The Turner Prize

RATM

I just love the Turner Prize. Its such a load of cock that you gotta love it. It seems the exhibitions are chosen solely for their ability to cause controversy

This year their nominees for modern 'art' include one bird called Susan Philipsz who has recorded herself singing and then plays it through tannoy systems in supermarkets. She once even did a live performance over the PA system in Tesco !!! Wow!
Her work is described by Tate Britain as this:

"Whether encountered in a stairwell, supermarket or on a promenade, the artist's voice interjects through the ambient noises of the everyday, often eliciting collective and subjective recollections or meditative introspection,"

Brilliant! You couldn't make it up

Smcgie

Tina?

pickarooney

I kind of love it too for the same reason. It's the absolute pinnacle of cockknockery and anything that reaches such heights should be applauded.

Plus, that Tracey Emin lass is just about the duuuuurtiest woman I've ever seen.

orourkeda

Art is a load of me bollix.

Kold

I enjoy the Turner Prize, it's usually a farce but f*ck it, it entertains.

Also OP, you're so edgy by calling it modern 'art'. I got it, you were questioning the validity of contemporary experimentation within the arts as legitimate art. Hilarious. Can't help the feeling that I've heard that one before though..

RATM

Kold wrote: »

I enjoy the Turner Prize, it's usually a farce but f*ck it, it entertains.

Also OP, you're so edgy by calling it modern 'art'. I got it, you were questioning the validity of contemporary experimentation within the arts as legitimate art. Hilarious. Can't help the feeling that I've heard that one before though..

No I wasn't trying to be edgy, I was trying to decorate the word art in an artful fashion by adding inverted commas thus 'art'. What I was really trying to do was to transcend people's natural expectation that inverted commas are used for one single effect. I'm trying to open people's minds to the use of inverted commas as merely decorations on words that are pleasing to the eye.

Kold

RATM wrote: »

No I wasn't trying to be edgy, I was trying to decorate the word art in an artful fashion by adding inverted commas thus 'art'. What I was really trying to do was to transcend people's natural expectation that inverted commas are used for one single effect. I'm trying to open people's minds to the use of inverted commas as merely decorations on words that are pleasing to the eye.

All for a misinformed critique on the Turner Prize. Splendid.

dr.bollocko

I farted on a slice of mango once. No galleries ever called me about it.
Should have followed through I guess.

RATM

Kold wrote: »

All for a misinformed critique on the Turner Prize. Splendid.

Misinformed? Do explain

melekalikimaka

lads, its fine art... you really need to have an open mind with it... REALLLLLLLLY open for this particular award... Look up a definition of fine art, and then look at the work...

its not the award thats crazy, its the whole genre...

I secretly love it tho

AnonoBoy

melekalikimaka wrote: »

lads, its fine art... you really need to have an open mind with it... REALLLLLLLLY open for this particular award... Look up a definition of fine art, and then look at the work...

its not the award thats crazy, its the whole genre...

I secretly love it tho

Is it not modern art?

Fine art is painting etc. isn't it? The old reliables.

melekalikimaka

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Is it not modern art?

Fine art is painting etc. isn't it? The old reliables.

fine art is anything really, as long as the artist can 'justify' it, or apply a context to it, its fine art...

tbh you'll never get a clear definition

brianthebard

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Is it not modern art?

We're well past modern art at this stage lads, its post-post modern art that this thing is about really.
Fine art does of course have a definition, what meleka is referring to in a round about way is conceptual art.

AnonoBoy

As long as it's not performance art it's ok with me.


*heads off to find mime gun*

sbsquarepants

pickarooney wrote: »

Plus, that Tracey Emin lass is just about the duuuuurtiest woman I've ever seen.

This bird does my skull in.
That is all:mad:

melekalikimaka

brianthebard wrote: »

We're well past modern art at this stage lads, its post-post modern art that this thing is about really.
Fine art does of course have a definition, what meleka is referring to in a round about way is conceptual art.

well whats the difference between the two then? Not being smart. I study this... but from a pigeon hole of photography, and tbh i'd consider conceptual art an element of fine art... provided theres context

brianthebard

melekalikimaka wrote: »

well whats the difference between the two then? Not being smart. I study this... but from a pigeon hole of photography, and tbh i'd consider conceptual art an element of fine art... provided theres context

Yes of course conceptual art is an element or can be referred to as a strata of fine art, but fine art is not shorthand for conceptual art, and encompasses far more than that, including the 'old reliables' previously referred to by Anono Boy.

melekalikimaka

brianthebard wrote: »

Yes of course conceptual art is an element or can be referred to as a strata of fine art, but fine art is not shorthand for conceptual art, and encompasses far more than that, including the 'old reliables' previously referred to by Anono Boy.

