From: owner-idealcopy-digest@smoe.org (idealcopy-digest) To: idealcopy-digest@smoe.org Subject: idealcopy-digest V6 #328 Reply-To: idealcopy@smoe.org Sender: owner-idealcopy-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-idealcopy-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk idealcopy-digest Tuesday, November 4 2003 Volume 06 : Number 328 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [idealcopy] this is actually not about Wire... [CHRISWIRE@aol.com] Re: [idealcopy] this is actually not about Wire... ["Keith Astbury" Subject: Re: [idealcopy] this is actually not about Wire... > But don't let the Chapman Brothers anywhere near the finished article !! > Pink Flag aeorobics my arse... > > Chris You just can't keep this pair out of the news, can you. First it was the court case of the guy (who later found fame by gatecrashing a royal party) who defaced one of their pieces of work by throwing paint over it or whatever (he was found guilty and fined 300 quid I think). And yesterdays Observer carried the priceless story of the brothers accusing the Tate Modern and Saatchi galleries of threatening the future of art by bowing to the lowest common denominator. "It deskills the potential of serious, discursive art", apparently. Hmmm... ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 01:37:15 +0100 From: "Jan J Noorda" Subject: Re: [idealcopy] this is actually not about Wire... > > But don't let the Chapman Brothers anywhere near the finished article !! > > Pink Flag aeorobics my arse... > > > > Chris > > You just can't keep this pair out of the news, can you. > > First it was the court case of the guy (who later found fame by gatecrashing > a royal party) who defaced one of their pieces of work by throwing paint > over it or whatever (he was found guilty and fined 300 quid I think). > > And yesterdays Observer carried the priceless story of the brothers accusing > the Tate Modern and Saatchi galleries of threatening the future of art by > bowing to the lowest common denominator. "It deskills the potential of > serious, discursive art", apparently. > > Hmmm... > There is a rumour they are also doing something with the Throbbing Gristle reunion next year at Camber Sands. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 4 Nov 2003 01:20:53 -0000 From: "Tim" Subject: Re: [idealcopy] this is actually not about Wire... Its never come out what the band actually thought about the Aerobics has it? Perhaps the Chapman's knew we would all be expecting something exciting so instead did something really boring to challenge our perceptions of something or other. What would Y'all have done instead? I'd have opened the show with the band playing behind a screen, in front of which four little kids would mime to the music. After the first song, the kids would smash their guitars and run off, with the screen revealing the real Wire behind. However, I'd have Robert at the front. The rest of the band would be on Wires which would slowly raise and lower them onto different parts of the stage, at times they would all be several feet above the stage. At various points I'd also have Colin sing a song upside down, I'd have all the stage lights turned off and just have Bruce spotlighted with really bright lights, dry ice and a wind machine like he was Michael Jackson....(this would happen several times). I'd have someone walk on and present Graham with a different hat for each song (bowler, deerstalker, beret etc). I'd have them sing 'Feeling called Love' sitting on stools, like a boyband, to a backing track. While all this is going on, I'd walk on and start erecting a small news kiosk to the right of the stage. I'd simply wander on and off with boxes of newspapers, soft drinks etc. and quietly go about setting up shop. Occasionally one of the band would be lowered down to buy sweets or a magazine or something. No particular reason. At the other side of the stage I would have a horse. Am I nominated for a Turner Prize? Am I f**k. > > But don't let the Chapman Brothers anywhere near the finished article !! > > Pink Flag aerobics my arse... > > > > Chris > > You just can't keep this pair out of the news, can you. > > First it was the court case of the guy (who later found fame by gatecrashing > a royal party) who defaced one of their pieces of work by throwing paint > over it or whatever (he was found guilty and fined 300 quid I think). > > And yesterdays Observer carried the priceless story of the brothers accusing > the Tate Modern and Saatchi galleries of threatening the future of art by > bowing to the lowest common denominator. "It deskills the potential of > serious, discursive art", apparently. > > Hmmm... ------------------------------ End of idealcopy-digest V6 #328 *******************************