Big cultural thing is bull fighting, but not for me. I wouldn't be caught dead at one of those of those places. Dog fighting, cock fights, bear baiting etc ... all horrible.
Swanny, you're post shows that art is a lot more than what pleases the eye. No apologies needed for posting a Goya painting, it's a masterpiece.
Boxing does not escape a hideous past. During the great depression, the fight scene was blighted with what was known as "battle royales." They were horrible affairs where mostly African Americans were paid a pittance to climb into the ring against multiple opponents. Quite often, they were blind folded and given only one glove apiece. Sometimes the "blind" fighters were bound by the free hand to each other by a piece of rope about a metre long. please log in to view this image
Yes, I do understand that, imagine playing football and getting paid for it, bloody hell. Well, Smokey, when I was at school was always very skinny (that's bloody funny now) and, frankly, quite a weak specimen. Didn't stop me from being a lippy sod though (and therefore stupid with it) so got my regular beatings. Think I might have won one scrap at school, then immediately got the **** knocked out of me by the fellow's best friend. Ah, such is life. Got a wee bit tougher later when I put on a bit of muscle and a few kilos, but it took a while. I thank both you and Cyc for the kind comments on the Goya painting. I really love this thread.
Absolutely incredible painting, Cyc, do you know the name of the artist? I had no idea Black African Americans were subjected to such a terrible thing; I'd never heard of "Battle Royales" before.
Swanny, I read with interest quite awhile ago about a man called Joe Gans, who in about 1890 became the first African American to win a World Title, the Lightweight belt. It's widely accepted that he learned his trade in battle royales. I think these affairs started with slaves.
A quote from George Silar. "I went down to Springfield, Ill. about seven years ago to referee a series of glove contests, and the management, for a humorous opener, staged a battle royal in which six colored men, among them Johnson, took part. Jack was the last to enter the ring, and directly he did he landed one of his every-man-for-himself opponents a wallop on the jaw, dropping him as if shot. "Two big blacks then sailed in after Johnson, who danced out of distance, and, before his opponents knew what had happened, they were on the floor, because they foolishly permitted their respective jaws to come in contact with Jack's right mitt. The other blacks thought of the old adage of: "He who fights and runs away will live to fight another day" and crawled out of the ring."
In just about every endeavour, there's a competition for supremacy. In Australian portraiture, that event is the Archibald Prize. It's an annual event where the subject of the piece has to be famous. One of my favourite winners was the 2004 depiction of the iconic actor and dancer David Gulpilil, submitted by Craig Ruddy. The piece itself won both the judges and people's choice awards. But it caused quite a stir when it won. A week after the the announcement of the results, Sydney artist Tony Johanson, backed by a fighting fund, sued the gallery claiming that Ruddy's work was a drawing and not a painting. Some pretty awful stuff was said about the portrait, some were so incensed that they resorted to calling it an appalling piece of work. The suit was thrown out by the New South Wales court and the portrait has since found a warm place in the Australian heart. please log in to view this image
Fascinating, Cyc, I especially like the third one "Fish". David Gulpilil's dancing is certainly something all Austalians should treasure.
In 1973 the Australian government released $1,000,000 for the purchase of a masterpiece for the National Gallery of Australia. The then curator James Mollison chose the Jackson Pollock painting number 11 for the year 1952. It would later become Blue Poles. As the asking price was $1,300,000, the prime minister Gough Whitlam approved the extra cash for the purchase. The result caused a major stir throughout the country. The price at the time was a world record for a contemporary American painting. Was abstract art worth such an outlandish price? One paper screamed "$1.3m for dribs and drabs" while another bleated "'Barefoot drunks painted our $1 million masterpiece." The painting is now considered one of, if not the finest pieces of work ever produced by Jackson Pollock. Nobody knows it's present value. It can only be determined on the auction block, but as that probably won't happen any time soon, the best we can go is take a punt on the price. It's estimated that if offered, it would likely fetch somewhere between $20,000,000 - $100,000,000. please log in to view this image
I don't really know anything about Art other than what is aesthetically pleasing to my own eye or as I mentioned in an earlier post sometimes a piece sparks an emotion from me. But I have to say I really don't get Pollack or Picasso. I guess that's the point though isn't it. Always wished I could draw/paint, I find it fascinating what people can create with just a pencil or a brush