I didnt say that, well maybe I did, I was just correcting that fine art isnt just 'paintings'

brianthebard

melekalikimaka wrote: »

I didnt say that, well maybe I did, I was just correcting that fine art isnt just 'paintings'

I was replying more to the idea that fine art can be anything. I suppose in a way it can in that it covers most art forms, but the way you referred to applying context or justification has more to do with conceptual art. For instance an architect doesn't have to justify their building for it to be considered fine art, but a conceptual artist depends upon the concept which is supposedly illuminated in their piece.

melekalikimaka

brianthebard wrote: »

I was replying more to the idea that fine art can be anything. I suppose in a way it can in that it covers most art forms, but the way you referred to applying context or justification has more to do with conceptual art. For instance an architect doesn't have to justify their building for it to be considered fine art, but a conceptual artist depends upon the concept which is supposedly illuminated in their piece.

I guess so, as I said, my view is very pigeonholed

Herb Powell

well would anyone care to define art?
not easy is it
I certainly think this is a load of bollocks, but that doesn't mean it can't be considered art.

Mr Benevolent

Whenever I hear the phrase 'modern art' in a social setting, it's always spoken by someone whose lexicon includes 'loike tewtally' and 'roysh?'.

Modern art - putting the 'con' back into 'conceptual'.

longshanks

so we're all in agreement then??

Kold

Confab wrote: »

Whenever I hear the phrase 'modern art' in a social setting, it's always spoken by someone whose lexicon includes 'loike tewtally' and 'roysh?'.

Modern art - putting the 'con' back into 'conceptual'.

That's most definitely your problem rather than art's.

epgc3fyqirnbsx

Only thing worse than modern art is modern dance

InTheTrees

Confab wrote: »

Whenever I hear the phrase 'modern art' in a social setting, it's always spoken by someone whose lexicon includes 'loike tewtally' and 'roysh?'.

Modern art - putting the 'con' back into 'conceptual'.

Yup. Considering that they've been using the term "modern" art for almost/over a centuary its pretty much done now.

stovelid

Smcgie wrote: »

Tina?

She never had much luck, even if highly favoured. Beaten soundly year after year. At least she tried. I guess.

starbelgrade

I like the Turner Prize & am a fan of many of it's previous recipients, most notably Damien Hirst.

Does anybody remember the KLF / Justified Ancients of Mu Mu? After their musical exploits, they set up the K-Foundation art award for the "worst artist of the year". In 1993, they awarded a £40k prize to Richard Whiteread, outside the Tate Gallery, just after he had picked up his Turner Prize & £20k for best artist of the year, in the Tate Gallery!

The following year, as the Turner Prize was being awarded, they hijacked the media wagon, by burning £1 million, which they filmed & toured with, under the name of "Watch the K Foundation Burn a Million Quid". (An act which they later admitted to regretting)

Whatever you think about the Turner Prize, it always draws a reaction.

Son Of A Vidic

My entry for the Turner prize this year will be: A sh1t on a plate with a knife and fork beside it, it will rest on top of a grave headstone.
My work will be titled - 'Eat sh1t and die.'

Kold

medicman2009 wrote: »

My entry for the Turner prize this year will be: A sh1t on a plate with a knife and fork beside it, it will rest on top of a grave headstone.
My work will be titled - 'Eat sh1t and die.'

Sounds lazy and well, oh God I hate to pun... well... 'not good'.

The fact that it has to have been exhibited somewhere and already picked at this stage will work against you also I imagine.

DublinWriter

Half-Man, Half-Biscuit, lyrics to If I had possession over Pancake Day:

Outside Goldsmith’s coughing up blood,
Turner Prize judge gasps “Christ that’s good -
Leave it as it is, it’ll get first place
We’ll call it a full shift at the coal face”
Oh well you’re neither a Stuckist or a YBA
and you’re no longer a miner as of today

Praise for the wardens ready to fine
Anyone caught saying “graphic design”
Rag-mag seller said I’d be in pleats
Only when he’d been cleaned from the streets
Oh I could squeeze my lemon ’till my blues went away
If I had possession over Pancake Day

Give a philosophy student a glass of limeade
and he will say: “is this a glass of limeade?”
and “if so, why is it a glass of limeade?”
and, after a while, he’ll die of thirst

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

M'eh. I guess it is a problem of modern art that it has such a specific language attached to it that doesn't really seem like it means anything unless you already understand it. The hyper-inflated prices some people get-Emin, Hirst, Banksy etc-doesn't help either, people tend to resent people making money off things they don't understand, hell I don't understand why someone with good depth perception, spatial awareness and fitness gets paid hundreds of thousands of pounds a week to kick a ball. And I was raised in a house where modern art was all around and I've been studying it for three years yet I still sometimes see an article or an exhibition and think "you're taking the piss". Generally I think the problem most people have is the gap between the content and the concept and the language which attempts to bridge it, which is very academic.

Oh by the way, you know who else didn't like modern art? NAZIS that's who

brianthebard

How can you toss Banksy in with those other two as if they're all the same???? *question marks*

I know I already said it earlier but people need to understand the difference between modern art and post-modern art.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Just making the point that the amounts of money involved can piss people off a bit, Banksy would be as well known and as highly priced as the other two, and if asked to name two current 'modern' artists I'd say a lot of people would come up with him and Hirst, not saying they're the same at all at all

Kold

We're Post-Post-Modern at least. Probably isn't good to have any labels at this stage. Thing is, there's such a huge amount of artists out there making different work that to say that you don't like contemporary art means you haven't bothered your arse looking at much. In which case the people calling art b*llocks here are just completely ignorant tools.

Contemporary art would be the best term even though contemporary can be used to describe work as old as 50 years.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

brianthebard wrote: »

How can you toss Banksy in with those other two as if they're all the same???? *question marks*

I know I already said it earlier but people need to understand the difference between modern art and post-modern art.

Ooh that wasn't my intention, I was just trying to illustrate the point that the fame and money involved can be part of what pisses people off, Banksy's very well known and pretty much as highly priced as the other two, or at least well into the territory that people would think of as ridiculous. If asked to name two well known current artists I'd imagine a lot of people would come up with him and Hirst or Emin, only reason I lumped them together

Third time typing this and I'm boring myself so it doesn't go through this time I give up

brianthebard

Kold wrote: »

We're Post-Post-Modern at least. Probably isn't good to have any labels at this stage. Thing is, there's such a huge amount of artists out there making different work that to say that you don't like contemporary art means you haven't bothered your arse looking at much. In which case the people calling art b*llocks here are just completely ignorant tools.

Contemporary art would be the best term even though contemporary can be used to describe work as old as 50 years.

Very true, lots of people complaining here about modern artists couldn't name six off hand.

Demi Happy Oats wrote: »

Ooh that wasn't my intention, I was just trying to illustrate the point that the fame and money involved can be part of what pisses people off, Banksy's very well known and pretty much as highly priced as the other two, or at least well into the territory that people would think of as ridiculous. If asked to name two well known current artists I'd imagine a lot of people would come up with him and Hirst or Emin, only reason I lumped them together

Very untrue, you think Banksy's works are priced in the same league as a 50m work by Hirst? Hirst and Emin are two of the biggest names in the art world atm, Banksy has become popular in the past few years but isn't in the same league in any sense.

Kold

Demi Happy Oats wrote: »

Ooh that wasn't my intention, I was just trying to illustrate the point that the fame and money involved can be part of what pisses people off, Banksy's very well known and pretty much as highly priced as the other two, or at least well into the territory that people would think of as ridiculous. If asked to name two well known current artists I'd imagine a lot of people would come up with him and Hirst or Emin, only reason I lumped them together

Third time typing this and I'm boring myself so it doesn't go through this time I give up

Nope, Hirst is on a completely different scale as the other two. He's the richest artist in the world.

Cheap Thrills!

starbelgrade wrote: »

Does anybody remember the KLF / Justified Ancients of Mu Mu? After their musical exploits, they set up the K-Foundation art award for the "worst artist of the year". In 1993, they awarded a £40k prize to Richard Whiteread, outside the Tate Gallery, just after he had picked up his Turner Prize & £20k for best artist of the year, in the Tate Gallery!

