# 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:** 13
**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, 8:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685/241 "2004-09-30T20:12:23Z")
> [@Lute Skywatcher](#): > > Isn’t that an oxymoron? No. People like CanGam and Dubya think of themselves as belonging to a select group of people who’s brains are unsullied by the intellectual sophistry of an abstract education. It’s kind of an elitism of ignorance; a carefully cultivated tunnel vision. ---
**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, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685/242 "2004-09-30T20:13:32Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > And this is why you got those ‘pretentious’ comments earlier, dude. > > You’ve just asserted that if someone gets nothing from a painting that speaks to you, that they’re ignorant. Wrong, idiot. I said anyone who says there’s nothing there; I have many times saying “I get nothing from it” is perfectly valid. ---
**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, 8:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685/243 "2004-09-30T20:16:37Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > No. > > People like CanGam and Dubya think of themselves as belonging to a select group of people who’s brains are unsullied by the intellectual sophistry of an abstract education. It’s kind of an elitism of ignorance; a carefully cultivated tunnel vision. _Sigh_. That’s a lie. I thought you understood me a bit better than that - apparently not. I condemn elitism in all its forms. Please don’t associate me with the President again. ---
**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, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685/244 "2004-09-30T20:17:43Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > Wrong, idiot. I said anyone who says there’s nothing there; I have many times saying “I get nothing from it” is perfectly valid. Well, moron, it’s not as if when they say there’s nothing there that they mean it factually. You just can’t help but take it that way. ---
**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, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685/245 "2004-09-30T20:18:02Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > _Sigh_. That’s a lie. I thought you understood me a bit better than that - apparently not. I condemn elitism in all its forms. > > Please don’t associate me with the President again. Oh, I buy that you don’t see it that way. Nonetheless. ---
**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, 8:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685/246 "2004-09-30T20:19:31Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > Well, moron, it’s not as if when they say there’s nothing there that they mean it factually. You just can’t help but take it that way. Not parsing. ---
**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, 8:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685/247 "2004-09-30T20:21:30Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > Well, moron, it’s not as if when they say there’s nothing there that they mean it factually. You just can’t help but take it that way. Or maybe I am parsing: you seem to be suggesting that the two phrases– “There’s nothing in it; you’ve all been fooled” “I don’t get much out that painting” –are completely interchangeable. They are not. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2004, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685/248 "2004-09-30T20:22:41Z")
> [@pulykamell](#): > > Personally, I think there is an argument to be made regarding the objectivity of aesthetics. I don’t think it’s completely subjective, and I think there is a case for–I don’t want to use this word, but let’s say–elitism in the arts. I think some people have better insight on what constitutes “good art” than others. I don’t believe I’m as capable of judging, say, good rap vs. bad rap because I only have a fleeting knowledge of the subject. I don’t dislike it, but I can’t make an honest aesthetic appraisal without understanding the genre first. So I yield to those who know what the hell they’re talking about. To a certain degree, that’s true, but just as certainly it limits boundaries. Say another Monet came along, and for whatever reason decided that his artistic vision meant painting impressionist studies of water and air. Further say that his abilities and execution were just as brilliant and original as the first Monet. I don’t believe the critics would recognize that, for the reason that his work would not fit the current stylistic definition of “good art.” You would hear words bandied about such as “out-moded”, “traditional”, “banal”, and so on. I’m very skeptical of critics; I think they tend to be wrong as often as right. But you’re correct, this is for a different thread some other time. ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2004, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685/249 "2004-09-30T20:25:21Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > Then you and I will never see eye to eye, and further discussion will be unproductive. Just so you know. That’s pretty evident. A more concrete example–let’s stay with music. Now, we both have ears. We both can hear. Now if I heard some Azerbaijani or Tajik music, I could tell you whether I like it or not. But am I qualified to have an opinion on it? About what makes good Azerbaijani or Tajik music? Or do I defer to someone who understands it and understands the culture of the music and where it comes from? Indian music sounds foreign to my ears. All the microtones and weird harmonies. It doesn’t conform to my Western expectations. It _seems_ unstructured and cacophonic to me. But is it? Hell no. And I don’t think I’m allowed to dismiss Indian, Tajik, or Azerbaijani music based on my musical biases. Because people who know what the fuck is going on can distinguish good music from bad music. It’s aesthetics, but there can be a difference between an informed value judgment and an uninformed one. And the same applies to modern art. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2004, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685/250 "2004-09-30T20:33:14Z")
[“Man Riding A Bicycle”](http://hansprestige.com/pics/manridingbicycle.jpg) Abstract masterpiece, with colors and structure carefully chosen to represent the rider’s tanned face, his mismatched shoes, and a vampire chasing him on a motorcycle? Or, something I crapped out in MS Paint in less time than it took to make up the BS explanation above? Only I know for sure. And I’ll tell you if you buy a print for $40,000. ---
**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, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685/251 "2004-09-30T20:35:38Z")
> [@Mr2001](#): > > colors and structure carefully chosen to represent the rider’s tanned face, his mismatched shoes, and a vampire chasing him on a motorcycle. Um, that’s how abstract art “works,” so maybe try again. ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2004, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685/252 "2004-09-30T20:38:58Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > No. > > People like CanGam and Dubya think of themselves as belonging to a select group of people who’s brains are unsullied by the intellectual sophistry of an abstract education. It’s kind of an elitism of ignorance; a carefully cultivated tunnel vision. I got what you meant. Struck me as an odd combination of words 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, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685/253 "2004-09-30T20:41:05Z")
oops > [@lissener](#): > > Um, that’s \*\*\*not \*\*\*how abstract art “works,” so maybe try again. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2004, 8:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685/254 "2004-09-30T20:45:20Z")
> [@Mr2001](#): > > [“Man Riding A Bicycle”](http://hansprestige.com/pics/manridingbicycle.jpg) In Man Riding A Bycycle, the colorful, interactive geometric forms create a pulsating surface that is alternately dynamic and calm, aggressive and quiet. The importance of rectangles in this painting prefigures the dominant role they would play in many subsequent works, culminating in his cosmic and harmonious image Several Rectangles. “The rectangle,” claimed **Mr2001** , “is the synthesis of the greatest oppositions. It combines the concentric and the eccentric in a single form and in equilibrium. Of the three primary forms, it points most clearly to the fourth dimension.” ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2004, 8:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685/255 "2004-09-30T20:47:31Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > Um, that’s [not] how abstract art “works,” so maybe try again. Touché. Abstract masterpiece designed to convey the yearning to ride? A sense of wonder at the speed with which a bike can move someone? Disappointment that Santa Claus brought the man a Huffy instead of a Schwinn? Or something I crapped out in MS Paint in less time than it took to write the first BS explanation, read your reply, and write a second BS explanation? Or something else entirely? How do you feel when you look at it? If you can get something out of it, doesn’t that mean the piece is great, even though _you’re_ doing all the real work? ---
**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, 8:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685/256 "2004-09-30T20:49:22Z")
Writing about abstract art is a \*little \*like dancing about architecture. Certainly it can be done–I’ve actually seen some very impressive dancing about architecture–but it’s not a simple or direct way to communicate the meaning of one medium via another medium. That’s why abstract painters paint instead of write; it’s also why writers write instead of paint. ---
**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, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685/257 "2004-09-30T20:51:17Z")
> [@Mr2001](#): > > Touché. > > Abstract masterpiece designed to convey the yearning to ride? A sense of wonder at the speed with which a bike can move someone? Disappointment that Santa Claus brought the man a Huffy instead of a Schwinn? > > Or something I crapped out in MS Paint in less time than it took to write the first BS explanation, read your reply, and write a second BS explanation? > > Or something else entirely? How do you feel when you look at it? If you can get something out of it, doesn’t that mean the piece is great, even though _you’re_ doing all the real work? Why must the argument rest on the effectiveness on YOUR piece? No one is saying that all abstract shapes communicate emotion. They’re saying that it’s possible for a great artist to invest abstract shapes and colors with emotion. How does your example address any aspect of that discussion? ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2004, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685/258 "2004-09-30T21:12:52Z")
> [@lissener](#): > > Why must the argument rest on the effectiveness on YOUR piece? No one is saying that all abstract shapes communicate emotion. They’re saying that it’s possible for a great artist to invest abstract shapes and colors with emotion. How does your example address any aspect of that discussion? My point is only that it’s foolish to attribute that emotion to the artist when it’s just as likely to be a figment of the viewer’s imagination. The human brain is amazingly good at inventing patterns and meaning where none exist; it’s why clouds, stars, and the surface of the moon look like animals and faces. It seems likely to me, therefore, that any given painting actually has _less_ inherent meaning than it appears to, and a painting whose meaning only becomes apparent after a lot of thought and examination probably has no inherent meaning at all. Someone who makes such paintings is relying on his audience to make up the meaning themselves; I call that laziness, but I’m sure those who defend such works have a more charitable term for it. I’m not saying some of them aren’t pleasing to the eye. Someone who can consistently make paintings that are more enjoyable to look at than random crap churned out by someone like me, even if he admits that they’re meaningless arrangements of shapes and lines, has talent. But I’m not convinced the paintings by the girl in the OP are any more enjoyable than the random crap I could churn out. (I don’t own any real paint, so we may never know.) ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2004, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685/259 "2004-09-30T21:23:00Z")
> [@Mr2001](#): > > [“Man Riding A Bicycle”](http://hansprestige.com/pics/manridingbicycle.jpg) > > Abstract masterpiece, with colors and structure carefully chosen to represent the rider’s tanned face, his mismatched shoes, and a vampire chasing him on a motorcycle? > > Or, something I crapped out in MS Paint in less time than it took to make up the BS explanation above? > > Only I know for sure. And I’ll tell you if you buy a print for $40,000. Personally, to me that doesn’t look particularly interesting. All the lines are of equal weight, the composition doesn’t move me like other Mondrians. It’s not terribly dynamic. The colors are boring and lifeless. I’m not saying it’s not possible to create convincing Mondrians on computer. It is. But this is not one of them. Mondrian is one of the easier artists to imitate/pastiche/parody. Do a Kandinsky and I’ll be happy. That said, abstract art does not usually “represent” real things like you mentioned. It’s more the capture of an emotion or a feeling – just like in instrumental music. As for another Monet coming along today, of course his aren’t wouldn’t be as valued as the original Monet’s. I do believe that art is somewhat tied to time and place. And part of every artist’s greatness is the historical context of his art. “High art” attempts to push the boundaries of art, and tries to show us new and exciting ways of seeing. Another Monet doesn’t teach us anything visually. ---
**Author:** ![fessie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c37758/32.png) [@fessie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fessie)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2004, 9:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685/260 "2004-09-30T21:23:54Z")
Nothing has inherent meaning. Meaning is always attributed. Turn out some 6’ x 6’ paintings & let’s test that hypothesis. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685.md?page=12) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685.md?page=14)