# 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:** 33
**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:** [October 7, 2004, 7:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685/641 "2004-10-07T19:46:39Z")
> [@fessie](#): > > There was nothing the least bit condescending about my suggestion. I am absolutely sincere. If you start out with your immediate surroundings, you may surprise yourself with what you are sensitive to. One of your assertions is that you’re not reached by art, and while I’m sure that’s often true (because there’s a lot of mediocre art out there, some of it fetching high prices for reasons I can only guess), I can’t imagine that it’s _always_ true. The only people I know of who pretty much always make a lot of money are marketers. They know how to reach people. They use every trick in the book, including the visual ones. And they’re behind the designs of all the packages in your grocery store. Look at what they’re doing and why. The last line or two of your post sounded that way when read in my head. I’m not reached by abstract art, to correct slightly. Representational art often manages the task. An image of something eye-catching, for instance, rarely fails to catch my eye, to speak circularly. Also, images that are unusual - by which I mean things I haven’t seen before. To make an example, strolling along trhe butter section of my local supermarket, I might be likely to spot a new brand - not because of its balanced use of color, but because I’ve never seen it before. Of course, all that is simple attention-getting, which isn’t too hard to accomplish. ---
**Author:** ![tdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/94ad74/32.png) [@tdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tdn)\ **Post date:** [October 7, 2004, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685/642 "2004-10-07T19:52:41Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > I think the less-educated person would have more wildly varying values, and the more educated person would have more consistent values - but not necessarily higher ones. Why? Well, the uneducated one might just be thrilled by a painting that the more educated one notices flaws in, aesthetically speaking. Plus, having a broader experience means that the value for the more-educated person would even out… basically : “This is a really good painting, but I’ve seen a lot of paintings. Is it really that much better than all the ones I’ve seen before? Hmm…” whereas the less educated one might say "Wow, this is the best painting ever! " > > This is based on my observations of people over the course of my 26 years - while familiarity doesn’t always breed contempt, it often averages out the emotional rollercoaster. Hmm, interesting. I think you’re mostly right in that. The educated person needs more to be just as impressed. But I also think when he gets more, he appreciates it. Conversely, when he gets flaws, he’s the first to notice. ---
**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:** [October 7, 2004, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685/643 "2004-10-07T22:03:19Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > You’re speaking anecdotally here, I was hoping someone had conducted actual surveys on the subject. But now here’s the $100,000 question - let us assume that you’re correct, and that education allows art analysis with more accuracy and depth - is that better? Does a deeper analysis have more value, in an absolute sense? It’s less about education than it is about effort. And yes, an interpretation that is the result of some effort is more valid than an interpretation that dismisses without effort. ---
**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:** [October 7, 2004, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685/644 "2004-10-07T22:09:46Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > when I interpret a piece as meaningless, this open-mindedness you claim to value vanishes in a flurry of shouts of ‘ignorance’. But you’re not interpreting anything: you’ve thrown derisive glances at a handful of paintings, DARING them to hit you over the head with some kind of instant and effortless literal meaning, and when this approach doesn’t work (YOUR APPROACH DOESN’T WORK), you dismiss an entire century and a half of art as empty and worthless. Where in this thread have you indicated any of the effort that “interpreting a piece” would require? ---
**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:** [October 7, 2004, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685/645 "2004-10-07T22:31:37Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > Interesting … and very long. I suppose if humans can evolve towards language, they can evolve towards expressive faces as well. It’s curious, then that facial expressions differ from gestures, which are wholly manufactured. (Unless there’s some evidence that babies know their middle finger can be raised in expression of contempt?) See, this is the kind of thing that says to me that you’re utterly hopeless and militantly ignorant. I don’t even believe that gestures are innate, but I’m open to read any evidence someone might have to the contrary. For you to set up, beforehand, the outrageously false litmus test that someone must PROVE that the middle finger gesture is, itself, totally innate, before you’ll even consider the possibility that other, more primitve gestures–like waving or nodding–could possibly be innate, is just dishonest and insulting and, frankly, stupid. You continue to present these kinds of false litmus tests–if an elephant has no aesthetic sense then ALL ABSTRACT ART IS MEANINGLESS–and expect us all to remain respectful and noncondescending to you. Well, someone who’s retarded enough to think that this represents a valid approach to debate is not likely to earn much respect from me, for one. Especially someone of enough apparent intelligence to create and maintain such intricately reasoned defenses of such stupid, retarded bullshit! Everytime someone gets you anywhere near a point of logic and clarity, you spout something like “How can you say the sky is blue? Why, just last night, I saw parts of the sky that were purple and pink!” To so deliberately pretend you don’t know what people are saying just so you can make a dishonest point like that is nothing but smoke and perversity and is an explicit attempt to steer the discussion away from any sense or understanding. Dishonest asshole. ---
**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:** [October 7, 2004, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685/646 "2004-10-07T22:35:27Z")
Monetary value has absolutely nothing to do with reality. I’ve had aquarium clients who weren’t interested in a $2 fish, but would fight over the privilege of buying a $3,000 fish. Just because there are people like that out there is totally irrelevant to whether you can see meaning in a painting or not. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2004, 6:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685/647 "2004-10-08T06:18:51Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > And it doesn’t say one word about ‘love’. We may infer that it is directed toward someone the poet loves, simply because of the effusivity of the praise, but this sonnet has nothing whatever to do with describing love. Sorry. If that poem doesn’t describe love, what, pray tell, _does_ it describe? > [@](#): > > No, Miller, I don’t believe that elephants have an aesthetic sense, and to convince me otherwise, you’re going to need to show me scientific studies. I don’t need scientific studies: I’ve got the paintings. That’s proof right there. ---
**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:** [October 8, 2004, 12:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685/648 "2004-10-08T12:27:24Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > If that poem doesn’t describe love, what, pray tell, _does_ it describe? I don’t think it is, itself, a description. It has some parts that are descriptions of the poet’s object of affection. > [@](#): > > I don’t need scientific studies: I’ve got the paintings. That’s proof right there. That’s a bit too circular a proof for me, but if you’re happy with it, knock yourself out. ---
**Author:** ![fessie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c37758/32.png) [@fessie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fessie)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2004, 1:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685/649 "2004-10-08T13:10:56Z")
CG, you should knock it off and start apologizing. Your ass has been handed to you many times in the course of this thread; the only reason we stuck it out is that it’s clear you’re fairly intelligent. But your defensiveness is coloring your reason, and your stubbornness keeps you from listening. That was the point of my last posts - no reply was necessary. A snappy retort isn’t always the point. Sometimes you just need to sit with the question. You can continue your stubborn belligerance if you like, but as was pointed out in an IMHO thread about not voting - what’s the point of joining a message board dedicated to fighting ignorance if you’re going to maintain a deathgrip on your own? ---
**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:** [October 8, 2004, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685/650 "2004-10-08T13:18:59Z")
> [@fessie](#): > > CG, you should knock it off and start apologizing. Your ass has been handed to you many times in the course of this thread; the only reason we stuck it out is that it’s clear you’re fairly intelligent. But your defensiveness is coloring your reason, and your stubbornness keeps you from listening. That was the point of my last posts - no reply was necessary. A snappy retort isn’t always the point. Sometimes you just need to sit with the question. > > You can continue your stubborn belligerance if you like, but as was pointed out in an IMHO thread about not voting - what’s the point of joining a message board dedicated to fighting ignorance if you’re going to maintain a deathgrip on your own? Ah, the difference in perspective from one side to the other. Please, feel no obligation to ‘stick it out’ if your only contribution is going to be to scream ignorance at me again and again. I thought we’d gotten past that particular point, but I was too optimistic. I think my position summary post makes it clear that ‘education’ in the arts will not increase my enjoyment of abstract art. The position summary wasn’t belligerant, and my only belligerant posts subsequent to it have been in response to belligerance. ---
**Author:** ![fessie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c37758/32.png) [@fessie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fessie)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2004, 1:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685/651 "2004-10-08T13:25:01Z")
No, the truth is I thought we’d reached a level of civility with our last exchanges. But you’ve dumped enough bile in this thread that people following it are still caught up in anger with you. Bad karma is a dangerous thing, it tends to follow you around. If you’d opened a Cafe thread saying you didn’t understand and felt alienated by abstract art & could someone please explain, you’d’ve gotten a dozen posters glad to share their information and insights. People from this thread, plus others who don’t frequent the Pit. Instead we started here, but even so people have shared themselves with you, willingly and generously. Don’t crap on 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:** [October 8, 2004, 1:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685/652 "2004-10-08T13:58:54Z")
> [@fessie](#): > > If you’d opened a Cafe thread saying you didn’t understand and felt alienated by abstract art & could someone please explain, you’d’ve gotten a dozen posters glad to share their information and insights. People from this thread, plus others who don’t frequent the Pit. Instead we started here, but even so people have shared themselves with you, willingly and generously. Don’t crap on it. Ah, the unbridled arrogance. If I’d _wanted_ a dozen posters to share their info and insights, I **would’ve** posted a Cafe thread. The ignorance charges can be taken, as I see it, in three ways, and I will address them all here, then just disregard any posts or parts of posts that bring up the issue. First, it might mean ‘You’re ignorant of the techniques underlying art, so your position is flawed.’ Well, that’s BS. For the reasons outlined in my summary post, and some preceding it. One does not require art education to react (or not react) to art - even your side admits that. Second, it might be meant as ‘You’re ignorant of the techniques underlying art, so your opinions relating to art aren’t worth a damn.’ Anybody thinking that way can go screw themselves, as my opinion’s just as worthwhile as theirs is, in an absolute sense (which is to say : all equally worthless), but they’re welcome to disregard my opinions if they feel they’re subjectively worthless. Of course, if they were really disregarding my opinions, they wouldn’t still be frothing at the mouth and shouting. Thirdly, it may be meant as “You’re ignorant of art technique, and if you learned it, you’d enjoy it more.” I very much doubt that, and that’s not the point of the discussion in any case. ---
**Author:** ![fessie](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/c37758/32.png) [@fessie](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/fessie)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2004, 2:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685/653 "2004-10-08T14:33:20Z")
All three of the positions are true. What’s worse is your insistence that you know everything. That’s the real ignorance here. Sad. ---
**Author:** ![tdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/94ad74/32.png) [@tdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tdn)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2004, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685/654 "2004-10-08T16:57:32Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > Ah, the unbridled arrogance. I really wish you’d give up on that tack. Nobody’s being an art snob here. But that doesn’t stop you from reading that into every single reply that you get. It’s almost like you _want_ people to act like snobs just so you can call them on it. You remind me of a guy that goes around asking random strangers “You think you’re better than me?!?” just to goad them into starting a fight. Stop 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:** [October 8, 2004, 5:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685/655 "2004-10-08T17:01:58Z")
> [@tdn](#): > > I really wish you’d give up on that tack. Nobody’s being an art snob here. But that doesn’t stop you from reading that into every single reply that you get. It’s almost like you _want_ people to act like snobs just so you can call them on it. You remind me of a guy that goes around asking random strangers “You think you’re better than me?!?” just to goad them into starting a fight. > > Stop it. It’s arrogant to assume things about people. Such as that you know more than them, that you know what they really need or want, or that you can provide it. ---
**Author:** ![tdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/94ad74/32.png) [@tdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tdn)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2004, 5:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685/656 "2004-10-08T17:28:32Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > It’s arrogant to assume things about people. Such as that you know more than them, that you know what they really need or want, or that you can provide it. Or that they’re being fooled by modern art, or that modern art took no forethought. Agreed. ---
**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:** [October 8, 2004, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685/657 "2004-10-08T17:35:16Z")
> [@tdn](#): > > Or that they’re being fooled by modern art, or that modern art took no forethought. It would seem you’re not grasping my position after all, if this is an attempt at a barbed comment. ---
**Author:** ![tdn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/94ad74/32.png) [@tdn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tdn)\ **Post date:** [October 8, 2004, 5:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685/658 "2004-10-08T17:48:11Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > It would seem you’re not grasping my position after all, if this is an attempt at a barbed comment. Shall I quote your first post 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:** [October 8, 2004, 6:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685/659 "2004-10-08T18:34:53Z")
> [@tdn](#): > > Shall I quote your first post again? > [@CandidGamera](#): > > This just in, abstract art = worthless fraud. In other news, meteorologists revealed today that the sky is blue. > > You know why we don’t have abstract music or abstract orations? Because they’re just random noise and random gibberish, respectively. How the art world ever enshrined the concept of ‘Eh, whatever’ as an artistic ideal is beyond me. This one? I hadn’t even gotten to the comments about being fooled at this point, nor the ones about forethought, both of which you seem to be warping. ---
**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:** [October 8, 2004, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685/660 "2004-10-08T19:26:27Z")
> [@CandidGamera](#): > > It’s arrogant to assume things about people. Such as that you know more than them, that you know what they really need or want, or that you can provide it. Wow. The blind arrogance. Dude, this is exactly, point for point, what you’ve been doing in this thread from page one. The whole time the rest of us have been trying to show you that this is NOT our recommended approach to art. Your rage-colored glasses have completely warped your ability to understand even your own position, let alone others’. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685.md?page=32) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685.md?page=34)