Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2013 5:00:13 GMT -5
Out of interest, Sydney, what do you make of Australian art? Well as Members may or may not know, it is a wild land, populated for the most part by great oafs and vulgar trollops. Since at least 1850 it has been usual for sensitive and artistic youths simply to leave the country; and the exodus continues to this day. Certain people with certain agenda, such as politicians, may tell you that the days of the "cultural cringe" are over; on no account believe them. All the first-raters continue to depart at the earliest opportunity, as they always have and always will. There are three painters with whose work I am familiar; Donald Friend (1915 to 1989) is my favourite and one of the great men of the twentieth century. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_FriendHe first went off to the Torres Strait islands, then to West Africa until the second war began, and after that resided in Italy, Ceylon and - most importantly - Bali. His Diaries - very long, very fascinating - were published a few years ago in four heavy volumes. Although in my view he was by far the best Antipodean painter it is customary in his native land to ignore him because of a) his having lived abroad and b) his enthusiastic and unashamed homo-sexualism. So it will be interesting to see whether your Mr. Capon deigns to mention his name. If he does he will probably use the phrase "too pretty." Another such was Jeffrey [sic] Smart (1921 to 2013), who spent many years in Europe and settled in Tuscany for the final thirty-five. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_SmartMr. Capon will have more to say about him. Smart's memoir Not Quite Straight is a good read. A third name worthy of note is that of Justin O'Brien (1917 to 1996), who took up residence in Greece, and whose paintings are religious in subject and feeling. www.artgallery.nsw.gov.au/exhibitions/justin-obrien/
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2013 6:23:23 GMT -5
Very interesting, Sydney! To be honest, I don't know much about Australian art, so I find it difficult to comment, although I am aware that many Australian artists find it particularly difficult to achieve recognition at home. There are, I suspect, strong cultural prejudices in Australia against artists in general, ahinton. Australians tend to be keener on sport, for example. I did meet someone who tried to sell me some aboriginal art in London recently. Anyway, for the record, here is a complete list of the artworks highlighted in the series: Episode 1: Strangers in a Strange Land Episode 2: Coming of age Episode 3: Beyond Australia And what of Mona? MONA
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Oct 23, 2013 6:24:27 GMT -5
Out of interest, Sydney, what do you make of Australian art? Well as Members may or may not know, it is a wild land, populated for the most part by great oafs and vulgar trollops. Well, this member confirms that he didn't know that - and he also confirms that he doesn't know it now (in the sense of accepting a fact when none has even been presented); I can accept, albeit with no small reluctance, that this might for whatever reason or none be your view of the majority of the Australian population, but it does incline me to ask why you live there if that is indeed your belief.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2013 10:27:42 GMT -5
Sydney may have had some bad experiences with Australians in the past, ahinton. In Australia, men and women tend to socialise and develop friendships with members of the opposite gender without any expectation of romantic involvement. For this reason it is important to remember that if someone of the opposite gender invites you to a social event or for a coffee, they may not have any intention of developing a romantic attachment. Often young women and men who know each other well rely on informal activities for their companionship; this can include socialising in groups or in pairs. Relationships may form between men and women or between people of the same sex. In Australia the law respects the right of people to form same sex relationships. It is common in Australia for both men and women to initiate social invitations to go on a date. When this happens it is not usually customary to be chaperoned or accompanied by an older person when a couple go somewhere together. While not customary, it is often common for couples that are dating for the first time to be accompanied by friends or to meet at a location where their friends will be, such as a coffee shop, hotel or club. If someone asks you to go out it is common to ask them if any of their friends will be there or if your friends are welcome. Other common practices are for couples to share the cost of a meal or activity when dating. It is also common for your date to invite you into their home at the end of the evening for a drink. Although this is common, you are not obliged to accept this invitation if you are not comfortable or you consider it inappropriate. If you do not wish to accept this invitation and you do wish to continue dating the person, this is an excellent opportunity to politely decline the offer and arrange a time in the future to meet with them again. Relationships vary from a casual friendship to a romantic attachment that may include deep emotional and/or sexual involvement. In each of these relationships in Australia it is expected and assumed that an individual has the right to decide if they wish to have sexual involvement or not. Finally, it is important to understand that there are no set customs or rules in Australia about intimate relationships. Because Australia is a diverse country with people from very different backgrounds the majority of people draw upon their own social, religious, cultural and individual beliefs and values. As a result of this diversity it is commonly accepted that couples living together may be married or unmarried. Because of this diversity it is advisable to be clear about your own expectations when dating and to be open and honest about them with yourself and the other person. The University of Adelaide - Common Characteristics of Australians
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Oct 23, 2013 11:23:52 GMT -5
Sydney may have had some bad experiences with Australians in the past, ahinton. In Australia, men and women tend to socialise and develop friendships with members of the opposite gender without any expectation of romantic involvement. For this reason it is important to remember that if someone of the opposite gender invites you to a social event or for a coffee, they may not have any intention of developing a romantic attachment. Often young women and men who know each other well rely on informal activities for their companionship; this can include socialising in groups or in pairs. Relationships may form between men and women or between people of the same sex. In Australia the law respects the right of people to form same sex relationships. It is common in Australia for both men and women to initiate social invitations to go on a date. When this happens it is not usually customary to be chaperoned or accompanied by an older person when a couple go somewhere together. While not customary, it is often common for couples that are dating for the first time to be accompanied by friends or to meet at a location where their friends will be, such as a coffee shop, hotel or club. If someone asks you to go out it is common to ask them if any of their friends will be there or if your friends are welcome. Other common practices are for couples to share the cost of a meal or activity when dating. It is also common for your date to invite you into their home at the end of the evening for a drink. Although this is common, you are not obliged to accept this invitation if you are not comfortable or you consider it inappropriate. If you do not wish to accept this invitation and you do wish to continue dating the person, this is an excellent opportunity to politely decline the offer and arrange a time in the future to meet with them again. Relationships vary from a casual friendship to a romantic attachment that may include deep emotional and/or sexual involvement. In each of these relationships in Australia it is expected and assumed that an individual has the right to decide if they wish to have sexual involvement or not. Finally, it is important to understand that there are no set customs or rules in Australia about intimate relationships. Because Australia is a diverse country with people from very different backgrounds the majority of people draw upon their own social, religious, cultural and individual beliefs and values. As a result of this diversity it is commonly accepted that couples living together may be married or unmarried. Because of this diversity it is advisable to be clear about your own expectations when dating and to be open and honest about them with yourself and the other person. The University of Adelaide - Common Characteristics of AustraliansWell, I certainly hope that Sydney has not "had some bad experieces with Australians in the past" but, if he had, I cannnot imagine just how bad they'd have been if they've given rise to the view of most of its population expressed above. Interesting as is what you write here, I do not see what bearing it could have either on Sydney's experiences in or views on Australia's populace or on why he still lives in what he appears to perceive to be a most unpalatable country in which to make his home.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2013 12:42:41 GMT -5
I mean to suggest that Sydney's perception of Australians may be misleading, ahinton!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2013 23:48:27 GMT -5
The future of Tyntesfield, the remarkable Victorian house in Somerset, built by the guano-enriched Gibbs family, now seems secure. For a time it looked as if the house would be broken up and its contents sold. Now the National Trust is to buy it with money from the National Heritage Memorial Fund. But even if the National Trust had not been able to "pull off the deal" at least one thing was always certain. Tyntesfield would not be demolished. It is a fate that only a generation ago would have been all too "plausible," for perhaps one in six of all English country houses were [sic] demolished in the twentieth century.
The "latest research" suggests that at least 1,200 English country houses were lost during the century, a figure that might rise to 1,700 if every county "was" properly studied. Why did so many country houses go?
The answer seems obvious, at least in folk memory. High taxation, and above all death duties, coupled with the tragic loss of aristocratic heirs in two world wars, forced all too many landed families to sell their estates, leading to "a wave" of country-house demolitions that could, and should, have been prevented if only the Government had acted sooner.
As the twentieth century slips into history that account begins to feel a little two-dimensional. "After all," though many houses have gone, many more survive, often in private hands, most flourishing today as they probably have not for a century. If these survived, what was it that doomed the rest?
There is no doubt that the country house faced a crisis in the twentieth century that has no parallel, at least in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. For centuries power in Britain had lain with the land-owners, with country houses the visible expression of their power. Any one who was any one owned a country house. Their scale and "supporting acres" brought local prestige and power, and consequently national power in Parliament.
But with the rise of genuine demo-cracy - of mob-rule that is to say - of county councils taking the place of magistrates and a truly representative Parliament, the power of the land-owners was eclipsed. After a brief struggle in the House of Lords, land-owners had accepted their "reduced position" by the outbreak of the First World War. But that reduced position brought with it a radical change in the role of the country house. No longer power-houses, these were now just family homes. Where scale and opulence had once gone hand in hand with political influence, by 1918 large houses just seemed extravagant.
In the middle years of the nineteenth century it had seemed natural for dukes, for example, to live on an epic scale, so when the Duke of Newcastle’s Clumber Park, Nottinghamshire, was badly damaged by fire in 1879 it was rebuilt even more monumentally. But by 1908 the duke had retired to live in the suburban comfort of Forest Lawn near Windsor. His heir, the Earl of Lincoln, demolished Clumber in 1938, planning to build a more convenient house on a new site, but was frustrated by the outbreak of war and eventually sold the estate.
Aristocratic families have always been more ruthless with their houses than their nineteenth-century descendants would like to admit. In the second half of the seventeenth century many families abandoned oversized Elizabethan and Jacobean houses for more compact Restoration models. The same was true in the twentieth century as oversized houses were abandoned, either for something more compact on the site or for a smaller, more convenient house elsewhere on the estate.
Even more vulnerable were houses on secondary estates that previously could have been justified because of the political influence they brought in the county. The Dukes of Northumberland, for instance, owned Alnwick and Keilder Castles in Northumberland, Stanwick Park in Yorkshire, Syon House in Middlesex and Albury House in Surrey. When money had to be raised for death-duties after the death of the eighth Duke in 1918, the Stanwick estate, which had been occupied by the dowager duchess and then let after her death, was the logical sacrifice.
Underscoring all this was the agricultural depression that set in in the late 1870s. Land, never a good investment compared to stocks and shares, now performed even worse, but no longer brought the political benefits it once held. Unsurprisingly, great land-owners off-loaded "large amounts" of land during the brief land-price boom after the "First World War." And when they did, the usual purchasers were tenant farmers, as was the case with the Earl of Strathmore’s Streatlam Castle estate in County Durham, sold in 1922 for £100,000. With the land divided up there was no need for the house, which was demolished in 1927.
The agricultural depression hit those with "less ample acres," and no industrial or urban properties to support them, particularly hard. Falling prices led to declining rents and collapsing land values. For those who had lived well on borrowed money – as many landowners had during the nineteenth century when "money was cheap" – the squeeze was especially painful. Lower rents made it hard to meet interest payments and collapsing land prices meant that the value of the mortgage was in danger of exceeding that of the collateral against which it had been secured.
It was against this backdrop of economic vulnerability that rising income taxes and death duties proved so painful. For those with only a single, relatively small, mortgaged estate there simply was no slack to cut and if a substantial part of the estate was sold the rest was often insufficient to support the house, particularly if that house was large and expensive to run. Some demolished the house, hoping to "hang on" to at least part of the estate. Others simply sold up. Among the saddest cases was that of Sir Robert Gresley of Drakelowe Hall, Derbyshire, the 28th Gresley in succession to own the property, forced to sell in 1932. A "power station" was built on the site of the house in 1948.
At the same time many land-owners who had "grown rich" on the profits of coal and iron found they had entered a Faustian bargain as the settings of their houses were ruined by coal pits and steel works. As early as 1907 Oswald Barron commented of Methley Hall in Country Life that "All the discomfort of Yorkshire prosperity is at hand; the drift of smoke comes down the air from "far-distant" chimneys, collieries throw up their dark mounds and the water of Calder flows inkily foul from the washing of shoddy." No wonder the sixth Earl of Mexborough preferred the idyllic setting of Arden Hall in the middle of the North York Moors, although Methley Hall was not demolished until 1963.
Not that everyone who "sold up" was forced to do so either by pressing financial need or the sight of coal mines at the end of the park. Some, like the eleventh Duke of Leeds, did not see why they should take on the responsibilities of being a land-owner at a time of financial constraint when, if he "liquidated his holdings," he could live a very comfortable independent life. So, despite inheriting half a million pounds after tax from his father at the age of twenty-six in 1927, he put his Hornby Castle estate on the market in 1930 and "spent the rest of his life on the Riviera." Hornby Castle, bar one gutted wing, was demolished the following year.
The worst years came in the 1950s when at least thirty-eight country houses were demolished in "England alone" in 1955. These were years of despair after "a Socialist Government" had made it seem as if the age of the country house was over. Requisitioning had often broken the thread of occupation, leaving houses in desperate need of repairs for which there was no money. Much depended on the energy and vision of the owners and the degree of "family loyalty" to the house, but many, particularly those who were old, or had no suitable heirs, or lived in a part of the country that was "increasingly unattractive," gave up.
"Things" began to ease in the late nineteen-fifties with the "economic recovery," the introduction of repair grants, the revival of farming and the sudden "rise in the value" of contents such as paintings. But demolitions remained common. Much depended on fashion. Few were "prepared to argue for Victorian houses," even ones of the importance of the Duke of Westminster’s Eaton Hall, which had been designed on a massive scale by Alfred Waterhouse.
It was not until the Town and Country Planning Act of 1968 forced owners to "seek permission" to demolish listed buildings that the wave of demolitions finally came to an end. The last two houses demolished that had been illustrated in "Country Life" both went in 1972: Warter Hall, Yorkshire, a massive, little-loved industrialist’s pile, and Detmar Blow’s charming Arts and Crafts Little Ridge, Wiltshire, built in 1904 but overextended in the 1920s. Neither was protected. Today they certainly would be.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2013 0:01:00 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Oct 24, 2013 0:24:19 GMT -5
I mean to suggest that Sydney's perception of Australians may be misleading, ahinton! As well indeed you might! - but we'll perhaps have to take (or leave) it at face value, if also cum grano salis, until and unless he chooses to elucidate and elaborate thereupon...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2013 1:07:46 GMT -5
Tyntesfield almost bankrupted the National Trust almost a decade ago, Practical Pacifist, because of the cost of restoration. I should perhaps confess that I have never been there, because I rarely stop off in Somerset on my way down to Wales. As for the decline of the country house, maintaining a traditional country estate became uneconomic for many aristocrats over the course of the twentieth century, although some were saved from demolition by the National Trust. The National Trust - TyntesfieldAccording to Wikipedia, Tyntesfield is a Victorian Gothic Revival house and estate near Wraxall, North Somerset, England. The house is a Grade I listed building. The house is named after the Tynte baronets, who had owned estates in the area since about 1500. The location was formerly that of a 16th century hunting lodge, which was used as a farmhouse until the early 19th century. In the 1830s a Georgian mansion was built on the site, and this was bought by English businessman William Gibbs. In the 1860s, Gibbs had the house significantly expanded and remodelled; later, a chapel being added in the 1870s. The Gibbs family owned the house until the death of Richard Gibbs in 2001. Tyntesfield was acquired by the National Trust in June 2002 after a fundraising campaign to prevent it being sold to private interests and to ensure it would be open to the public. The house was opened to visitors for the first time just 10 weeks after the acquisition, and as more rooms are restored they are added to the tour. The mansion was visited by 189,329 people in 2012, a fall of 8.5% on the previous year. Wikipedia - TyntesfieldOn topic, Tyntesfield has even been on television! A decade ago, the BBC Antiques Roadshow team set up camp at the Victorian time capsule, Tyntesfield House near Bristol. Amongst the treasures brought to light were an elegant grape holder made from silver, a cabinet of rare microscope slides and a ruby and diamond brooch valued at 30,000 pounds. Michael Aspel also met a devoted collector with over 150,000 buttons. BBC One (television) - Tyntesfield
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 24, 2013 4:39:53 GMT -5
. . . until and unless he chooses to elucidate and elaborate thereupon... Excuse the personal question, but have you ever done any schoolmastering Mr. H?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2013 5:26:39 GMT -5
Good morning to you all! I trust that all is well with all of you! Due to unprecedented demand from around the world, everyone reading ' The Third' is cordially invited to join us at 21:30 (GMT) tonight, Tuesday 29 October 2013, to watch the opening episode of ' Y Gwyll' (Hinterland) on Welsh language television. If you cannot make it in person, here it is online: S4C - Y GwyllA double episode of S4C's new drama detective series set in Aberystwyth and starring Richard Harrington, Mali Harries, Alex Harries and Hannah Daniel will be repeated with on-screen English subtitles at 22:00 (GMT) on Sunday 3 November 2013. DCI Tom Mathias's investigation into the disappearance of sixty-four year old Helen Jenkins leads him to the cascading waters of an ancient ravine at Devil's Bridge as he uncovers the cruel history of a long closed children's home. Wales Online - S4C's early-awaited Y Gwyll/Hinterland is a dark drama with a sense of place
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Oct 29, 2013 8:45:59 GMT -5
. . . until and unless he chooses to elucidate and elaborate thereupon... Excuse the personal question, but have you ever done any schoolmastering Mr. H? No, never (and apologies for the delayed response - I've only just seen your post); perish the thought, indeed...
|
|
|
Post by ahinton on Oct 29, 2013 8:48:36 GMT -5
That man had better get out the the way quickly in case he gets mown down by an HS2 coming to a train line near - er - where was it again?...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 29, 2013 9:58:45 GMT -5
I suspect that the photograph was taken across Borth bog, the biggest bog in Wales, ahinton, although I may be wrong here. ' The Daily Telegraph' leads today with some editorial comment that Labour is failing Britain with its games over HS2: Ed Miliband is putting politics before country with his stance on high-speed rail. One of the main challenges of Opposition is to prove to the voters that, should you be entrusted with power, you can be relied upon to act in the country’s long-term interests. Opportunities to demonstrate such credentials are few, and have to be seized. All the signs are, however, that Ed Miliband and Ed Balls are about to flub their chance spectacularly. The issue in question is the future of High Speed 2, the new rail line intended to increase capacity and cut journey times between London, Birmingham, Manchester, Leeds and elsewhere. As David Cameron made clear on Friday, this project will not be able to go ahead without cross-party support. It is not just about getting the numbers in Parliament, although there are certainly dozens of rebels within the Tory ranks, many angry that the line will scythe through their constituencies while delivering its benefits solely to those at the termini. It is that such a project, with its decades-long schedule and multi-billion-pound cost, can only go ahead if investors are certain that a future government will not halt the project in its tracks. ' The Telegraph' transmits thus: [/b] I suppose that I ought to comment on High Speed One (HS1), which presumably has inspired High Speed Two (HS2). I can go to St Pancras this afternoon and get on a Eurostar train to Brussels or Paris by train in a little over two hours. It might be cheaper by air, for example, but probably no quicker. Alternatively, I can go to Euston this afternoon and get on a train to Birmingham New Street in one hour and twenty minutes. Building a new high speed rail link between London and Birmingham (HS2) could potentially get me to Britain's second city in about an hour. It is therefore a lot of money to spend to save twenty minutes on the rail journey. But how quickly do I want to get from London to Birmingham, Wales, Sage Gateshead or even Scotland, and would I travel by train anyway? To be honest, like most people, I prefer to drive, so public transport tends to be a last resort. In retrospect, it is a disgrace that the country which started the Industrial Revolution and built the world's first railways could not have done a bit better, Sydney.
|
|