Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => But is it Art? => Topic started by: 32BT on July 31, 2017, 08:45:19 am
-
Top 5 of 2017 so far i guess unless it's seasonal or something. Don't really know since i don't frequent those circles (just yet?).
Article is in dutch but comprehensive readingskills aren't really required...
top 5 art (https://www.rtlnieuws.nl/geld-en-werk/extreem-dure-kunst-goed-verkocht-de-5-topdeals-van-2017)
-
Proves once again, Oscar, that Barnum was right.
-
Everything is worth what its purchaser will pay for it. -- Publilius Syrus or Leonard Nimoy ;D
-
I never thought I'd come to think this.
Idle money at this level, thrown into the pan after that kind of shit, added up, would buy so many hospital scanners, staff to use them and save so much misery due to lack of resources, lack of investment. And hey, that little list of five is just one of many.
If these people or companies have that sort of money to waste on that sort of rubbish, then tax the mothers a damned sight harder than they appear to be taxed! If they want to buy huge yachts, fine, it creates lots of jobs; ditto amazing houses, private jets, fancy cars. That is all money circulating and providing a lot of people with honest jobs. I think there is a difference.
As I indicated when I came in, I didn't think I'd ever see riches as obscenity.
Rob
-
It really is becoming a mad world with people spending huge amounts of money to buy "art" like this.
-
Pretty much this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dw5kme5Q_Yo
-
I think I'm going to slap a price tag of $200,000,000 on one of my randomly chosen prints.
Any takers?
-
A cogent question would be: Why do some people get concerned at what some people choose to do with their money?
-
It's more the question of how stories are created that allow some people to remove other people's money. It's why fraud is illegal, it's why most stock exchange trading is regulated with regard to insider trading and subject to transparent pricing... none of which apply to the art market.
-
It's more the question of how stories are created that allow some people to remove other people's money. It's why fraud is illegal, it's why most stock exchange trading is regulated with regard to insider trading and subject to transparent pricing... none of which apply to the art market.
That's an interesting slant on this issue. I would imagine it would be difficult to prove fraud in these cases.
-
That's an interesting slant on this issue. I would imagine it would be difficult to prove fraud in these cases.
Which brings us right back to the recent thread on Annie L's images being collected and claimed upon for tax benefits...
-
There is a world of difference between the world of photographic art and the world of academic fine art. For the most part art in the art world is bolstered by art historians, galleries and collectors who essentially participate in creating enough interest that museum curators deem the work important enough to be accessioned by some of the world's top museums. The Top 5 artists who created the works in the survey article are super well known in the art world and doubtless unknown by photographers, unless they have a fine art background or other historical perspective.
Remember, people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones. A lot of photographic art is belittled and looked down upon by the people who appreciate and buy such works as shown in the article. The Brancusi is immensely historical - he was (and is) called the father of Modern Sculpture, although sometimes that distinction is shared by Rodin. When a Brancusi bronze like that comes on the market, it is a rare thing indeed, and often museums and collectors vie for ownership. Perhaps the painting most ridiculed, (by Basquiat), was one which was instrumental in shaping the face of American culture during an important period in the development of American Art History. All those painters are big names - as big in the art world as Weston, et al, in the photographic world. Read a little bit about Basquiat here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-Michel_Basquiat This artist was no less committed to his art as you are to yours. He struggled to gain acceptance and actually did. The same can not be said of many photographers who work hard all their lives with little or no public acknowledgement.
There's a place for everything, and room enough in the world for art of all kinds, whether we like or understand it, appreciate it or not.
If you haven't studied art movements in America, haven't followed art history, then you just don't know anything about what is so easily criticized. You know as little about them as they do about you.
Live and let live. It's not as though photographic artists and galleries and collectors and museums are not trying to elevate the art of photography to similar levels of acceptance.
Perhaps one day fine art photography will come into its own in similar fashion. It is what many working today aspire to. Everybody's got a dream.
"Courage is the power to let go of the familiar."
