proportions. He had to decide what combinations would produce the feeling he wanted. He had to choose the colors that would work right in the composition. And finally, he had to have the technique to apply the paint to the canvas. > > What’s so hard to understand about that? > > You remind me of people that say “That ain’t poetry! It don’t rhyme!” Heh heh. Well, I do like poetry to rhyme, or have some sort of syllable-count pattern, or have something of the sort - because if it doesn’t, it’s pretty much prose. ---
**Author:** ![CandidGamera](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/candidgamera/32/2878_2.png) [@CandidGamera](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CandidGamera)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2004, 7:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685/219 "2004-09-30T19:36:22Z")
> [@Terminus Est](#): > > It’s quite clear from this thread that you think your opinion trumps everyone else’s. Depends how you mean that. Do I think everyone has to share my opinion? Hell no. Do I think my opinion is the best? Well - yeah, otherwise, I’d have a different opinion that I thought was better, wouldn’t I? ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2004, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685/220 "2004-09-30T19:40:21Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > Amusing turn of phrase. Opinions about aesthetics are all of equal value, in my book. When it comes to opinions about facts… (IE : ‘The nuclear reactor has a .01% chance of meltdown.’ “I think that’s too high!”) … then there are degrees of relevance. “You’re being manipulated into believing something that isn’t true” is not a statement of aesthetic opinion. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685.md?page=12)