The following year, as the Turner Prize was being awarded, they hijacked the media wagon, by burning £1 million, which they filmed & toured with, under the name of "Watch the K Foundation Burn a Million Quid". (An act which they later admitted to regretting)

YES ! I remember that......used to quite like KLF, poor fcukers burning all their loot. Still though, cocknockery describes it best.....pretentious b0ll0x.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

brianthebard wrote: »

Very true, lots of people complaining here about modern artists couldn't name six off hand.


Very untrue, you think Banksy's works are priced in the same league as a 50m work by Hirst? Hirst and Emin are two of the biggest names in the art world atm, Banksy has become popular in the past few years but isn't in the same league in any sense.

No I don't, but I do correctly think that they regularly go for six figure sums, or the territory that people would find ridiculous

starbelgrade

Demi Happy Oats wrote: »

No I don't, but I do correctly think that they regularly go for six figure sums, or the territory that people would find ridiculous

I don't think the money or fame that the likes of Hirst commands is what irks people - as far as fame goes, 99% of the population wouldn't recognise him if they passed him in the street and most wouldn't know much about his bank balance.

What irks people is that they fear what they cannot understand, or cannot understand, that often there is no need to understand. A Van Gogh holds no such fear - "that would look nice in the sitting room", but a plastic box containing a preserved dead animal has no such comforts.

spinandscribble

Art is so incredibly hard to pin down its so open ending.

its annoys the hell out of me when people are limited enough to think the only worthwhile art is realistic paintings and the like.

Richard Wright, the current Turner prize winner is FAR from the image many have of artists displaying poop. Not my cup of tea, Hiorns is more up my street but there it is.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/turner-prize/6753775/Richard-Wright-Turner-Prize-2009-winner.html

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

starbelgrade wrote: »

I don't think the money or fame that the likes of Hirst commands is what irks people - as far as fame goes, 99% of the population wouldn't recognise him if they passed him in the street and most wouldn't know much about his bank balance.

What irks people is that they fear what they cannot understand, or cannot understand, that often there is no need to understand. A Van Gogh holds no such fear - "that would look nice in the sitting room", but a plastic box containing a preserved dead animal has no such comforts.

Possibly true, what I was basing my statements on was my experience of people seeing a piece of art and their initial reaction being "sure I could do that!/that's considered art/people get degrees to do that/pay money for that?" Hirst, Banksy and whoever wins the Turner prize mightn't be well known in the general population but they receive a fair amount of media coverage that filters down to people, and while they mightn't be aware of the individual artists as such they are aware of the high prices paid for the art. What I think people are objecting to is value (be it artistic or monetary) being attached to something they don't understand or aren't interested in.

Wibbs

I blame Duchamp, with a side order of the Dada movement, though he had his moments and the Dadaists contained some decent work. Problem being that the conceptual art brigade ran with it too far. Rejecting "craft" is all very well, but rejecting relevant viewpoints is quite another. Too often it has flown up its own jacksie, with the only art the explanation for the art. It reminds me how much modern orchestral music went up its own arse as did conceptual jazz. The latter two needed quality popular music forms to show them where they may have gone wrong(though many of same used as a basis some of the "conceptual" stuff as a kick off point).

Shouting words across a tesco tannoy is not art. If the words were by Keats it would be art only by dint of the fact that the words were Keats'. The method of transmission would just be hackneyed and obvious in its adolescence type thought. "ohhh Im making a statement against consumerism and subverting the conduits of its action". Yea love, get in line. Oh and no, non art isnt art either. That's old news too.

Much of the conceptual art(not all) is like the meanderings of a stoner caught up in his or her shock at thinking they're profound for the first time. Great for the stoner and fair play, but as philosophy? Not unless you happen to be passing the dutchie to Plato.

BTW I like Hirst. He's done some good work which did hit one in a visceral manner and basically made one think. I have a spot spot for weiner and emin. I particularly like Richard long, though not sure if he's in the pantheon of "conceptual" artists. He actually has a concept for a start. I like much of kapoors stuff too, though lately the well worn trail of "up my own jackise" is kicking off. WTF was he thinking with that utterly awkward design for the London games. It's bereft of either balance, reason or engineering. Hell I even can see the reasoning behind Yoko Ono :eek: She had her moments early on . But much of the form I consider self generated bullshít perpetuated by and for pseuds.

Wibbs

medicman2009 wrote: »

My entry for the Turner prize this year will be: A sh1t on a plate with a knife and fork beside it, it will rest on top of a grave headstone.
My work will be titled - 'Eat sh1t and die.'

Better yet, shít on a plate over a few days, then sculpt a likeness of a dead relative* in the said colonic output and let it rot slowly.

Encase it in a glass case, better again get one of those antique domes reserved in the past for stuffed animals. That'll add the juxtaposition guff the critics will hop on. Dont discard the original contents either. Leave it "naked" beside the "work". The preserved dead with the dying and decay and mortality. Really good shít we're talking here. Sure to get a response.

Invite people to sniff the edge of case where it joins the base, so they dont just see the decay but will smell and feel sickened by it(bonus point). That covers the visceral angle right there. BTW Avoid whoppee cushion sounds over the PA. Step too far. Dont wanna be too obvious here....

Call it "Passing", the pseuds are so daft they'll either not spot the reference, or if they do, will consider you "ironic". If that strikes you as too obvious call it something utterly unrelated(in reality) but will make a connection(in their minds). "My coffee is cold" as an example to kick off your own creative juices.

Get an agent and at least one high powered patron. Bang his wife, or better yet if you're a bloke bang her husband. serious bonus points, especially if it hits the Times. Not the Mail in this case.

Be "interesting". This is similar to much of the vocal output of Houte couture clothes designers, so get a subscription to fashion TV and what not. It usually involves dressing unusually, speaking in a subdued timbre or very very loudly about nothing in particular, but making sure to drop in nonsensical jargon that leaves the reader or listener to "make up their own mind". Or act mad. Since Van Gogh the art world is shít scared of missing another tortured genius, so that may trigger desire. Though given most of the recognised great artist through history were actually pretty sane, happy and made a few quid too. A "horrified" Daily Mail article would seriously help. Makes you misunderstood among ladies who lunch and the rich who may be self conscious about their cultural status.



Sorted.






*If you can't sculpt get some talented oik doing a FAS course to do that bit for you. Dont namecheck him or her though. Leave the surgical gloves they used to sculpt your doings by the side of the case. "Ohh he's representing the failure of medical science/the interference of same"

Kold

I think a huge part is upon the public, the word art doesn't necessarily mean 'good'. Plenty of art is sh*t, just like literature/music/any other artform can be sh*t.

"Is it art?" is a pointless question, art merely means something created by an artist for the purpose of art. The question should be "Do I like this? Why do I like/dislike this?"

spinandscribble

Wibbs wrote: »

Much of the conceptual art(not all) is like the meanderings of a stoner caught up in his or her shock at thinking they're profound for the first time. Great for the stoner and fair play, but as philosophy? Not unless you happen to be passing the dutchie to Plato.

But you see thats because its the current time. Things like this have been said throughout time.
I read a interesting book recently on the idea of can art be taught, how its taught and how it could be taught. Basically there was a interesting section on how some people view modern art (and post modern ect ect) as pointless and useless and others will theres alot of crap to get through to the real gems. The unsettling fact for many artists is very few will be remembered or cared for in years to come. some names will stand out, not always the ones with the best PR but the ones who will have added something, not the million other people after them. Duchamp IS one of these people, love him or loathe him he did get in there and have his say and regardless of whether we like it he'll be the one in the history book.

BTW I like Hirst.

:eek: say it ain't so...:pac:

Wibbs

Kold wrote: »

I think a huge part is upon the public, the word art doesn't necessarily mean 'good'. Plenty of art is sh*t, just like literature/music/any other artform can be sh*t.

"Is it art?" is a pointless question, art merely means something created by an artist for the purpose of art. The question should be "Do I like this? Why do I like/dislike this?"

Yea.... all to easy an answer IMHO. OK if I dunno, Bob Dylan got píssed and fell on a drumkit and recorded it, would it be music? I mean he's clearly a musician and a good one at that and he's engaging with a musical instrument. As a musician he could point at the recording and go "it's music". So why not?

spinandscribble

Wibbs wrote: »

Better yet, shít on a plate over a few days, then sculpt a likeness of a dead relative* in the said colonic output and let it rot slowly.

Encase it in a glass case, better again get one of those antique domes reserved in the past for stuffed animals. That'll add the juxtaposition guff the critics will hop on. Dont discard the original contents either. Leave it "naked" beside the "work". The preserved dead with the dying and decay and mortality. Really good shít we're talking here. Sure to get a response.

Invite people to sniff the edge of case where it joins the base, so they dont just see the decay but will smell and feel sickened by it(bonus point). That covers the visceral angle right there. BTW Avoid whoppee cushion sounds over the PA. Step too far. Dont wanna be too obvious here....

Call it "Passing", the pseuds are so daft they'll either not spot the reference, or if they do, will consider you "ironic". If that strikes you as too obvious call it something utterly unrelated(in reality) but will make a connection(in their minds). "My coffee is cold" as an example to kick off your own creative juices.

Get an agent and at least one high powered patron. Bang his wife, or better yet if you're a bloke bang her husband. serious bonus points, especially if it hits the Times. Not the Mail in this case.

Be "interesting". This is similar to much of the vocal output of Houte couture clothes designers, so get a subscription to fashion TV and what not. It usually involves dressing unusually, speaking in a subdued timbre or very very loudly about nothing in particular, but making sure to drop in nonsensical jargon that leaves the reader or listener to "make up their own mind". Or act mad. Since Van Gogh the art world is shít scared of missing another tortured genius, so that may trigger desire. Though given most of the recognised great artist through history were actually pretty sane, happy and made a few quid too. A "horrified" Daily Mail article would seriously help. Makes you misunderstood among ladies who lunch and the rich who may be self conscious about their cultural status.



Sorted.






*If you can't sculpt get some talented oik doing a FAS course to do that bit for you. Dont namecheck him or her though. Leave the surgical gloves they used to sculpt your doings by the side of the case. "Ohh he's representing the failure of medical science/the interference of same"

if there was any justice this would be post of the day

spinandscribble

Wibbs wrote: »

Yea.... all to easy an answer IMHO. OK if I dunno, Bob Dylan got píssed and fell on a drumkit and recorded it, would it be music? I mean he's clearly a musician and a good one at that and he's engaging with a musical instrument. As a musician he he could point at the recording and go "it's music". So why not?

somewhere someones done that :P

I dunno. there seems to be more "rules" to music then "art".

brianthebard

Wibbs wrote: »

Better yet, shít on a plate over a few days, then sculpt a likeness of a dead relative* in the said colonic output and let it rot slowly.

Encase it in a glass case, better again get one of those antique domes reserved in the past for stuffed animals. That'll add the juxtaposition guff the critics will hop on. Dont discard the original contents either. Leave it "naked" beside the "work". The preserved dead with the dying and decay and mortality. Really good shít we're talking here. Sure to get a response.

Invite people to sniff the edge of case where it joins the base, so they dont just see the decay but will smell and feel sickened by it(bonus point). That covers the visceral angle right there. BTW Avoid whoppee cushion sounds over the PA. Step too far. Dont wanna be too obvious here....

Call it "Passing", the pseuds are so daft they'll either not spot the reference, or if they do, will consider you "ironic". If that strikes you as too obvious call it something utterly unrelated(in reality) but will make a connection(in their minds). "My coffee is cold" as an example to kick off your own creative juices.

Get an agent and at least one high powered patron. Bang his wife, or better yet if you're a bloke bang her husband. serious bonus points, especially if it hits the Times. Not the Mail in this case.

Be "interesting". This is similar to much of the vocal output of Houte couture clothes designers, so get a subscription to fashion TV and what not. It usually involves dressing unusually, speaking in a subdued timbre or very very loudly about nothing in particular, but making sure to drop in nonsensical jargon that leaves the reader or listener to "make up their own mind". Or act mad. Since Van Gogh the art world is shít scared of missing another tortured genius, so that may trigger desire. Though given most of the recognised great artist through history were actually pretty sane, happy and made a few quid too. A "horrified" Daily Mail article would seriously help. Makes you misunderstood among ladies who lunch and the rich who may be self conscious about their cultural status.



Sorted.






*If you can't sculpt get some talented oik doing a FAS course to do that bit for you. Dont namecheck him or her though. Leave the surgical gloves they used to sculpt your doings by the side of the case. "Ohh he's representing the failure of medical science/the interference of same"

I thought you said you liked Hirst?