-
Reading your post, Mark, makes me conclude that whilst you are defending (?) the art world and its 'heroes' you are, at the same time, entirely sceptical about the worth of any of it, and simply pleading for the 'artists' rights to do what they do. I would agree with the point about their right to do as they do, but not about values, relative or absolute.
Have an encyclopaedic knowledge of every name, and product of said name, whilst it denotes familiarity with the material and its maker, it doesn't equate with that product having or not having a real value distinct from its monetary valuation based on nothing more than commercial exploitation or opportunity, not mutually exclusive, one to the other.
The problem is so basic: while there is no definitive way of apportioning a true value upon anything such as art, there remains no valid way of verifying that value beyond the one conferred by investors or innocent buyers.
For example, if a person cannot afford a large, framed print by whoever, but does buy a much smaller one at a quarter of the price of the large one, does that mean that the same artwork has no intrinsic value of its own, and that only the paper and frame have a true value that can be measured with reference to the purchase price of the raw materials? Something coming out of a factory can be analysed and broken down into production costs, and priced for sale with a percentage applied to make the exercise sustainable and profitable. You can't do that with a 500th of a second.
The world of art is a mess, a conspiracy and game for those with too much time and money to play with - if there's such a thing as too much, which leads to another debate.
"Live and let live. It's not as though photographic artists and galleries and collectors and museums are not trying to elevate the art of photography to similar levels of acceptance.
Perhaps one day fine art photography will come into its own in similar fashion. It is what many working today aspire to. Everybody's got a dream."
Of course those galleries want to turn everything into money, and the more confusion and opaqueness they can spread the better; exactly as with electricity and mobile 'phone contracts...
-
Perhaps the painting most ridiculed, (by Basquiat), was one which was instrumental in shaping the face of American culture during an important period in the development of American Art History.
Or perhaps not. Robert Hughes certainly opined that he was utter rubbish. There were so many other things that were more visible than Basquiat's paintings, and so *might* have been more influential, and hence by the logic of preservation of historical artifacts more valuable. Why not the original tape of Warhol being given a blowjob under the table (was it Warhol or someone else at the Factory?) Surely that was more transgressive, breaking of homosexual taboos, linking on from Stonewall, the rise of video as an art form and marked a real change in mores and so culture. It's far less clear to me what Basquiat pointed to, let alone changed.
It keeps coming back to the same thing: there is no reliable measure of aesthetic quality, so art is worth what anyone will pay for it... which may include a very large proportion due to its value as a tool for money laudering, tax evasion or pure speculation (ie gambling). Why not a poker chip or a print-out of the list of the companies comprising one of the stock-exchange indices in 1985? Because no one certified by the hype machine chose to sprinkle his magic artist's urine on them.
-
Or perhaps not. Robert Hughes certainly opined that he was utter rubbish. There were so many other things that were more visible than Basquiat's paintings, and so *might* have been more influential, and hence by the logic of preservation of historical artifacts more valuable. Why not the original tape of Warhol being given a blowjob under the table (was it Warhol or someone else at the Factory?) Surely that was more transgressive, breaking of homosexual taboos, linking on from Stonewall, the rise of video as an art form and marked a real change in mores and so culture. It's far less clear to me what Basquiat pointed to, let alone changed.
It keeps coming back to the same thing: there is no reliable measure of aesthetic quality, so art is worth what anyone will pay for it... which may include a very large proportion due to its value as a tool for money laudering, tax evasion or pure speculation (ie gambling). Why not a poker chip or a print-out of the list of the companies comprising one of the stock-exchange indices in 1985? Because no one certified by the hype machine chose to sprinkle his magic artist's urine on them.
Thanks! Now I understand why the interest in the High Table. Never did trust those studious fellows.
-
OK guys, I must have stumbled into the wrong room. Big mistake.
I'll go check door number 3.
Caviar Empire, Crappy Day Um, Soc Et Tuem and all that -
Don't worry, there will be other idiots that will also come along and y'all can mug and run them off as well.
