Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Robert William Nickisson on April 6, 2012 at 4:28pm

Hi All,  I started this discussion thinking others like myself had had lots of rejected email ,letters etc. and who would like to publish them and expose this Political  Party strategy of no reply as the means of dispensing with mail you don't agree with. As that doesn't seem to be the case and as I do not believe in burdening Just Grounds with archives of worthless discussions this discussion will be terminated and the space made available to more interesting current Topics.  Easter Greetings to you All. Robert WN

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by lorraine hogan on April 7, 2012 at 2:09pm

Hello Robert i have an email but its content may not be relevant to Just Grounds but relevant to Australians,i have followed The Archibald Prize for the past 10 years and was surprised that this years winner was neither a portrait nor of a prominent Australian as Archibald stated when he set up the fund,so i questioned the irrelevant choice they had made this year,below is the conversation

> I am not an artist nor do i visit Gallery's but have followed the 
> Archibald Prize over the past ten years,this is not a portrait even 
> in my limited ability i know that,Archibald states "portraits" why the change?

JonathanC@ag.nsw.gov.au	Apr 3 (4 days ago)
to me, Web_Team, ArtMail

Hello Lorraine,

The interesting thing about definitions is that they do not remain static. In fact, the very definition of "art" has been challenged by many artists, at least as far back as the early 20th century (eg, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_%28Duchamp%29)

Although many artists who have entered the Archibald Prize in recent years have stuck with the more traditional idea of a portrait as a likeness, others have deliberately "stretched" the definition, almost to breaking point (or, as you might think, beyond it). Here is a selection of recent Archibald Prize finalists and winners, to show that things haven'tsuddenly changed this year after all:

Its changed.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Donald Woods on April 7, 2012 at 2:34pm

Hello RWN I must firstly say it takes a while for people to get going on a discussion as I found with my post on Cancer. With Easter upon us quite a few may not be around to comment. Hopefully when they return from their weekend away there will be more.

In the mean time I will say that I haven't sent any recently.

I was going to send off a submission to the MDBA ( read Myopic, Destructive, Boofheaded Arthropods ) but consider it a waste of time.

I ,along with 800+ other submissions, to the guide got absolutely no response nor any change to their first stated position. They intend to take water out of production regardless of the consequences. Pure lunancy.

On second thoughts maybe I should send something if for no other reason than to be able to say I did contribute.

I also add that my opinion of Tony Windsor has gone from high to very low. I attended one of his forums  on the examination of the economic and social outcomes of taking water out of production - all to no avail.

I supported Ian Motts proposal for the Murray mouth. Ian was even invited to a face to face presentation in Canberra on his idea. All it got him was a trip to Canberra at his expense.

What hope is there if 100% of peoples ideas are ignored?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Robert William Nickisson on April 7, 2012 at 3:50pm

Hi Lorraine, Any letters are relevant to this discussion site and about any subject Just Grounds community believe they have written and have been ignored or answered unsatisfactorily.  Re, Art, I was born in Newcastle NSW and the family had a very wealthy Aunt she and her husband were very generous people to the Church they followed and to other causes. They travelled extensively but always maintaining a home in Newcastle. She collected art from both Australian artists and foreign artists during her travels. When she died she left her extensive art collection to the City of Newcastle to be placed in the City Art Gallery when it was constructed. Studying our family Genealogy in later years my brother and myself attempted to trace her collection BUT Newcastle had constructed a Modern Art Gallery and we went there for answers. Modern Art is of no interest to me, therefore neither was the gallery but we did manage to after much research and pestering Gallery authorities track down the fate of her Paintings. They were offered to the Gallery when it was finally built and opened, they rejected them because they were only interested in Modern Art so then our Aunt’s Solicitor gave the Gallery 5000 pounds and he kept the paintings collection himself. Nice money maker if you can get it. Regards this year’s Archibald Prize winning so called portrait to me it appears just like the rubbish scrawled on walls around the city. And it as much resembles a portrait as does a jar of jam. The reply you received was much like the rubbish we were fed when we demanded knowledge of our great Aunt’s Collection. There is a place somewhere for Modern Art I suppose but it is not in the judging of an Archibald Prize Portrait Competition. But it’s everywhere this dumbing down of standards of excellence in modern life in Australia including Politics. Regards. Robert WN

lorraine hogan said:

Hello Robert i have an email but its content may not be relevant to Just Grounds but relevant to Australians,i have followed The Archibald Prize for the past 10 years and was surprised that this years winner was neither a portrait nor of a prominent Australian as Archibald stated when he set up the fund,so i questioned the irrelevant choice they had made this year,below is the conversation

> I am not an artist nor do i visit Gallery's but have followed the 
> Archibald Prize over the past ten years,this is not a portrait even 
> in my limited ability i know that,Archibald states "portraits" why the change?

JonathanC@ag.nsw.gov.au	Apr 3 (4 days ago)
to me, Web_Team, ArtMail

Hello Lorraine,

The interesting thing about definitions is that they do not remain static. In fact, the very definition of "art" has been challenged by many artists, at least as far back as the early 20th century (eg, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_%28Duchamp%29)

Although many artists who have entered the Archibald Prize in recent years have stuck with the more traditional idea of a portrait as a likeness, others have deliberately "stretched" the definition, almost to breaking point (or, as you might think, beyond it). Here is a selection of recent Archibald Prize finalists and winners, to show that things haven'tsuddenly changed this year after all:

Its changed.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by lorraine hogan on April 7, 2012 at 4:14pm

I agree fully these ramheads have infiltrated our coucils,our arts,our schools,our governments they are a virus deadset on destroying us and our culture.

Robert William Nickisson said:

Hi Lorraine, Any letters are relevant to this discussion site and about any subject Just Grounds community believe they have written and have been ignored or answered unsatisfactorily.  Re, Art, I was born in Newcastle NSW and the family had a very wealthy Aunt she and her husband were very generous people to the Church they followed and to other causes. They travelled extensively but always maintaining a home in Newcastle. She collected art from both Australian artists and foreign artists during her travels. When she died she left her extensive art collection to the City of Newcastle to be placed in the City Art Gallery when it was constructed. Studying our family Genealogy in later years my brother and myself attempted to trace her collection BUT Newcastle had constructed a Modern Art Gallery and we went there for answers. Modern Art is of no interest to me, therefore neither was the gallery but we did manage to after much research and pestering Gallery authorities track down the fate of her Paintings. They were offered to the Gallery when it was finally built and opened, they rejected them because they were only interested in Modern Art so then our Aunt’s Solicitor gave the Gallery 5000 pounds and he kept the paintings collection himself. Nice money maker if you can get it. Regards this year’s Archibald Prize winning so called portrait to me it appears just like the rubbish scrawled on walls around the city. And it as much resembles a portrait as does a jar of jam. The reply you received was much like the rubbish we were fed when we demanded knowledge of our great Aunt’s Collection. There is a place somewhere for Modern Art I suppose but it is not in the judging of an Archibald Prize Portrait Competition. But it’s everywhere this dumbing down of standards of excellence in modern life in Australia including Politics. Regards. Robert WN

lorraine hogan said:

Hello Robert i have an email but its content may not be relevant to Just Grounds but relevant to Australians,i have followed The Archibald Prize for the past 10 years and was surprised that this years winner was neither a portrait nor of a prominent Australian as Archibald stated when he set up the fund,so i questioned the irrelevant choice they had made this year,below is the conversation

> I am not an artist nor do i visit Gallery's but have followed the 
> Archibald Prize over the past ten years,this is not a portrait even 
> in my limited ability i know that,Archibald states "portraits" why the change?

