DIARY - Uncivil partnerships, Religion on a stick, and the Turner prize.
Date: 2005-12-09 14:08:12
Author: Pat Kent
This week there's been a range of things hitting the press,
One big story, if you ignore what seems to be becoming the annual Tory Party leadership competition, is the introduction of civil partnerships, or as the press in the UK call them Gay Weddings. In my opinion it's long overdue, and that the rights that are enjoyed by partners in a long term heterosexual relationship should have been afforded to couples in long term, committed gay relationship a long time ago. It turns out now that the Government believes that in order to get the same benefits, and by that we mean financial benefits linked to inheritance tax, wills and probates issues, death duties etc, a civil partnership act was necessary. No, problem there, in my opinion.
Unfortunately, like most things that impact on social change, it has been hurried through without thinking it through fully. It seems that not only partners who want to seal their long term committed relationships are queuing up to tie the knot. The new act has a loophope allowing a way for anyone to get around leaving their money to the state, you don't need to have a partner who is gay, straight, male or female or be in a relationship which is anywhere near approaching committed or long-term.
It seems that you can enter into a civil partnership with anyone, even two distinctly heterosexual people, who have had, or never will have any intention of partaking in a loving or even purely sexual relationship with each other or even another person of any sex can "join" themselves to one another via a civil partnership just to make sure that their money doesn�t go to the state or even their next of kin.
Along with our new licensing laws its just another absolute farce. Why didn't the Chancellor just sort out the archaic inheritance tax and death duty laws in this country. Due to increasing house and property values almost everyone now seems liable for death duties. The new Act, it seems, allows almost everyone to find a way out of it, will we end up continually entering "civil partnerships" until we die to avoid Mr Brown or his successors getting their hands on our cash. Well, I say "everyone", but unless you want to divorce your wife or husband, you, Mr or Mrs Happily-Married will have to simply hire yourselves a lawyer to sort out your tax inheritance mess for you, and we all know how much they charge. Money for old lawyers....
More farce was on show this week when a schoolgirl was sent home from her school for wearing a crucifix on a chain around her neck. Now it wasn�t one of your Madonna style, chunky, altar-size, cross on a chain, it was a one inch crucifix on a thin chain around her neck, She was sent home by her Deputy Head teacher on the grounds that it was offensive. Who is this offensive to? I'll Lay money that it wasn't really personally offensive to the Deputy Head, but I can imagine two things:
1. He or she literally crapped themselves that some PC liberal would complain if they saw it and decided to take the easy option and ask her to remove it expecting compliance. Or 2. Our Christian traditions are now considered as being fair game and the Deputy Head thought that he could get off on the power of a politically correct, liberal do-gooder.
The Deputy Head was reported as excusing their actions by saying something along the lines of "banning the wearing of crucifixes is lawful, but we need to be tolerant of other faiths motifs" No! We need to be tolerant of all faiths religions, beliefs and creeds, only then we might get to understand as well as trust one another. This crass liberal idea that we must keep beating ourselves up over our history, customs and beliefs means we end up playing right into the hands of extremists and racists.
It's big enough to incite a religious war isn't it!"
It seems on one hand we knock our kids for having no faith, and then when we find one child that wants to display the emblem of her chosen religion, we not only ban it, but we ban her as well.
I am truly becoming more sickened by this country and the apologetic state that we find ourselves living in. Religious and racial hatred should not be endured or encouraged in any form, but then again freedom of expression and the right to ones beliefs should also be protected. And that, to me, seems to be the crux of the problem; in this apology for a Country we now seem to demand a culture intent to protect everyone but ourselves, since we seem to repeatedly fail to respect our own beliefs and cultures.
Finally, on my Art site I'm going to write something to do with Art for a change. Well, art in its loosest and probably most obtuse sense, but "Art" anyway. The Turner Prize.
If there is anyone out there reading this [which I doubt] who doesn't know what the Turner Prize is, then I'll try and clue you up.
JMW Turner was a profoundly great British artist, he lived from 1775-1851 and produced some of the most memorable fine art ever produced in this Country. He bequeathed his work to the nation and in my humble opinion his works sit comfortably alongside any of the great masters.
Now, in 1984 the nation, or more correctly some of the nation's supposed art elite, decided to hold an annual competition for British artists. Well, it's not so much a competition, as the shortlist is drawn up behind closed doors by a panel of the "elite". In total, £40,000 in prize money is now associated with the Turner Prize, with £25 K going to the winner, together with the acclaim that goes with what is supposed to be the highest accolade in the world of British art. It is awarded to a British artist under fifty for an outstanding exhibition or other presentation of their work in the twelve months preceding the date of award.
Great idea, and naming after the great man himself, Turner, seemed a good move.
Unfortunately, it seems that like many experts in this day and age, the panel of judges only want to consider the outrageous and the obtuse as contenders. If it shocks then it must be "Art". Hence, we get images of Myra Hindley, the moors murderer, and dead sharks suspended in formaldehyde, not art, just something the make the art intelligentsia set themselves apart from the rest of the herd. So, over the years we have seen a bunch of pretentious arse-talking, no-hopers with no real artistic talent in the form of the panel award the prize to a bunch of pretentious, arse-talking, no-hopers, with no real artistic talent. Self perpetuation at it's best.
Let me say that I don't consider myself an artist, I can draw a bit, but I'm under no illusions as to my abilities or quality of output, it's all for a bit of fun and relaxation only. But, and this is a big but, I cannot fathom out how anyone of the artists who have been nominated, let alone won this award haven't yet been photographed after the presentation, backstage, laughing up their sleeves at us all for tolerating what is in essence absolute bile. I suspect the reason is that they actually believe that they are in reality "Artists", and the praise lauded upon them is genuine and meaningful. No! It isn't, it's as false and as worthless as the pieces of shite they produce.
This years winner, announced earlier this week was one Mr Simon Starling. His nominated entry, "Shedboatshed" was an old shed, he had found in Switzerland. He then knocked it down and turned it in to a boat, rowed it up the Rhine for a bit, and then re-erected back as it's former use as a shed.
Mr Starling visits HomeBase to contemplate his next piece of conceptual art, or somewhere to store his lawnmower.
Art? No it's more akin to an event from "It's a knockout" or "Jeux sans frontiers" since it was all done over on the continent, but Art? Not on your life. It's just a mechanism which the art "elite" use to continue the notion that they are elite. In reality, it's the Kings new clothes and the art world in general is the poorer for it.
Also why does the "artist" need to be under fifty? Ageism in art? In my opinion that's one discipline that should be above itself enough so as not to discriminate.
The future for the Turner Prize? Do the great man a real honour by putting it into Room 101 along with pretentiousness, liberals and political correctness please.
© Pat Kent 2005 - All rights reserved. Pat Kent exercises his right to be identified as the author.