Seemingly trivial things that annoy you
Comments
-
In reference to the comment that TFL shouldn't be spending their money on fripperies like public art.First.Aspect said:
What difference does it make what pot of money it comes from?rick_chasey said:Fairly sure the money for the artwork comes out of a different pot of money.
There will be a London wide pot of money for public art, a mixture of donations and local budget.0 -
Right but it is still public money. What difference does it make?rick_chasey said:
In reference to the comment that TFL shouldn't be spending their money on fripperies like public art.First.Aspect said:
What difference does it make what pot of money it comes from?rick_chasey said:Fairly sure the money for the artwork comes out of a different pot of money.
There will be a London wide pot of money for public art, a mixture of donations and local budget.1 -
Quite a bit in the context of the comment.First.Aspect said:
Right but it is still public money. What difference does it make?rick_chasey said:
In reference to the comment that TFL shouldn't be spending their money on fripperies like public art.First.Aspect said:
What difference does it make what pot of money it comes from?rick_chasey said:Fairly sure the money for the artwork comes out of a different pot of money.
There will be a London wide pot of money for public art, a mixture of donations and local budget.0 -
No.rick_chasey said:
Quite a bit in the context of the comment.First.Aspect said:
Right but it is still public money. What difference does it make?rick_chasey said:
In reference to the comment that TFL shouldn't be spending their money on fripperies like public art.First.Aspect said:
What difference does it make what pot of money it comes from?rick_chasey said:Fairly sure the money for the artwork comes out of a different pot of money.
There will be a London wide pot of money for public art, a mixture of donations and local budget.0 -
"The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.pblakeney said:I just sit there, shovelling my breakfast into my mouth, scrolling through bikeradar and swallowing whatever unfounded nonsense someone has posted whole, with full knowledge that it will likely be nonsense. 😉
I am not sure. You have no chance."
seanoconn - gruagach craic!0 -
Still removing revenue.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
No. I'm normally the first one to get annoyed with the "my child could do that" brigade, but I'm at a loss with this one. Maybe he did just have an off day.First.Aspect said:Can someone explain to me what's good about it? As in, if this was an unknown aspiring artist's work, why would it be noteworthy?
As opposed, say, to the alphabet strung around my teacher's blackboard on primary school.
Is the clever part making it look censored ?1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
-
Oh, not just me then.rjsterry said:
No. I'm normally the first one to get annoyed with the "my child could do that" brigade, but I'm at a loss with this one. Maybe he did just have an off day.First.Aspect said:Can someone explain to me what's good about it? As in, if this was an unknown aspiring artist's work, why would it be noteworthy?
As opposed, say, to the alphabet strung around my teacher's blackboard on primary school.
Is the clever part making it look censored ?
Other than art that consists of throwing paint around an unusually large canvass with vigour, I'm normally willing to try to see what's actually there.
But KG's is better. See for example how the line of the circle does not quite join at the top, but overlaps at the bottom.
This evokes the earth not being quite on its axis during this pandemic.0 -
Eh? Companies pay to advertise. Money goes into the public pot.rick_chasey said:
to whome? the ad money comes out of the public art pot, as per my post above.pblakeney said:Still removing revenue.
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.1 -
No it goes into the TFL pot.pblakeney said:
Eh? Companies pay to advertise. Money goes into the public pot.rick_chasey said:
to whome? the ad money comes out of the public art pot, as per my post above.pblakeney said:Still removing revenue.
So the public art pot pays the equivalent of the advert.
So say TFL charge £1,000 per day and they have it for 100 days, and the public art pot coughs up £100,000 to TFL to have the ad space for 100 days.0 -
Glad you spotted that - it actually does join, but there is a small part of the circle in a slightly different colour. Make of that what you will. Art is very much a personal experience.First.Aspect said:
Oh, not just me then.rjsterry said:
No. I'm normally the first one to get annoyed with the "my child could do that" brigade, but I'm at a loss with this one. Maybe he did just have an off day.First.Aspect said:Can someone explain to me what's good about it? As in, if this was an unknown aspiring artist's work, why would it be noteworthy?
As opposed, say, to the alphabet strung around my teacher's blackboard on primary school.
Is the clever part making it look censored ?
Other than art that consists of throwing paint around an unusually large canvass with vigour, I'm normally willing to try to see what's actually there.
But KG's is better. See for example how the line of the circle does not quite join at the top, but overlaps at the bottom.
This evokes the earth not being quite on its axis during this pandemic.0 -
Just realised that the nub of the issue is merely the existence of a public art pot. In a time of cutbacks and austerity I can think of better use. Other opinions are available.rick_chasey said:
No it goes into the TFL pot.pblakeney said:
Eh? Companies pay to advertise. Money goes into the public pot.rick_chasey said:
to whome? the ad money comes out of the public art pot, as per my post above.pblakeney said:Still removing revenue.
So the public art pot pays the equivalent of the advert.
So say TFL charge £1,000 per day and they have it for 100 days, and the public art pot coughs up £100,000 to TFL to have the ad space for 100 days.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Yikes. I know how you'd play Civ....pblakeney said:
Just realised that the nub of the issue is merely the existence of a public art pot. In a time of cutbacks and austerity I can think of better use. Other opinions are available.rick_chasey said:
No it goes into the TFL pot.pblakeney said:
Eh? Companies pay to advertise. Money goes into the public pot.rick_chasey said:
to whome? the ad money comes out of the public art pot, as per my post above.pblakeney said:Still removing revenue.
So the public art pot pays the equivalent of the advert.
So say TFL charge £1,000 per day and they have it for 100 days, and the public art pot coughs up £100,000 to TFL to have the ad space for 100 days.0 -
It is no longer a time of cutbacks.pblakeney said:
Just realised that the nub of the issue is merely the existence of a public art pot. In a time of cutbacks and austerity I can think of better use. Other opinions are available.rick_chasey said:
No it goes into the TFL pot.pblakeney said:
Eh? Companies pay to advertise. Money goes into the public pot.rick_chasey said:
to whome? the ad money comes out of the public art pot, as per my post above.pblakeney said:Still removing revenue.
So the public art pot pays the equivalent of the advert.
So say TFL charge £1,000 per day and they have it for 100 days, and the public art pot coughs up £100,000 to TFL to have the ad space for 100 days.1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
I don't mind money being spent on art. Giving the money to an established relic of the art world who has pulled an emperor's new clothes type con irks me a little. Make it a competition for upcoming artists with a prize fund for the works voted as being the best.1
-
They can sell it once they're finished with it.0
-
Ah. Off colour. Very good.kingstongraham said:
Glad you spotted that - it actually does join, but there is a small part of the circle in a slightly different colour. Make of that what you will. Art is very much a personal experience.First.Aspect said:
Oh, not just me then.rjsterry said:
No. I'm normally the first one to get annoyed with the "my child could do that" brigade, but I'm at a loss with this one. Maybe he did just have an off day.First.Aspect said:Can someone explain to me what's good about it? As in, if this was an unknown aspiring artist's work, why would it be noteworthy?
As opposed, say, to the alphabet strung around my teacher's blackboard on primary school.
Is the clever part making it look censored ?
Other than art that consists of throwing paint around an unusually large canvass with vigour, I'm normally willing to try to see what's actually there.
But KG's is better. See for example how the line of the circle does not quite join at the top, but overlaps at the bottom.
This evokes the earth not being quite on its axis during this pandemic.0 -
I'd agree with this use.veronese68 said:I don't mind money being spent on art. Giving the money to an established relic of the art world who has pulled an emperor's new clothes type con irks me a little. Make it a competition for upcoming artists with a prize fund for the works voted as being the best.
As for cutbacks, they are coming for everything not job/wealth creating.The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
When you notice how much time some TV programmes spend recapping what you have just watched in the last 10 minutes it's really really annoying.
“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!1 -
In his last post Tailwindhome commented on how annoying it was when TV programmes recapped what had happened just moments before. Let's see what everyone else thinks.“New York has the haircuts, London has the trousers, but Belfast has the reason!2
-
tailwindhome said:
When you notice how much time some TV programmes spend recapping what you have just watched in the last 10 minutes it's really really annoying.
One reason I gave up watching TV.
Formula for 30-minute programme:
Take three 5-minute items. Chop them into little bits.
1) Start programme with little 'tasters' of what's to come
2) Do a couple of minutes of each of the items, with chirpy links by presenters
3) Do a summary of what we've had so far, with some more snippets of what's to come in the second half of the programme
4) Do the concluding halves of each of the three items
5) Summarise what we've just seen
6) Tell us what's coming up in next week's programme0 -
That sounds like US cable TV. Other options are available. YouTube for example, has kittens. Endless kittens.briantrumpet said:tailwindhome said:When you notice how much time some TV programmes spend recapping what you have just watched in the last 10 minutes it's really really annoying.
One reason I gave up watching TV.
Formula for 30-minute programme:
Take three 5-minute items. Chop them into little bits.
1) Start programme with little 'tasters' of what's to come
2) Do a couple of minutes of each of the items, with chirpy links by presenters
3) Do a summary of what we've had so far, with some more snippets of what's to come in the second half of the programme
4) Do the concluding halves of each of the three items
5) Summarise what we've just seen
6) Tell us what's coming up in next week's programme0 -
First.Aspect said:
<
That sounds like US cable TV. Other options are available. YouTube for example, has kittens. Endless kittens.
I manage to resist the lure of kittens by reminding myself that they turn into the wildlife killing-and-maiming machines called cats... the things that sh*t and p*ss in other people's gardens.
But I digress...0 -
You missed out the ad breaks which means a 30 minute program can only be 20 minutes of the above.briantrumpet said:tailwindhome said:When you notice how much time some TV programmes spend recapping what you have just watched in the last 10 minutes it's really really annoying.
One reason I gave up watching TV.
Formula for 30-minute programme:
Take three 5-minute items. Chop them into little bits.
1) Start programme with little 'tasters' of what's to come
2) Do a couple of minutes of each of the items, with chirpy links by presenters
3) Do a summary of what we've had so far, with some more snippets of what's to come in the second half of the programme
4) Do the concluding halves of each of the three items
5) Summarise what we've just seen
6) Tell us what's coming up in next week's programmeThe above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
You've been watching Homes Under The Hammer haven't you?briantrumpet said:tailwindhome said:When you notice how much time some TV programmes spend recapping what you have just watched in the last 10 minutes it's really really annoying.
One reason I gave up watching TV.
Formula for 30-minute programme:
Take three 5-minute items. Chop them into little bits.
1) Start programme with little 'tasters' of what's to come
2) Do a couple of minutes of each of the items, with chirpy links by presenters
3) Do a summary of what we've had so far, with some more snippets of what's to come in the second half of the programme
4) Do the concluding halves of each of the three items
5) Summarise what we've just seen
6) Tell us what's coming up in next week's programme0 -
Plus, as Brian mentions, telling you what you're going to see in the next 10 minutes.tailwindhome said:When you notice how much time some TV programmes spend recapping what you have just watched in the last 10 minutes it's really really annoying.
0 -
Can't let a mention go by without posting this.Pross said:
You've been watching Homes Under The Hammer haven't you?briantrumpet said:tailwindhome said:When you notice how much time some TV programmes spend recapping what you have just watched in the last 10 minutes it's really really annoying.
One reason I gave up watching TV.
Formula for 30-minute programme:
Take three 5-minute items. Chop them into little bits.
1) Start programme with little 'tasters' of what's to come
2) Do a couple of minutes of each of the items, with chirpy links by presenters
3) Do a summary of what we've had so far, with some more snippets of what's to come in the second half of the programme
4) Do the concluding halves of each of the three items
5) Summarise what we've just seen
6) Tell us what's coming up in next week's programme
1 -
Do it over 5 episodes and you get another episode free, complete with a 10 minute recap of the series.tailwindhome said:When you notice how much time some TV programmes spend recapping what you have just watched in the last 10 minutes it's really really annoying.
0 -
Pross said:
You've been watching Homes Under The Hammer haven't you?
Actually, no... but it shows how clichéd and lazy formula TV has become.
Genuinely can't remember the last TV programme I watched. I have enjoyed TV 'essays' in the past on social housing, the history of rubbish, and shipping containers, and also Jonathan Meades short series on architecture (simultaneously sending up TV clichés).
0
