f4f3 | Am i missing the ridiculous aspect of this?

Am i missing the ridiculous aspect of this?

A letter from David Hockney, one of Britain, sorry, England's most bankable artist, was printed on the front page of Saturday's Guardian.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/frontpage/story/0,,1717612,00.html

A nicotine addict, he whines on for a couple of hundred words about not being able to blow smoke from his cancer sticks over anyone he feels like. Not particularly unusual - anyone who's had to take a bottle or a dummy out of a toddler's mouth will have heard much the same complaint.

For some reason, though he sees this as being an attack on the English, and in the process of laying this out has the following little swipe at the chancellor:

"Gorrdon Brrrown is a prig P.R.I.G., a dreary atheistic Calvinistic prig, who I'm sure will never be elected in England."

In case anyone has missed the linguistic subtlety displayed, the rolled R in Brown's name is meant to emphasise that he is Scottish. I can't quite understand his use of "atheistic" (tending towards atheism, not actually an atheist) in front off "Calvanistic" which describes his religion.

I'm tempted to play the old substitution game: "Ali-eee Hussain", "Shylockian miser', "England will never vote for a black Prime Minister" sort of thing, but, the more I read his little rant, the more angry I get that our only avowedly left-wing broadsheet can give this racist moron the oxygen of publicity. If they'd put the letter in the back, along with anyone else's, I wouldn't be so annoyed - Hackney, as an addict should be allowed his opinions along with the rest of his ilk - to be honest, I'd prefer that there were still smoke filled pubs were he could spew out his nonsense without it leaving a bad smell in my nostrils, and a worse taste in my mouth. Printing this up front is, I'd suggest, irresponsible reporting by the Guardian.

Or am I, as he accuses the media, missing the ridiculous side of this?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Possibly missing the ridiculous side. After all, doesn't he live in California, not exactly known for being the most liberal of places in many senses, and definitely not with regard to health issues or smoking?

As an ex-smoker, I still object to the nanny-state banning of smoking.

I'm not sure if he does still live there, but I'm sure that California was liberal in the only sense that really mattered to Hockney, that of its tax code...

Oh, and would you be equally sanguine if he was a Canadian taking a bash at shifty, feckless Newfies?

No, not if I was taking him seriously, no, I wouldn't. I did suggest that you were missing the ridiculousness, and was equating this to a certain tongue-in-cheek position.
I'm not convinced of his seriousness - bearing in mind that I haven't actually read the piece. I'm speaking more as an ex-smoker. I had (have) no desire to inflict potentially cancer-causing smoke on a barworker, or anyone else, but there is a large portion of holier-than-thou-ness about a ban in certain places of a legal drug from which the government derives a very large amount of revenue. There is a degree of the ludicrous in his using both atheistic & calvinist in the same sentence as descriptors of the same person, for instance.

I've read it now. The Gordon Brown bit is all I would suggest should have been edited.

He's doing the media merry-go-round:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4288918.stm

and he thinks everyone not agreeing with him is "dreary".

They're probably also "spoilsports" and I predict that he won't go to bed when he's told either,

Oh, sorry - didn't realise you hadn't seen the whole thing. Nope, there's not a trace of tongue-in-cheekness there - just spleen.

So - just to be equally as prejudiced - is he just doing a bitchy queen thing? I still think it's drama, dear boy. ;)

Is Hockney gay?

Is it relevant? I've met many a heterosexual bitchy queen ;)

ah, gotcha, hmm, don't think I've met any hetrosexual queens though :-)

Oh, I have.

*chuckle* I obviously move in the wrong circles.

Fair enough he wants to whinge but the potshot at Gordon Brown is pretty poor. And I am not entirely sure what the potshot has to do with his point. In fact most of his insults seem rather unconnected to what he is writing about.

It read as a bit of a drunken ramble - maybe I'm missing his archness or something.

I probably am as well. On looking at it again I am quite inclined to mark it pish/10. Could do better David.

Or "Pish and wind" as one of my ex-bosses would have put it.

Ooh I forgot. I made you a present.

Oooh! Ooooh! Oooh!

I love it to bits and I'm planning how to get it onto my lj page NOW!

You are a very nice person.

Well The Authority won't come crashing through your door but it might do till I get a better idea :P

You are a very nice person.

Why thank you! :D

Actually I think here are two aspects to this story.

The first is the ungenerous characterisation of the Scots. You are of course right to see a double standard here but it's one you will see every day. Look at how Americans are portrayed in the left and not so left wing media. It's apparently fine to write as if all Americans are boorish, overweight, insular, srupid religious bigots. I've been guilty of it myself. However, if you want to see really creative racist invective I suggest a trip to Australia where the "Protection of Irish Convict Scum Act" apparently provides government subsidies for printing racist diatribes against the English. The rest of the arument against Brown is of course just plain silly. Not only have the English shown a willingness down the years to elect extremely peculiar Scots (and Welsh and Irish) PMs but surely it's a sort of dreary authoritarianism hatched in the dungeons of ~~the Edinburgh Bastille~~ Fettes, that lies at he heart of New Labour and alas it's appeal.

The second thing about this article is that it shows up the cult of celebrity Grauniad style at its worst. There is no intrinsic reason why the views of a painter are of any more interest on this topic than those of a street sweeper. Yet, as you point out, Hockney gets the front page for an incoherent rant that should have gone on the spike. It's rather similar to the Grauniad's assumption that three people in an Islington wine bar constitute public opinion.

I agree that there is a double standard that's persisted for the last 30 years ago over abuse directed amongst the home countries, and that aimed at or from anyone else (note our banter on the Six Nations - I almost self-censored myself over the "Bastard English" crack, and in retrospect I think I should have). This persist to a slightly lesser extent in commentary in the UK about the Commonwealth, and some of our other ex-colonies (the US) although not to others (India). In the past this has been glossed with a fair bit of humour and common sense, but I think this has worn thin over the last decade or so, and, when we do introduce religious intolerance legislation, I'm sure there's bound to be a few test cases based on views like Hockney's.

I mentioned the lensing affect of Oxbridge earlier - when you add Islington as another lens it's getting pretty narrow in there.

Of course, to avoid any charges of racism, I should point out that some of my best friends live in Islington.

And are of course entirely representative of public opinion.

Actually, if you can find a political issue that K and I agree on, he'll make you dinner.

(Well, there is one, but I'm deeply ashamed of believing it and try very hard to pretend in words and actions that I don't.)

I wasn't aware that he had any political opinions at all.

He has many. In general, they are variations on the themes of 'money is a Good Thing' and 'other people are very stupid'.

Actually, there's not that much in the way of variance.

You see - not political at all. Say hi to L_A for me!

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Am i missing the ridiculous aspect of this?

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject