In which the pond somehow ends up in the world above the faraway tree, "where art can exist on its own terms"...

 

 

The pond is a little slow this morning, and thought of just rolling over and sleeping a little bit later. 

The pond had stayed up past its bedtime just for the peculiar pleasure of watching PMQs, just to endure the exquisite agony of watching Boris pretend to apologise and lie yet again by pretending that a party party was a work party ...

Rarely has the pond had a chance to watch a liar eat so much humble pie with such an exquisite lack of humility ...

As a result, all the reading action that is required today is in the Graudian ... just look at the headlines ...

 

 

 

Yes, there was John Crace having fun in his usual way ...

Finally we got some kind of explanation from the prime minister for his boozy parties at Downing Street. It turns out that Boris Johnsonwants us to believe that Boris Johnson thinks that Boris Johnson is catatonically stupid. And that the British public are equally half-witted enough to believe any old lies he happens to come up with. There’s just one problem with this. Boris may be dim, but he’s not that dim. And the rest of us have long since learned to see through his mendacity.
This was the prime minister’s questions at which Johnson finally ran out of road. An outright denial that he had been at the party on 20 May 2020 would no longer keep him out of trouble as there was anecdotal evidence he was there. So all that was left to him was to come up with the best possible excuse and hope it would buy off a few of the more gullible Tory MPs. Only the best possible excuse turned out to be a crock of total shit.
Here’s how it was, said Johnson, as he made a short statement to the Commons. He recognised the sacrifices the country had made and he wanted to apologise for having got pissed with No 10 staff in his own back garden.
The thing was that he had just not realised the party was a party. When the email was sent – which he definitely had not read – inviting everyone to enjoy the sunshine and to bring your own booze, the last thing he had imagined was that a party was about to take place. Even though 60 staffers had made that assumption, realised it was against the law and decided to stay away...

And so on ... the pond only wants to offer a sampler, not a full spoiler ... but for a moment, it took the pond out of its current cruel world ...

 

 

What have the reptiles got this day that could possibly compete?

Nothing, absolutely nothing, and the pond will likely say it again ...

First there was no petulant Peta to snub ... then look at the dismal array below the fold ...

 

Three lizard Oz editorials in a row, and some loon blathering about how we need to get closer to a total crock of shit? As if Boris is going to save himself, the UK or us?

It goes without saying that the pond would rather gouge out an eye than be loose with Loosely, and the anti-Republican theme started by the lizard Oz editorialist and that low-rent version of an Alexander lost in the desert of thought continued further up the page ...

 

Yes, there was the lesser Kelly blathering about ways to keep the monarchy, alongside a follow up to that excellent rant on Seven, and talk of the unvaccinated, when they really should be talking to the hand or perhaps to Killer Creighton.

The pond would like to spare the time, but is busy trying to find a test kit at a vastly inflated price so it can front up and pay Iron pyrites' standard Domicron's fine new fine...

What ever happened to personal responsibility? Ah, the pond just glimpsed it as it passed by ...

So no rants about Domicron this day in reptile la la land, but then that blather about the monarchy made the pond look at the top of the reptile digital page, only to discover ...

 

 

Yep, there you go, the prince and the underage woman, and the wonders and joys of having a monarchy ... you know, what a rich future, spending time with either a tampon or an Epstein devotee, or whatever ...

And once the pond had looked at the Oz tree killer edition ...

 

... and chanted Freedumb, Freedumb, and celebrated the reptiles yet again taking Clive's cash in the claw, that was about it for the day ...

But the pond had to scribble something, and wait, did the pond take note of how low the reptiles had sunk?

Did they really stick Claire of the ancient quill at the top of the page as a reptile thought leader?

They did, they did, and so it was only out of sheer desperation and a desire to be done with the day's posting that the pond went there, as a way of ensuring that the pond's hits plunged to an even lower level than they currently are ....

 

 

 

The pond still can't believe that the reptiles put Claire at the top of the page, or that the pond is doing this kind of self-harm, compounded by that shot of Nick Cave ...

First a declaration. The pond has never had any time for Cave's portentous, pompous, posturings and musical stylings ...

That's okay, everybody has to make a living, and Cave has managed to convince enough people that his lesser Leonard Cohen routines are worth spending money on, and good luck to him ...

Back in the day the pond was more inclined to be stranded with the likes of Chris Bailey and Ed Kuepper ...

Whatever, time to dip the quill in moronic ink, thick enough to be a kind of tar, and get "ette" with it ...

 

 

Oh fucketty fuck, thar he blows, apparently refusing to accept that his desire to cancel others going about their cancel culture business is its own kind of cancel culture ...

That's the way it goes in the contest of ideas, but only a moronic, grumpy old pop singer would resort to blather about "cancel culture", one of those profoundly stupid right wing tropes that should be left in the closet ...

It's just a hop and a step and a jump away from "woke", and all the reptile blather the pond has endured over the years ...

Naturally this was a reptile trolling effort, so naturally they padded it out with a click bait video and a few more thoughts from the keyboard quill of the fresher quillette...

 

 

 

So now we get the quillette creature boasting of wilful ignorance? 

Rembrandt was of course a creature of his times, and his relationship to government and his patrons, private and public, ran deep and influenced everything he did, not to mention his bankruptcy or his fucking the maid ...

You can regret you missed this lecture at Ghent University ...

The Dutch Revolt (1568-1648) led to the birth of the Dutch Republic (approximately the current-day Netherlands), while the Southern Low Countries (approximately current-day Belgium) remained loyal to their dynastic lord, the Spanish king. The separation of the Northern and Southern Low Countries was the outcome of a complex political and religious conflict that started in the sixteenth century in the large, prosperous cities of the South (Antwerp, Brussels, Ghent) but eventually led to the spectacular rise of Amsterdam in the seventeenth century. The lecturer explains the vibrant, cosmopolitan urban culture of the sixteenth century of which Pieter Bruegel the Elder is the most famous representative and discusses how national identities were molded during the Dutch Revolt, thanks to the unprecedented political use of pamphlets, image and ritual. Although the awareness of a common cultural and political heritage did not entirely disappear, the differences between the inhabitants of the Northern and Southern Low Countries were more and more apparent: the Dutch had always been more freedom-loving, tolerant and thrifty, while the Belgians/Flemish were devout Catholics and true Burgundians, loving good food and wine. The lecturer will discuss and partly deconstruct these clichés, but also show how they continue to live on, most notably in our appreciation of the great 'Dutch' (Rembrandt, Vermeer) and 'Flemish' (Rubens, Jordaens) painters.

Or you can simply relish the bizarre stupidity of the Cato institute attempting to dragoon Rembrandt to their cause ...

...The new genre of group portrait was the result of a revolutionary new phenomenon at the time Rembrandt was painting. Specifically, he depicts the appearance and the strengthening of the legal equality of burghers, who were the residents of the city‐​states in the epoch of High Renaissance and Early modern period.
The Night Watch reminds us that freedom, rule of law, and democracyare mutually intertwined. The musketeers have commanders, but the commanders are not appointed by higher authorities—they are elected by the militia members themselves. And if necessary, the commanders could be removed, leaving the musketeers to choose new ones.
It shows us that freedom is something one must defend. After all, it is a portrait of armed men. It visually represents the U.S. Second Amendment and the similar enshrinement of the right to bear arms in Switzerland, Israel, and other free countries, where it is held that a free man is an armed man…

Fucketty fuck, the pond can't believe it ... Nick Cave in company with Rembrandt and the Cato institute?! And the Cato institute using Rembrandt as a prop to turn the world into a gun-bearing wild west?

As the professor said to Bourne, "look at this, look at what they make you give ..."

Suppressing the desire to do a deep retch, the pond moved on to another click bait video ... padded out with more blather about the joys of being completely ignorant of history ...

 

 

Looking past that click bait video, can the pond just return to the matter of Jane Austen? You see, the reason that Austen published anonymously is actually of some interest, and reflects the society in which she moved ... and moved with some distinction ...

Novel-writing was a suspect occupation for women in the early 19th century, because it imperiled their social reputation by bringing them publicity, viewed as unfeminine. Therefore, like many other female writers, Austen published anonymously. Eventually, though, her novels' authorship became an open secret among the aristocracy.During one of her visits to London, the Prince Regent invited her, through his librarian, James Stanier Clarke, to view his library at Carlton House; his librarian mentioned that the Regent admired her novels and that "if Miss Austen had any other Novel forthcoming, she was quite at liberty to dedicate it to the Prince". Austen, who disapproved of the prince's extravagant lifestyle, did not want to follow this suggestion, but her friends convinced her otherwise: in short order, Emma was dedicated to him. Austen turned down the librarian's further hint to write a historical romance in honour of the prince's daughter's marriage... (and so on here, with footnotes).

If you happen to be interested in the art, it so happens that an interest in the artist, their social and political situation, and their interactions with their world, follows ... unless you happen to be a complete fuckwit scribbling for the lizard Oz ...

Luckily there was just one gobbet to go ...

 

Of all the stupid postures, the pond would have to rate "art for art's sake" as one of the silliest and most meaningless, or if you will, the world above the faraway tree, "where art can exist on its own terms".

You know, one day, one way or another, you'll go in search of a piper willing to pay you for your tunes.

Of course we've heard all this before ... as in the wiki for that silly phrase here ... where the footnotes are active ...

 

 

And then in that wiki came this ...

Friedrich Nietzsche claimed that there is 'no art for art's sake', arguing that the artist still expresses his or her being through it:
When the purpose of moral preaching and of improving man has been excluded from art, it still does not follow by any means that art is altogether purposeless, aimless, senseless — in short, l'art pour l'art, a worm chewing its own tail. "Rather no purpose at all than a moral purpose!" — that is the talk of mere passion. A psychologist, on the other hand, asks: what does all art do? does it not praise? glorify? choose? prefer? With all this it strengthens or weakens certain valuations. Is this merely a "moreover"? an accident? something in which the artist's instinct had no share? Or is it not the very presupposition of the artist's ability? Does his basic instinct aim at art, or rather at the sense of art, at life? at a desirability of life? Art is the great stimulus to life: how could one understand it as purposeless, as aimless, as l'art pour l'art?

Or if you will, as purposeless, as aimless, as stupid, as life in the world above the faraway tree, "where art can exist on its own terms".

Fucketty fuck, the pond started the day in a perfectly jolly frame of mind, and somehow ended up in the 101 world of aesthetics for fuckwits and dummies?

Well just to complete that journey here's Nick Cave making a fool of himself in the Graudian ...

 

The pond is anxiously standing by, waiting for his next great hit, with the catchy hook, Freedumb, Freedumb ...

It'll probably get picked up and put on endless rotation on the reptiles' platters that matter segment, alongside Killer Creighton's greatest hits, and endless deaths ...

Oh it's too much for a koala bear or a pond to bear ... trust the tale, not the teller, as the pond's old prof used to say ... even as the pond wondered whether it was entirely wise to trust certain tall tales ...

But at least the pond avoided that reptile trolling of republicans, and so avoided thinking about the talking tampon ...

And now, thank the long absent lord that the pond can turn to Wilcox for a closing image and a knotty problem, wherein a logician rather than a dumbfuck artist is required ...

 

 

Ah yes, did you notice? Domicron is the word of the day, the week, the month, and quite possibly the year ...

 

Meanwhile, the pond will go on living in the world above the faraway tree, "where art can exist on its own terms".