You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
Andy Warhol, I don't get it, it's shite yet it is held up to be genius. A load of soup cans, marilyn Monroe
in dayglo colours ffs!!!
Why is his crap held up to be genius? Just watched a programme on Picasso, the boy could paint!
critics made it work.
Glad it's not just me! Can't stand the man or his 'art'
Not too sure about Picasso either - perhaps you could enlighten me?
I think I know what Geurnica and the painting of the same name are about...
In the absence of modern equivs to the greats, they changed tack....
ton - Member
critics made it work.
How?
Warhol, like all art, either does it for you or he doesn't.
He doesn't do it for me.
critics made it work.
See also Damien Hirst, Banksy, Tracy Emin etc. etc. etc. etc.
he did it for bob hughes........he liked andy.
Used to work at a restaurant in London Called L'Escargot, all warhol going up the stairs to the picasso Room which was named simply because it was full of picasso, when you've seen lots you tend to just accept it, others in the group were filled with other artists.......I remember when I worked at the Belvedere there was a commisioned Hirst piece that was £1.2 million, excess if you ask me as I didn't like it but if you like it and can afford it why the hell not.
We got a painting by this guy a couple of years ago which we love, you can see some for sale they are p.o.a which is a bummer.
http://www.nesegallery.com/parthenon/agora/shopping.php?m_link=78
critics made it work
That's irrelevant. All commercially successful artists have to comply or work with critics and sales. No-one would see or buy the work otherwise.
Andy Warhol was a lot more than just brillo boxes and Monroe though. He was a very good illustrator,changes the way people generally thought about some techniques of applying paint, modernised pictures with his crash pictures and his portraits of pop culture stars, revolutionised film, print and sculpture. Heavily influenced music, performance and fashion and was also extremely influential to other up and coming artists from Lou Reed and the Velvet Underground, Nico to Jean Michel Basquiat et cetera.
Not to mention his own writings and quote but he also supported other wannabe writers. One of whom probably cut his life very short when she shot him.
I think he did quite well considering, and his influence really still is everywhere today in all walks of life.
Back to the OP, "it's shite"?
It just might be that your expectations of art and how you view it are the problem rather than Warhol's ability as an artist.
personal choice in art appreciation shocker
It just might be that your expectations of art and how you view it are the problem rather than Warhol's ability as an artist
+1.
Afaik, Warhol's work was a meta-critique of the aestheticization of the banal - he looked around him and could see (and knew from experience) the design decisions that contributed to the label of a tin of soup. Where does that leave the artist when even soup tins (or bikes, or iTat) are perceived to have aesthetic qualities? They could (a) ignore the world they live in (b) attempt to produce a new art that transcends the historical moment or (c) produce a commentary upon it by turning the artistic eye toward it. Warhol chose the latter route and was a brilliantly cyncal commentator upon the banality of the world of image that we inhabit - what is left for the artist to depict, our contemporary icons, our gods, goddesses and holy objects: celebrities, commodities etc. Well, until he started believing his own hype (unless that was part of his art....)
He carried on a tradition of anti-art that you can, if you so wish, trace back to the dadaists (say, Duchamp and his readymades). Having said all that even generally accepted 'classic' art caused huge division and controversy in their time: Turner (and subsequently the impressionists) was not well received and Courbet's works were met with horror at the Paris Salon.
Having said all that, [url=
Childish and Thee Headcoats asked the timeless question in memorable style[/url]:
"Damien Hirst's got his fish in a tank
Some say it's art others think it's ****."
Ah, punk rock.
a meta-critique of the aestheticization of the banal
😯
its all subjective, but pre warhol, who else painted like that? I can sing better than Bob Dylan, doesn't mean he's rubbish!
Some of Warhols paintings and print pieces are quite impressive, its just the common ones that people know. Same goes for Lichenstein.
[i]a meta-critique of the aestheticization of the banal[/i]
A numb bum.
its all subjective, but pre warhol, who else painted like that?
Quite a few people, especially in the UK. Its his art [i]and[/i] his persona that gives him a place in popular art history. But for the purpose of art history he can also be used mark a progression form one era to another (regardless of whether that progression started without him). Some artists become 'great' relative to their contemporaries simply because they fit neatly into the story.
Ok, something like Tracy emin is shite, but no one paid silly money for one. Warhols Eight Elvises, $100m for a tampered photograph. Surely this is a case of the emperors new clothes....?
Or am I just a phillistine because I don't 'get it'...
No your sensible.
Did You Know...
The Andy and Lou couple on Little Britain ("I want that one") are based on an interview that Matt Lucas saw featuring Andy Warhol & Lou Reed stoned out of their gourds.
The " is it art" or "it's Shite" reasoning or argument is pointless as it's been done to death and resolved. If you are interested, there are lots of books out there you can read to try to get a better understanding of it.
You have a responsibility as a viewer and how you understand the information. If you don't get it try thinking "why don't I get it?" rather than "It's shite". If not you won't understand and there is a chance you are missing out on quite a lot. As I said before the influence of people like Warhol is everywhere, if you don't "get it" you are missing more than just Warhol.
[i]You have a responsibility as a viewer and how you understand the information[/i]
Responsibility, I think I don't thanks.
[i]The " is it art" or "it's Shite" reasoning or argument is pointless as it's been done to death and resolved. If you are interested, there are lots of books out there you can read to try to get a better understanding of it.[/i]
Surely the question is -
"Is it good art, or is it shite art?" - getting it doesn't make it good. I 'get' John Grisham, but the process of 'getting it' doesn't lead to it being a better piece of work though. 🙂
Someone once came up with the skip test for defining great art which I rather like.
That is, imagine you're walking past a builders skip one day and you see the venus de milo lying in it (it's a big skip), you'd at the very least do a double take and maybe wonder about how you could retrieve it. Would you look twice if you came across a skip with some women's grubby bed and a urinal lying on top of it?
one mans meat is anothers poison and all that.. venus de milo I couldn't give a flying duck for.. but if I saw the pretty bright acidic colours of the warhol (or similar) I would nab it..
simples phillistines... simples
[img] 
[/img]
Andy who ?
If I saw the Venus de milo, I'd think it was broken and leave it be, assuming I had no prior knowledge of the thing. 😉
To me, what makes great art (in all forms) is originality.
Warhol was original, no-one thought of it before.
Stuff like that is usually of it's time, has been reprinted, copied, displayed everywhere so much [i]since[/i] that it's difficult to "get it" later.
Surely the question is -
"Is it good art, or is it shite art?" - getting it doesn't make it good. I 'get' John Grisham, but the process of 'getting it' doesn't lead to it being a better piece of work though
I mostly disagree.
Deciding if it is good depends on what you use as comparison or what you are looking for in it. "getting it doesn't make it good" is true, but the process of you getting it [u]does[/u] leed to it being better for you, as you will have a better understanding of the whats, whys, wheres and how's of it.
The skip test is a good example of misunderstanding or bringing too many preconceived ideas to a different idea.
look at it this way. Imagine walking through an old traditional gallery full of large oil paintings one after the other from hundreds of years ago. Then suddenly walking into a room with "some women's grubby bed and a urinal lying on top of it". "at the very least do a double take and maybe wonder...."
Wonder what the **** is that doing there.
IMO any art, whether it is a technically perfect Constable, an abstract such as a Pollock splash on canvas, a bunch of lines a la Mondrian or something your kid painted for you at school is only good if the viewer likes it. Whether or not one person likes it does not alter the fact the next may not.
Warhol's work interests me in that the use of paint, the composition on the canvas, the particular choice of colours etc combine to make visually interesting art.
I also enjoy the work of Paul Klee, Turner, Robert Crumb and Klimt. I also like Ansel Adams and the Weston's photography.
At home we have a couple of pieces we commissioned ourselves, one from an artist at a car boot sale and one by a local artist.
I don't expect everyone else to enjoy the same work as I do - each person enjoys different art just as each person enjoys different music or film or sport or cars or clothes or...
You have a responsibility as a viewer and how you understand the information. If you don't get it try thinking "why don't I get it?" rather than "It's shite". If not you won't understand and there is a chance you are missing out on quite a lot. As I said before the influence of people like Warhol is everywhere, if you don't "get it" you are missing more than just Warhol.
Which is effectively just saying "if you don't get it, change the way you think so you do get it". Not really the point. If the art doesn't evoke feelings, emotions or replay a place or time to someone who isn't the creator, it's failed in my view. While my view is clearly not art qualified, that's sort of the point to me. IMO art should be something that speaks to people and doesn't require translation and an altered state of mind to understand. If you have to alter your way of thinking to appreciate the art you can effectively call anything art, mass murder and posed bodies, a calculator, some paper - all would just require you to "get into the head" of the person doing it.
Totally agree with coffeeking.
[i]Totally agree with coffeeking.[/i]
I don't. What's wrong with changing your thinking to understand something you previously didn't?
Depends whether you look at things in terms of the thinking behind them or whether you just like the end result.
Myself, I'm fairly ignorant of art, so I go by the end result, and I'm partial to the odd bit of pop art & constructivism.
Some (most?) artists produce stuff that really does range from ace to gopping - take Hockney - a bigger splash is ace, but some of his other stuff is just bad drawings on the theme of being gay...
The other issue is that this stuff is pricey & sought after, so if you go to a public exhibition of a well known artist (particularly at a less well known/funded gallery), a lot of their better work is in private hands, which means that you'll perhaps get one of their better pictures surrounded by ten of their more poxy works.
What happens when someone becomes a famous artist is that the equivalent of what would be a writer's first drafts and jotted notes are suddenly seen as important, and become valuable. Some choose to destroy the stuff they're not happy with, some flog it regardless 😆
coffeeking, I think you misunderstand what I'm saying as we half agree with each other.
It is not up to anyone to tell the viewer what they should or should not think about a piece of art. This is partly why the " is it art" kind of debates are pointless. At the same time though, the viewer should be open to new ideas, thoughts and interpretations. You shouldn't always believe what you think. Otherwise you will only ever understand or enjoy one type of art in one way.
With regards to "you can effectively call anything art, mass murder and posed bodies, a calculator, some paper..." all been done. There are people who find these subjects do "evoke feelings, emotions or replay a place or time to someone who isn't the creator".
I don't. What's wrong with changing your thinking to understand something you previously didn't?
Nothing wrong in it, but I don't think art should require you to - you either like it or not. A bit like Marmite.
50 years for you to finally vent an opinion on andy warhol? congratulations! 🙄
roper - not sure...
At the same time though, the viewer should be open to new ideas, thoughts and interpretations. You shouldn't always believe what you think. Otherwise you will only ever understand or enjoy one type of art in one way.
That depends what level you're looking for art to feed back on, if your interest is not in the story of the art but the end result and whether that is immediately pleasing to your thoughts, then why would you want to understand more than that type of art? I can see that X did this in this way to show this, but it still isn't pleasing to look at, I just understand its origin. I think thats the crux of it, if you're looking for a story or to understand someone, then maybe all sorts of art are your friend and learning to read into them is important. If you're looking for something that is asthetically pleasing to you and immediately gives you a warm smile without needing to think about what the creator was thinking/going through/trying to portray then the more controversial arts are not really for you and neither is it necessarily a good thing to try to learn to love them.
I don't. What's wrong with changing your thinking to understand something you previously didn't?
Nothing, if there's a point. If I have to change my thinking to understand someone's point of view and somehow help them through life/help change thigns to make something better then sure. But its just art, it either appeals or it doesnt. If I have to work on it to enjoy it it's pointless to me - it's art, not a job. It's art, not a challenge. I want to put it in a corner and go "ooh, isnt that lovely" or "that reminds me of summer" not "I think bob was trying to talk of the pains of the people suffering at the hands of feudal system, his use of reds and yellows suggest anger"
[i]Nothing wrong in it, but I don't think art should require you to - you either like it or not. A bit like Marmite.[/i]
Well I personally, can take or leave Marmite.
So a kid sees an Andy Warhol - say the soup cans. Thinks "Thats just a pic of soup cans". Then someone explains the relevance of it, who its by and what he's about - the kid then has understanding (ie has changed his way of thinking). The "art" hasn't worked?
So a kid sees an Andy Warhol - say the soup cans. Thinks "Thats just a pic of soup cans". Then someone explains the relevance of it, who its by and what he's about - the kid then has understanding (ie has changed his way of thinking). The "art" hasn't worked?
Art isn't about understanding surely? You understand how a jet engine works or how a pully system works. Understanding why someone created a piece of art won't make the kid like it any more - just understand why they created it.
For example, I can understand why Damien Hirst chopped up animals and put them in formaldehyde (he wanted to make people look at everyday things differently IIRC) but it doesn't make me like it artistically.
Conversely I have no idea why Klimt painted The Kiss but I find it a beautiful piece of work.
So a kid sees an Andy Warhol - say the soup cans. Thinks "Thats just a pic of soup cans". Then someone explains the relevance of it, who its by and what he's about - the kid then has understanding (ie has changed his way of thinking). The "art" hasn't worked?
Depends. What has the kid gained other than an appreciation of what the creator was thinking, which ultimately doesn't mean much. He still won't think the image is nice to look at, he'll just know the background. I wouldn't have the cans up in my living room, I might be vaguely interested in their origin but only from a "it's so crap there must be a story behind it" way and that would not motivate me in any way shape or form. M_f put it more elloquently than I could.
[i]Art isn't about understanding surely?[/i]
You must be talking specifically about [i]paintings[/i] surely?
Of course it is! (Partly!)
You must be talking specifically about paintings surely?
Of course it is! (Partly!)
Physical art, paintings, sculptures etc. I can see that drama etc are there to convey a story. I just don't see that paintings and sculptures are. That's just a fundamental part of my make-up - paintings/photos/sculpture should be immediate, it cannot intelligently interact to tell a story, it should not need to be explained. It's like a joke, if it needs explaining it's not a very good joke. If I like it I'll want it in my house based on its looks. If it's too big to fit I'll want a bigger house to put it in, but if it has no immediate appeal and needs work to like it, I won't want it in the house maybe other than as a talking point to make me look "smarter" than someone else who visits 😀
You must be talking specifically about paintings surely?
Of course it is! (Partly!)
I am talking about anything that is art - a painting, a photograph, whatever. And I don't believe it is about [i]understanding [/i]in the slightest bit. Why would it be?
Of course this is only my opinion, but as someone who works in the creative field, I strongly believe (and always have) that when I present a piece of work (a logo design, a website, a brochure etc) that I shouldn't expect the client to need to 'understand' what I have done, simply like it or not. If I need to justify something I don't think I have done my job properly.
I am talking about anything that is art - a painting, a photograph, whatever. And I don't believe it is about understanding in the slightest bit. Why would it be?
Really? What about cave paintings, war pictures, sculptures all from pre history to now? Television and film, documentaries, photography, music, dance? Are none of these about understanding?
paintings/photos/sculpture should be immediate, it cannot intelligently interact to tell a story, it should not need to be explained
That's all well and good as long as the art is from a culture and time you are familiar with, in a medium you understand and a subject you know.
It could also mean that you are missing out on quite a lot too.
Really? What about cave paintings, war pictures, sculptures all from pre history to now? Television and film, documentaries, photography, music, dance? Are none of these about understanding?
You are blurring lines - most of the above is not art, it is communication. Anything that is created as art should need no understanding to like it - you may want to understand it because you like it, but I do not accept that you can like a piece of art through understanding it if you did not like it before.
Which goes back to the OP - would the OP like Warhol's work if he understood why he created it?
Anything that is created as art should need no understanding to like it
Why not ? Is that your definition or the law ?
I do not accept that you can like a piece of art through understanding it if you did not like it before.
I disagree. I studied Cezanne and grew to really like his work once I'd figured out what was going on.
My only bone of contention with modern art is the elitist aspect of requiring the viewer to be educated in order to understand what the artist is trying to portray, personally I'm happy to educate myself.
Why not ? Is that your definition or the law ?
No, it is my opinion - feel free to have your own, however wrong it may be 😉
My only bone of contention with modern art is the elitist aspect of requiring the viewer to be educated in order to understand what the artist is trying to portray,
Sorry, but that is just bollocks really isn't it? Modern art (which you would say Cezanne is not classed as, being an impressionist). Why does modern art require the viewer to be educated? Are you saying thick people can't get modern art?
[i]Are you saying thick people can't get modern art?[/i]
Thats a different debate altogether 😉
Sorry, but that is just bollocks really isn't it?
No, I didn't get it until it was explained to me.
Are you saying thick people can't get modern art?
No, I'm saying that it requires education. You're confusing a lack of intelligence with a lack of education. Not the same thing at all.
I'm not blurring lines at all. Art is communication. To say most of the examples I gave are not art go back to the question "is it art" which has been done to death. Why aren't some of them art?
I do not accept that you can like a piece of art through understanding it if you did not like it before.
That's an interesting point. But, sometimes art can be quite difficult to understand if it is from a different culture or time. Zillij for an example is anonymous non figurative arabic art. To look at it without understanding anything about the culture, beliefs and ideas could be quite alien, even shocking or garish (sp). If you understand a little of what and why it was made it can start to make sense.
The same can be applied the other way. Show someone from a small town in Costa Rica a Lowry painting and it might not make much sense, probably just badly painted rather ugly people ( no offense to people from Salford 🙂 ). If they have a little understanding of what he was painting and why it might start to fall into place too.
Would the OP like Warhol's work if he understood why he created it?
Not necessarily like, but possibly gain an appreciation of what he did and how it has influenced our culture today. Surely that is a good thing?
No, I didn't get it until it was explained to me.
I can't argue with your own experience so fair enough.
No, I'm saying that it requires education. You're confusing a lack of intelligence with a lack of education. Not the same thing at all.
Fair enough, I took a leap of assumption there (education<>intelligence), but I still maintain that it is bollocks to say there is an aspect of modern art that [i]requires [/i]the viewer to be educated in order to understand it. And going back to your Cezanne example, what on earth needs explaining about his work to understand it?
[img]
[/img]It's a bowl of fruit, that's all.
Why aren't some of them art?
I did say 'most'. Some television is art (Proms, Dance, Opera, Eastenders). Cave paintings weren't created as art (as far as my understanding goes), they were created as a form of communication - similarly the Bayeux tapestry was communication.
But, sometimes art can be quite difficult to understand if it is from a different culture or time. Zillij for an example is anonymous non figurative arabic art. To look at it without understanding anything about the culture, beliefs and ideas could be quite alien, even shocking or garish (sp). If you understand a little of what and why it was made it can start to make sense.
I totally agree - some art can be difficult to understand and sometimes we want to understand it, but what I have been trying to say is that you can like it without understanding it but understanding it won't make you aesthetically like it more. At least that is how I feel about it.
Not necessarily like, but possibly gain an appreciation of what he did and how it has influenced our culture today. Surely that is a good thing?
Absolutely.
I have not said people should disregard things they don't like and it is good that some people can be driven to find out more about an artist or a piece of art because of the way it has made them feel. For example, I spent much of my college years studying Dali because I thought he was an unusual man with very unusual techniques for creating his art and for some time I thought I liked his art but I eventually realised that I didn't actually like his work, I just admired him.
It's a bowl of fruit, that's all.
Aahh, but is it ? Why the inconsistencies of shadow and light? why the distorted shapes of the fruit ? If you think that's down to poor technique, it isn't.
Much more than just a bowl of fruit.
Aahh, but is it ? Why the inconsistencies of shadow and light? why the distorted shapes of the fruit ? If you think that's down to poor technique, it isn't.Much more than just a bowl of fruit.
But the point being - does understanding the man's reasons for painting in a particular way (much of which is simply conjecture and interpretation anyway) make the art any more aesthetically pleasing?
Art isn't about understanding surely?
What is there to understand in Dali's work, Classed as a genius, but hated by some, they say that the wind drives them crazy in the area that he was from, so is it work of a mad man or a genius, which takes us back to personal opinion.
what on earth needs explaining about his work to understand it?It's a bowl of fruit, that's all
Its not a bowl of fruit at all. Thats what you understand it to be.
But the point being - does understanding the man's reasons for painting in a particular way (much of which is simply conjecture and interpretation anyway) make the art any more aesthetically pleasing?
Perhaps it's a case of moving it beyond pure aesthetics and giving it other values.
Its not a bowl of fruit at all. Thats what you understand it to be.
No, it's a bowl of fruit - look there's a lemon.
Perhaps it's a case of moving it beyond pure aesthetics and giving it other values.
Ahh now I see, I like it now. 🙄 you have clearly been educated.
I enjoy a lot of modern art and the more I find out about it the more I like it. Its often better if you have to engage your brain than just see a picture and say oh yes thats pretty/cool whatever.
Also seeing real art in a gallery is so much more powerful than any reproductions. This is partly because it is exhibited in a gallery ergo it is art whatever it is. Modern art is thought provoking, hence this thread!
Perhaps it's a case of moving it beyond pure aesthetics and giving it other values.
But that's something YOU are giving IT, not the other way around. You're imprinting it with your own interpretation and trying to make it into something. To me it's a bowl of fruit. I don't like it. It's not overly well painted (still better than I could do!) and it doesn't make me think anything. OK maybe it makes me think of high school art lessons. I don't need or want to imprint it with my own thoughts, I want it to look nice.
I don't need or want to imprint it with my own thoughts, I want it to look nice.
No - you are wrong - you have to understand it even if it makes your eyes bleed. And once you do, you have reached a higher state of conciousness and can sip at your choco mocha latte whilst smuggly looking down at the uneducated serfs.
😉
But that's something YOU are giving IT
Is it or is that the intention of the work ? I think the whole point of art like this is to say that if you want to look at purely aesthetically pleasing pieces then there are lots of them to choose from. This piece is about something else and that's what motivated the artist.
No - you are wrong - you have to understand it even if it makes your eyes bleed. And once you do, you have reached a higher state of conciousness and can sip at your choco mocha latte whilst smuggly looking down at the uneducated serfs.
Ok so now you're agreeing with my point about this stuff being elitist whereas before you weren't ❓
Ok so now you're agreeing with my point about this stuff being elitist whereas before you weren't
But I was taking the piss.
m_f - exactly 🙂
Is it or is that the intention of the work ? I think the whole point of art like this is to say that if you want to look at purely aesthetically pleasing pieces then there are lots of them to choose from. This piece is about something else and that's what motivated the artist.
I don't want the artist to make me work to find out what they're getting at. If I wanted to work at something I'd read a book on quantum physics and be amazed by the equations and beauty of the theories. I want to look at something that is aesthetically pleasing, I don't want the artist to dictate how I have to think about things.
Ultimately I think the point is that some people like art for its face value and its techniques, others like to sit and chin-wag about its deeper meanings because the artist isn't capable of or chooses not to make art that is aesthetically pleasing AND tells a story. I'm one of the former.
You could liken it to love and lust I suppose, its easy to lust after someone based solely on aesthetics and then later fall in love with them for their deeper meaning, and its very easy to love someone with no aesthetic quality, for their personality etc, but you'll struggle to ever form lust in that situation I think. For art to work I have to lust after it primarily, but still have something in it for when that initial feeling fades a little with familiarity.
I don't want the artist to make me work to find out what they're getting at
Then don't. It's not compulsory. Other art is available.
Then don't. It's not compulsory. Other art is available.
There is and I found I liked it without having to try too hard. 😉
probably for the best 😉
Of course this is only my opinion, but as someone who works in the creative field, I strongly believe (and always have) that when I present a piece of work (a logo design, a website, a brochure etc) that I shouldn't expect the client to need to 'understand' what I have done, simply like it or not. If I need to justify something I don't think I have done my job properly.
That's because you're doing graphic design, basically communicating simple ideas in a simple, unambiguous way. It is a skilled craft to do that, but you are not doing the same thing that artists are trying to do (whatever that may be), which may involve complex or ambiguous ideas, or not even have any particular idea it is pushing.
Even old paintings are more complex than this. If you look at (for example) Las Meninas, by Velázquez, it is firstly obviously quite a technically competent painting of a bunch of people. But beyond that there are a vast number of underlying complexities - who are the people, what are their relationships, what does the painting say about the relationship that painters had with their patrons in 17th Century Spain. By knowing a little about the background of the painting it becomes a much more fascinating and interesting thing, and you can understand the hidden beauty that is in the complexity of the painting as a whole.
Whereas hopefully by looking at a logo that you have designed, you take a glance at it, and it conveys whatever you want it to convey. There isn't much complexity in it, at least not intended complexity. Although even if you look at design, there are a lot of interesting things underlying designs that people wouldn't really think about. For example, if you look at your website - that says a lot about you in ways that you perhaps aren't intending - clearly you are, like many companies at the moment, interested in being seen as forward and in with 'new media' trends, so you have a twitter feed and a blog, but again, like most companies, it has bugger all on it. Those "No twitter messages" things are surely an interesting comment on the fad led nature of modern design (not to mention the pictures at the top of all the 'I'm a creative design type' totems - a mac and some fancy design books, some wacky design toys, a unicycle etc.) I'm sure my website is just as revealing about me and how I am situated within the area that I work in.
Joe
but again, like most companies, it has bugger all on it.
Quite ironically, as you have clearly looked at our site, you have missed one of the key messages - 'A picture paints a thousand words' - it has 'bugger all' as you put it (at least we deliberately kept it short and simple) as my belief, as stated above, is that my work should stand up for itself and it shouldn't need understanding or explaining.
it has 'bugger all' as you put it (at least we deliberately kept it short and simple
I meant the twitter feed, not the site itself, sorry!
Joe
The Twitter feed has been updated three times today!
[i]England win the World Cup! Well at least that is what the math tells us anyway. http://bit.ly/b4OZOZ ^MD 49 mins ago
RT @ripeglobal: http://ow.ly/1MrAI the social media marketing opportunity continues to grow 3 hours ago
RT @limeybloke: Can anyone suggest a Webinar solution for online training? Looking for something we can pay-as-you-go? 5 hours ago[/i]