Block 5

Agreed. Their football league show was ghastly.

The Southern Daily Echo Newspaper House Test Lane Redbridge Southampton SO16 9JX

I think we should get on down to Redbridge before the poopey game and pelt the Echo office with eggs and bog roll.

This thread has turned into a pretty good debate about the nature of art, which I hoped it would. Kadeem and Charlie, I agree with both of you. I have not said that old art (I don't like that term either) is less valid because it was primarily commissioned by the wealthy, just that it was less accessible at the time of it's commissioning. All art is subjective, and arguments about what actually constitutes art have been rolling on for years. Kadeem, I am not a reverse snob when it comes to classical art. I have spent many happy hours in the National Gallery, enjoying our Nation's greatest treasures. My personal favourites are 'The Execution of Lady Jane Grey' by Delaroche (which is one of the most emotive paintings I have ever seen) and Monet's breathtaking 'The Water-Lily Pond' (this is devastating - every photograph of this painting in every coffee table art book should be destroyed - this work should only be seen 'in the flesh'.) The National wasn't opened until the 19th century. Before that time, the idea that the poor could 'appreciate' art wasn't widely held. Thankfully we live in more enlightened times. As for my own personal opinions. I think that art, like music, reached it's zenith in the 17th, 18th and to a certain extent, 19th centuries. I feel that the great composers of that time will NEVER be bettered. In the same vein, the work of the great artists of that time (my own personal favourite being Velazquez) represent the pinnacle of artistic achievement. That said, art should always represent the NOW. It should be evocative. We wander the National and it evokes the past; we see the past through the eyes of the artist. All art can be a doorway to the time that it was created; Constable's Haywain, for example, evokes pastoral scenes from our rural past. Which brings me on to Charlie's point about today's modern art having no real value. In my opinion, you are way off the mark. In 200 years time, our descendants will wander the rooms of the Tate or the National and will view our world through the eyes of Francis Bacon, Andy Warhol, Grayson Perry, the Chapman brothers and yes.... even Banksy! Art is all about the now! (All in my humble opinion, of course).

Is our last boycott of the Echo over? If it is, then surely another one is long overdue. BOYCOTT THE ECHO!

No reason why he couldn't perform both roles. Plenty of business people sit on the boards of multiple companies. And as other posters have already said, this could work in our favour in the transfer / loan market.

I'm sure that Lord Yatesbury has much better taste.

I'm glad you raised that point. What is modern art? What is old art? Old art is for the rich. Nearly all paintings up until the birth of the modern art movements were created for either the Church (and depicted religious scenes) or were commissioned by obscenely wealthy people (and depicted themselves or ugly looking members of their inbred families.) Talk about inaccessible. The average man or woman never saw a painting in their life and if they did, they certainly didn't identify with it on any level. Modern art changed that. Artists began painting whores and street scenes. They began creating images that would provoke a reaction from anyone, no matter their class background. Street art takes art full circle. But rather than making it accessible purely for 'street' people (like the early graffiti and tags) it can now be embraced by anyone, regardless of class.

Difficult one. Just say you were in his position, painting walls round Brizzle, and one day a fella tells you he'll give you £100,000 to do a piece in his house. Do you: a) Say no thanks mate. I'm an artist and commercial success is not compatible with my street art, or b) Say "I'll do you 2 pieces for £150,000" I know what I'd say. I take your point but Banksy has made graff art both accessible and acceptable to a new audience and in so doing has given an opportunity to thousands of kids who have a talent but who had no way of making a living from that talent before Banksy. There are good points and bad points. When you pop into your local art gallery and see the insipid watercolour views of the New Forest that are the standard fare of these dross galleries and then compare them to the overtly political, comical and thought provoking pieces by Banksy, D*Face etc which is more appealing? This piece of shyte: Or this piece of genius:

I see your 'Green' and raise you....... Khan - 'Space Shanty'. Motivation Radio is a dreadful cover, what was he thinking?!? But some good tunes on there. Green is probably my favourite Hillside album, but L and Live Herald come pretty close. (Just don't mention Rainbow Dome Musick.)

Urban / street / graff art is BIG business these days Ponty. £100k plus for original Banksy pieces. £450 plus for signed Blek Le Rat prints.

Your boss owns this piece and paid £102,000 for it??? Any jobs going Hatch?

Point taken. I shall endeavor to ensure that all future references to inflatables adhere to the correct animal classification.

Classic!

The ghastly matchday plank announcer.

I recently bought this print by Eelus (for a pretty good price ). Mine is a khaki / olive green colour. Signed and numbered edition of 200 of each colorway. It's called 'Shat-At' and it makes me smile whenever I look at it.

Would it be illegal to photocopy bank notes and throw them at the fish fiddlers as you drive past?

Pedant! Fish-specific inflatables are hard to come across. Fnar fnar.

I have been waiting for him to score any goal (and I've had a few bets too) and so far nothing.... nada...zilch....zip.

The first prints I bought were by James Cauty and they made me laugh - I reckon that's got to be the best possible reason to buy art, whether it is an original or a print. (Is your ex a bit of a cow ) As for Bob Dylan prints...... I think lots of people have done the same. A quick glance at ebay shows that people are selling his prints at 2 or 3 times the original cost price from the gallery. But are people buying at that price at the moment??? I think a 5 - 10 year investment would be pretty sure to return a healthy profit. And as Dylan advances in years and the inevitable approaches, his work will increase in value even more. But I would urge caution when investing that kind of money and ONLY buy from the gallery representing him. Ebay is a hunting ground for dodgy dealers looking to make a fast buck selling something that isn't the genuine article. If you do go down that route, provenance is an absolute MUST when you're talking that kind of money. All his prints have sold out so perhaps it would be sensible to wait until some more appear.

Wow! Which one's? Can you post pics of them here?

I thought this thread would be a non-starter..... clearly not. Candykiller's work is very distinctive, like cartoons gone bad. I quite like it, and I reckon a few would look good together, framed up on the wall. Kid Acne's work is excellent. I found these two similar pieces at the POW website. http://www.picturesonwalls.com/Art_Artists.asp?Artist=Kid%20Acne&Offset=0&PageNo=1 They're signed and numbered and finished with metallic ink and varnish. Either would look great in a nice frame. £90 is a pretty good price but I have no idea about Kid Acne's resale value. Personally, I try not to think of that when buying pieces. I buy what I like, not what I think will make money.

I missed it. Hopefully it will be shown this evening. Did she look like this?

I was feeling bored and mischievous.