Sunday, August 31, 2008
Caring for animals
I see in yesterday's DT that a group of polar bears landed in the sea, 50 miles from the nearest land and 500 miles from home, when the floe they were living was melted by excess concentrations of carbon dioxind in the ambient environment. They have elected to swim for home rather than for land. I would have thought that this was rather too far for a bear to swim so I expect to read in the DT soon that the World Wildlife Fund has dispatched its MV P Bear to the the rescue. I imagine that apart from being wet, the bears are also rather hungry, stocks on their floe having given out some time ago. Did they resort to cannabilism? These thoughts prompted by an extravagent use of time and effort on a stray dolphin the other week.
Nearer to home, passed the second dead badger on the way to Cheam yesterday. So as well as having to contend with urban foxes it may be that we are going to have urban badgers. Presumably there is a colony of them in Nonsuch Park - but how did they get there?
After the badger incident, off to town for the penultimate day of the 'Lure of the East' exhibition at the proper Tate. Good value as it turned out as we got a tw0-for-one deal on the strength of our train tickets and the book of the show for £10 instead of £25 on the the strength of it being the penultimate day. We also saw two lady luvvies in full costume and war paint, one famous and middle aged, one older but unknown. One lady who carried an open laptop all around the exhibition but without appearing to look at it or key anything into it. And at least two gents from Epsom, given away by their carrier bag from Lester Bowden.
Exhibition itself both educational and entertaining, with some good work by Holman Hunt and Lear. But slightly odd going to an exhibition which, in addition to showing us some pictures, was also trying to do a Guardian and make a statement about how awful Europeans are vis a vis our so much more civilised neighbours in the Near East. Some of the comments on some of the paintings were well worth a place in Pseuds' Corner.
There was also a rather naff audio visual thing. A huge screen used to display very small amounts of information. Entirely worthy of one of those soft documentaries swarming over the airwaves these days - 54% pictures, 54% mood music, 2% content. All wrapped up by a manic man with a regional accent and a beard (for which reason I call such programmes beards). Which also served to block the way to the second half of the exhibition, which, but for the vigilance of the BH, I would have missed. Although, as it happened, most of the better pictures were in the first half.
All of which, following on from the note on obscene of 14 February above, prompted me to wonder about the meaning and value of the word pornographic - which one or two of the paintings in the exhibition were said to be. According to the first edition of the OED, that being the only one to hand, pornography is writing of or about (graphy) harlots (porno). From the Greek. By extension, writing about things which are obscene, that is to say about things which should not be seen (vide supra). There was also something called a pornocracy, the domination of the government of 10th century Rome by prostitutes. With two references to learned tomes from the second half of the nineteenth century, so I doubt if the compilers of the OED are pulling our legs. All in all, I think, a rather tricky area. There is clearly some pornography which we would do better without. I dare say there is a fair bit of pornography which depicts activities which are legal, the depiction of which would be difficult to ban, but which one does not want on television or on a hoarding in the street. Something to be consumed furtively by interested parties. But there are also some quite decent paintings - decent in both senses of the word - which, amongst other things, are titillating (not to use a grander word), and which might also be called pornography. Who knows? Clearly time for a bit of fresh air, the sun now having come out after a very wet and dull first half of the day.
Nearer to home, passed the second dead badger on the way to Cheam yesterday. So as well as having to contend with urban foxes it may be that we are going to have urban badgers. Presumably there is a colony of them in Nonsuch Park - but how did they get there?
After the badger incident, off to town for the penultimate day of the 'Lure of the East' exhibition at the proper Tate. Good value as it turned out as we got a tw0-for-one deal on the strength of our train tickets and the book of the show for £10 instead of £25 on the the strength of it being the penultimate day. We also saw two lady luvvies in full costume and war paint, one famous and middle aged, one older but unknown. One lady who carried an open laptop all around the exhibition but without appearing to look at it or key anything into it. And at least two gents from Epsom, given away by their carrier bag from Lester Bowden.
Exhibition itself both educational and entertaining, with some good work by Holman Hunt and Lear. But slightly odd going to an exhibition which, in addition to showing us some pictures, was also trying to do a Guardian and make a statement about how awful Europeans are vis a vis our so much more civilised neighbours in the Near East. Some of the comments on some of the paintings were well worth a place in Pseuds' Corner.
There was also a rather naff audio visual thing. A huge screen used to display very small amounts of information. Entirely worthy of one of those soft documentaries swarming over the airwaves these days - 54% pictures, 54% mood music, 2% content. All wrapped up by a manic man with a regional accent and a beard (for which reason I call such programmes beards). Which also served to block the way to the second half of the exhibition, which, but for the vigilance of the BH, I would have missed. Although, as it happened, most of the better pictures were in the first half.
All of which, following on from the note on obscene of 14 February above, prompted me to wonder about the meaning and value of the word pornographic - which one or two of the paintings in the exhibition were said to be. According to the first edition of the OED, that being the only one to hand, pornography is writing of or about (graphy) harlots (porno). From the Greek. By extension, writing about things which are obscene, that is to say about things which should not be seen (vide supra). There was also something called a pornocracy, the domination of the government of 10th century Rome by prostitutes. With two references to learned tomes from the second half of the nineteenth century, so I doubt if the compilers of the OED are pulling our legs. All in all, I think, a rather tricky area. There is clearly some pornography which we would do better without. I dare say there is a fair bit of pornography which depicts activities which are legal, the depiction of which would be difficult to ban, but which one does not want on television or on a hoarding in the street. Something to be consumed furtively by interested parties. But there are also some quite decent paintings - decent in both senses of the word - which, amongst other things, are titillating (not to use a grander word), and which might also be called pornography. Who knows? Clearly time for a bit of fresh air, the sun now having come out after a very wet and dull first half of the day.
# posted by Jim @ 6:19 AM 