Carry on gents.
-
The prices for works by name artists are closely bound to the needs of high net worth individuals for places to store money.
It's a form of safe deposit box. Much like NY real estate. http://www.432parkavenue.com no one actually lives there. They've just deposited money somewhere relatively safe.
-
OK guys, I must have stumbled into the wrong room. Big mistake.
I'll go check door number 3.
Caviar Empire, Crappy Day Um, Soc Et Tuem and all that -
Don't worry, there will be other idiots that will also come along and y'all can mug and run them off as well.
Carry on gents.
What are you talking about?
Rob C
-
The prices for works by name artists are closely bound to the needs of high net worth individuals for places to store money.
It's a form of safe deposit box. Much like NY real estate. http://www.432parkavenue.com no one actually lives there. They've just deposited money somewhere relatively safe.
Yep, that's how it appears to me, too. The only probem is this: if those rich folks suddenly need the money and nobody wants to buy the art, then the pyramid collapses like the rest of them ultimately do. Lots of pretty pictures (hopefully) sitting in vaults or on wallls, but the bills might still have to go unpaid. Of course, it could also be the perfect moment to step in and take advantage of the distress sale, in a sort of last rich man standing takes all, scenario. Interesting; I wonder if it has ever been arranged?
It's tough out there. It's tough in here, apparently.
;-)
Rob
-
I'm surprised that members of this forum seem to have not heard of Brancusi, Klimt, Twombly and Basquiat. They are very famous artists. Their work is deserving of high prices.
-
Pretty much this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dw5kme5Q_Yo
Thanks for that link to "Adam Ruins Everything" A great series. Shocking and hilarious. Always a good combination.
-
I'm surprised that members of this forum seem to have not heard of Brancusi, Klimt, Twombly and Basquiat. They are very famous artists. Their work is deserving of high prices.
You omitted the word "some".
There are high prices and then nonsensical ones, where artistic value no loger pertains but rarity, hype and markets do.
Just as, one could say, with people who play with balls for a living.
-
So what's the solution? A legal cap on the price paid for art?
-
So what's the solution? A legal cap on the price paid for art?
Clearly not... but some form of transparency of pricing, such as the need to validate that the price bid at an auction was actually paid, and that the art work changed hands, would be a start. The practice of taking bids from trees used to be rife in real-estate auctions, but is gradually being stamped out.
As for the argument that "high prices are justified"... by what? If it was actually for the aesthetic value of the work, it would not be changed by the vital status of the artist, Brancusi never received 10's of millions for any of his statues. Klimt lived comfortably and was able to return the commission received from the Austrian government for his hospital series once it became clear that the works would be hidden... but he never received anything remotely similar to current prices. $100 milion for a single painting, if it went to the artist, would mean that neither he nor his children nor grand-children would ever need to work again. Is the contribution of one Basquiat really worth the life-time earnings of 10-20 leading scientists?
On those grounds, you'd have to imagine that the value is not just abou the pleasure of admiring the painting (which could be obtained from a carefully made print or copy), but related to other factors...
-
I am still not appreciating the problem of people choosing to spend their money on what they want to buy.
What justifies the high price of some art? The fact that someone will choose to purchase that art at that high price. If the price is "too high" no one will buy it.
How high is "too high"? That is entirely up to the subjective judgement of the potential buyer. What is too high for one may be just right for another.
-
Is the contribution of one Basquiat really worth the life-time earnings of 10-20 leading scientists?
Art has filled the space left by religion. Science does not have much to offer here.
-
I am still not appreciating the problem of people choosing to spend their money on what they want to buy.
As a thought experiment: you work for a company that builds submarines, aircraft or some other expensive object. In attempting to sell these to the government of a not-particularly-wealthy country, you find it will be necessary to provide a retro-commission to the minister of defense (ie you jack up the price $20 million and slip it back under the counter).
Is there a problem with that?
The parallel comes from my argument that people are not buying aesthetic objects, they are buying instruments of tax evasion or money laundering...