JonathanC@ag.nsw.gov.au	Apr 3 (4 days ago)
to me, Web_Team, ArtMail

Hello Lorraine,

The interesting thing about definitions is that they do not remain static. In fact, the very definition of "art" has been challenged by many artists, at least as far back as the early 20th century (eg, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_%28Duchamp%29)

Although many artists who have entered the Archibald Prize in recent years have stuck with the more traditional idea of a portrait as a likeness, others have deliberately "stretched" the definition, almost to breaking point (or, as you might think, beyond it). Here is a selection of recent Archibald Prize finalists and winners, to show that things haven'tsuddenly changed this year after all:

Its changed.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Robert William Nickisson on April 7, 2012 at 4:18pm

Hi Donald Thanks for the advice and I have heeded it. Regards Tony Windsor not someone I would have any faith in at all. Independents have been proven a failure for their Electorates Tony is only following the Labor Government line of Climate change expert Flannery when discussing water and Tony is for Tony first, second and always. You rightly say “What hope is there if 100% of people’s ideas are ignored?" You don't introduce World Government or Socialism Juliar’s, Putin's Russia style by listening to any ideas other than your own. As Juliar explained to the Australian People, You will have a Carbon Dioxide Tax whether you want it or not because I alone Julia the Liar Gillard know what is best for Australia. The water stupidity is just another facet of the plan to cripple Australia, by helping the cause of economic ruin. Then you will all have to rely on Government handouts and do just as you are told. Regards Robert WN

 

Donald Woods said:

Hello RWN I must firstly say it takes a while for people to get going on a discussion as I found with my post on Cancer. With Easter upon us quite a few may not be around to comment. Hopefully when they return from their weekend away there will be more.

In the mean time I will say that I haven't sent any recently.

I was going to send off a submission to the MDBA ( read Myopic, Destructive, Boofheaded Arthropods ) but consider it a waste of time.

I ,along with 800+ other submissions, to the guide got absolutely no response nor any change to their first stated position. They intend to take water out of production regardless of the consequences. Pure lunancy.

On second thoughts maybe I should send something if for no other reason than to be able to say I did contribute.

I also add that my opinion of Tony Windsor has gone from high to very low. I attended one of his forums  on the examination of the economic and social outcomes of taking water out of production - all to no avail.

I supported Ian Motts proposal for the Murray mouth. Ian was even invited to a face to face presentation in Canberra on his idea. All it got him was a trip to Canberra at his expense.

What hope is there if 100% of peoples ideas are ignored?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Robert William Nickisson on April 7, 2012 at 4:57pm

Hi Lorraine, again regarding the reply you received from the Archibald Government site, I just could not resist this comment after re-reading same.

Hello Lorraine,
The interesting thing about definitions is that they do not remain static

Now I understand the Labor Government and PM Juliar Gillard and her utterings as now I have learned, "The interesting thing about definitions is that they do not remain static"

Now, Lies have become Truth and Black has become White and Political Despair is really Political Joy. what a silly Nation we all are, we should be dancing in the streets. Regards Robert WN
 
lorraine hogan said:

Hello Robert i have an email but its content may not be relevant to Just Grounds but relevant to Australians,i have followed The Archibald Prize for the past 10 years and was surprised that this years winner was neither a portrait nor of a prominent Australian as Archibald stated when he set up the fund,so i questioned the irrelevant choice they had made this year,below is the conversation

> I am not an artist nor do i visit Gallery's but have followed the 
> Archibald Prize over the past ten years,this is not a portrait even 
> in my limited ability i know that,Archibald states "portraits" why the change?

JonathanC@ag.nsw.gov.au	Apr 3 (4 days ago)
to me, Web_Team, ArtMail

Hello Lorraine,

The interesting thing about definitions is that they do not remain static. In fact, the very definition of "art" has been challenged by many artists, at least as far back as the early 20th century (eg, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fountain_%28Duchamp%29)

Although many artists who have entered the Archibald Prize in recent years have stuck with the more traditional idea of a portrait as a likeness, others have deliberately "stretched" the definition, almost to breaking point (or, as you might think, beyond it). Here is a selection of recent Archibald Prize finalists and winners, to show that things haven'tsuddenly changed this year after all:

Its changed.

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion