David Thompson


Blog powered by Typepad

« Novel Uses for Everyday Objects | Main | The Needs of Artists »

December 16, 2013



Thanks for the Durkin film, David.


Thanks for the Durkin film, David.

I watched it again a couple of days ago. I’d forgotten how good some of it is. The scenes with Kinnock (especially towards the end) are hilarious. And telling.


I use the Laurie Hill film all the time in my teaching - such a brilliant resource!

Col. Milquetoast

28:15 Neil Kinnock says "In the makeup of the British working class conservative there is an element of deference, of order taking. Especially, if they can be convinced there are others below them that are suitably deferential to them."

"Rows of seemingly identical houses but amongst them the badges of Thatcherism. New front doors in the place of the standard issue and replacement double glazed windows." One might even call it a lack of deference to what a government bureaucrat thought was good enough. *gasp* aspirational!

53:20 Mary Warnock : "…Low taste."
"You're a snob, aren't you?"
"No! Well, I am. I guess I am…"

The Thatcher film explained some of the belligerent hatred of Thatcher that I hadn't previously understood.


The Thatcher film explained some of the belligerent hatred of Thatcher that I hadn’t previously understood.

Well, the patrician left and right were remarkably similar. And it’s important to note that the outpouring of snobbery and contempt wasn’t just aimed at Thatcher, but – implicitly and often overtly - at the people who voted for her. As when Jonathan Miller compared Conservative voters to “typhoid” and sneered at suburbia, patriotism and “commuter idiocy,” which is to say, those poor suburban idiots whose taxes subsidise the art world inhabited by Jonathan Miller. And as when the academic and Guardian contributor Mary Warnock, a woman very nearly chosen as Director General of the BBC, was driven to, in her words, “a kind of rage” by the lower-middle class connotations of Thatcher’s blouse.

And when people from modest backgrounds want something other than what the left says they should want, this still causes quite a bit of anger and bewilderment.


Incidentally, re the Thatcher video, the original comment thread is quite interesting and has some useful links for background and context.


The Return Of The (deleted):




Ah. Apparently, shockingly, the typical reaction to Ms Jenkins’ vaginal ‘art’ has been mockery or mild revulsion and therefore, she says, therefore her art has been somehow validated. Indeed, she has been validated. Her feminism has been validated. Everything about her is incredibly important and immensely validated. She tells us this while insisting, “What I am not seeking through this work is external validation of myself – in fact, the work is primarily about casting off the need for validation from external sources.” And yet she makes a point of letting us know just how validated she is, because of “the deafening response” to her video, which has been “consumed, contemplated and commented on by millions across the globe.” Apparently, people are afraid of what she does. Because it’s so daring and politically radical.

Not that she’s looking for validation, you understand.


Not that she’s looking for validation, you understand.

I was just about to send you that one. ;-)


I think that one deserves a post of its own.

[ Edited. ]


I admit, I fell for the centrifugal research institute video. I thought it was totally a real thing.

Thankfully I was wrong.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Amazon Link