-
Art had filled the space left by religion. Science does not have much to offer here.
Um, art was fuelled by religion for centuries; I don't think the religious quotient of the very rich has much to do with the price of the "art" they buy.
I'm mystified by the relevance of science here, but the relative value of the scientists seems clear enough to me.
Rob
-
As a thought experiment: you work for a company that builds submarines, aircraft or some other expensive object. In attempting to sell these to the government of a not-particularly-wealthy country, you find it will be necessary to provide a retro-commission to the minister of defense (ie you jack up the price $20 million and slip it back under the counter).
Is there a problem with that?
Yeah, that sounds illegal. I would have a problem with that.
Not understanding how this would relate to people choosing to buy stuff with their own money though. I am not following your analogy there.
Someone goes to buy art and they think
1. I really like the way this looks, take my money!
2. I think this may appreciate in value so I am willing to speculate (assume risk) on the purchase, take my money!
3. or a combination of both
Can someone please explain what the concern is? I am honestly not finding one.
-
Hard to put an objective fair price on something when it's being bought to feed an ego. Other than the tax avoidance angle, it's not much different than a designer t-shirt, is it? Why do people spend more for a t-shirt with a logo on it than one without? To show off to friends, to show off to themselves, etc.
But that may be unfair. It could very well be that the buyers see something in some works that others don't. No law against that and no a priori reason to doubt it. Lots of people didn't like rock and roll when it first appeared. And if the tax avoidance is the reason, then those cases should be investigated tax as fraud, no reason to blame popularity of an artist on that.
I would be a bit happier if there were a "royalty" paid to the original artist on subsequent sales of a work of art. We have royalties on music, so why not art? Maybe we should have royalties on 2nd hand book sales. It's probably only due to arbitrary reasons why we have one and not the other. Adams ruins everything has a video about why car dealerships are so bad to deal with (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeDOQpfaUc8 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeDOQpfaUc8)), which strikes me as similar. That retail sector is a closed shop, and there is no good reason for it other than someone wanted to do it that way and we let them.
More generally, is this worth getting upset over? The number of such sales are minuscule and don't really affect that many people, including the few of us reading this thread. It may affect us in the sense that prices are then inflated for museums, who may have legitimate educational or archival reasons for purchasing some artists' works. OTOH, museums who want to clear out their inventory may find price inflation convenient.
-
Yeah, that sounds illegal. I would have a problem with that.
Not understanding how this would relate to people choosing to buy stuff with their own money though. I am not following your analogy there.
Someone goes to buy art and they think
1. I really like the way this looks, take my money!
2. I think this may appreciate in value so I am willing to speculate (assume risk) on the purchase, take my money!
3. or a combination of both
Can someone please explain what the concern is? I am honestly not finding one.
The concern is a great deal wider than the crazy money-people spending it; the concern also relates to the students who are studying art, think they have a reasonable talent and chance of surviving off that skill, and will almost surely have the shit kicked out of their dreams when the reality of the business hits them in the face. They will be lucky to land a job as teachers, a sort of eternal childhood for them, a chain to the education business rather than a flight of freedom through art. Of course, there will always be those for whom the little sinecure will be just dandy. The distortions of money corrupt everything, and the playing fields will not only be far from level, they will mostly be invisible but to a tiny handful of shakers and movers.
And some think commercial photography can be difficult?
Rob
-
... Is the contribution of one Basquiat really worth the life-time earnings of 10-20 leading scientists?...
Is that your inner Marxist speaking? ;)
-
Is that your inner Marxist speaking? ;)
Nah, my inner jealous scientist (Jealousy is the motor of historical analysis ;) )
-
Yeah, that sounds illegal. I would have a problem with that.
Not understanding how this would relate to people choosing to buy stuff with their own money though. I am not following your analogy there.
Using the purchased art to avoid taxes means it is not "their own money."
Using the purchased art to launder money obtained through illegal acivity means it is not "their own money."
-
Art has filled the space left by religion. Science does not have much to offer here.
You mean in the tradition of a wealthy elite using invented myths to take money from the poor?
Art at least usually leaves the poor alone, except for motivating naive artists to believe they can one day make it big on the strength of their talent.
-
I mean that people turn to art for spiritual nourishment once god has left the building; our galleries are packed, whilst our churches are empty (at least here in the UK).
For this art to be made, we need art schools and art markets.
Or perhaps it would be better if art were prohibited?
-
I mean that people turn to art for spiritual nourishment once god has left the building; our galleries are packed, whilst our churches are empty (at least here in the UK).
For this art to be made, we need art schools and art markets.
Or perhaps it would be better if art were prohibited?
From where do you draw the conclusion that folks turn to art for spiritual nourishment instead of staying within the bounds of religion? I don't see any obvious indication that anything has filled the vacuum once occupied by religion - at least, nothing that suggests a swap has taken place. Rather has religion, in the sense of church-going-as-measure, simply fallen by the proverbial wayside, whether en route to Damascus or elsewhere. Neither do I conclude that religion, as a personal philosophy, has really gone anywhere far; I think it has morphed into a quiet, personal and non-denominational form of belief in "something better" than the crass values of this necessarily money-led civilisation we've made for our collective selves.
If there is any identifiable new medium of worship, I think it could well be the humble cellphone, examples of which get far more fondling than any number of rosaries that I've ever seen at any time. Quite what the creeds or beliefs people derive from those toys/weapons of war is moot.
But I sure don't see art stepping into the breach; paying a visit to a gallery some wet afternoon doesn't signify a radical shift towards a nation of art lovers. It probably just means a change of tea rooms in which to while away the time. A cheap date, even.
Rob
-
From where do you draw the conclusion that folks turn to art for spiritual nourishment instead of staying within the bounds of religion?
I was thinking of the Tate Modern at one end of the Millennium Bridge, and St Paul's Cathedral at the other. The Tate Modern surely has the greater footfall. Whilst not everyone who visits the Tate gains much in the way of spiritual sustenance - as you suggest, it's a popular dating spot - I believe that many visitors are seeking in art the "something better" that you refer to. I've had my fair share of spiritual experiences in front of paintings in art galleries (Manet, Munch, Pollock, Rothko, Twombly) and I can only imagine that my fellow visitors are seeking the same thing.
-
I was thinking of the Tate Modern at one end of the Millennium Bridge, and St Paul's Cathedral at the other. The Tate Modern surely has the greater footfall. Whilst not everyone who visits the Tate gains much in the way of spiritual sustenance - as you suggest, it's a popular dating spot - I believe that many visitors are seeking in art the "something better" that you refer to. I've had my fair share of spiritual experiences in front of paintings in art galleries (Manet, Munch, Pollock, Rothko, Twombly) and I can only imagine that my fellow visitors are seeking the same thing.
Ah! temporary buzzes! In that case, I agree with your stance; I'd imagined you meant something truly life-changing or life-sustaining, as religion has been for many, especially the poor, for whom it can provide a present happiness not available in earthly terms.
The only way I see art capable of that sort of power is if you are already an artist yourself, in which case, it will rule your life. (You, as in 'one'.)
Rob
-
I'm not getting a 'buzz' from Rothko. His paintings are meditations on death. Similar spiritual feelings with Cezanne. His paintings are studies of becoming.
Sure, some of the work I enjoy is 'buzzy' (Bridget Riley, Pollock), but there's more to modern painting than visual effects.
-
I'm not getting a 'buzz' from Rothko. His paintings are meditations on death. Similar spiritual feelings with Cezanne. His paintings are studies of becoming.
Sure, some of the work I enjoy is 'buzzy' (Bridget Riley, Pollock), but there's more to modern painting than visual effects.
Let me be honest. If that's how he strikes you, do yourself a favour and don't go back.
I've seen enough death and, chronologically at least, am not realistically that distant from it myself; there is nothing worth meditating about death. It comes to us all, we can't avoid it, and in the meantime, it fucks up everything you love most. Keep away from it as best you can; stop thinking about it and live whilst life is still with you. None of us knows what - if anything - comes later. That's where personal faith, as distinct from any prescribed faiths, has its own value. I no longer fear death, though I certainly fear pain.
The best one can do is never to forget the wonderful times that have lightened our souls now and again; know that without life we would never have had those moments, and that we know nothing - none of us - and that what will be will be. Maybe it's a doorway to the best we ever hoped for in life and probably never achieved. If it's a step to nothing, we'll never know. It might even be the entrance to something never imagined. But don't dwell on something that can't be changed. That is a waste of time/life. (No pun etc.)
Rob
-
Seems we've reached a dead end.
-
Seems we've reached a dead end.
;-)
-
The Art Gallery of NSW has three large Twombly paintings that they make a prominent display of. It is nice to think that they could flog them off and buy quite a decent bit of Australian art.
Cheers,
-
The Art Gallery of NSW has three large Twombly paintings that they make a prominent display of. It is nice to think that they could flog them off and buy quite a decent bit of Australian art.
Cheers,
Why would they do that?
Rob
-
The Twombleys (https://media.artgallery.nsw.gov.au/collection_images/2/239.2004.a-c%23%23S.jpg). They are studies, surely we could flog off two and actually buy finished paintings.
Replaced by William Robinson, Fred Williams or Sidney Nolan paintings perhaps?
Just saying,
-
Money gets circulated. Wealth gets spent. The seller or his children that he leaves the money to eventually builds a house that provides work for Architects and engineers and bricklayers and electricians etcetera. Taxes are paid on the profits made by the seller and the seller's agent lowering the taxes you have to pay. It's really nobody's business what people spend their money on.
-
An interesting article on the monetary value of art across centuries:
"Is Da Vinci’s ‘Salvator Mundi’ Worth $450 Million or $454,680?"
https://blogs.wsj.com/moneybeat/2017/11/16/is-da-vincis-salvator-mundi-worth-450-million-or-454680/
-
Money gets circulated. Wealth gets spent. The seller or his children that he leaves the money to eventually builds a house that provides work for Architects and engineers and bricklayers and electricians etcetera. Taxes are paid on the profits made by the seller and the seller's agent lowering the taxes you have to pay. It's really nobody's business what people spend their money on.
Since when has somebody being stung for selling something ultra expensive ever reduced taxation on Joe Bloggs or even, come to think of it, John Doe?
That's wishful thinking based on fantasy mushrooms.
Taxation swings on political expediency and electioneering promises. Nada mad.
-
Since when has somebody being stung for selling something ultra expensive ever reduced taxation on Joe Bloggs or even, come to think of it, John Doe?
That's wishful thinking based on fantasy mushrooms.
Taxation swings on political expediency and electioneering promises. Nada mad.
Of course, one person's taxes isn't going to effect the entire country. It's cumulative. In the US, the top 5% of income producers pay around 60% of the taxes. The $400 million is taxed as a capital gain. I don't know what the seller paid originally for the art. Let's say $100 million. So his $300 million profit means he'll pay 15% capital gain or $45 million, leaving aside expenses. The agent who made $50 million will pay 38% business taxes after deductions and expenses. There also may be state and other local taxes depending on where he and the agent live.
Of course, tax rates are a political decision. But it's based to a large extent on how much the treasury figures it can get in taxes from the different income groups, capital gains, etc. The more the higher income groups pay, the less the lower income groups have to pay.
-
Of course, one person's taxes isn't going to effect the entire country. It's cumulative. In the US, the top 5% of income producers pay around 60% of the taxes. The $400 million is taxed as a capital gain. I don't know what the seller paid originally for the art. Let's say $100 million. So his $300 million profit means he'll pay 15% capital gain or $45 million, leaving aside expenses. The agent who made $50 million will pay 38% business taxes after deductions and expenses. There also may be state and other local taxes depending on where he and the agent live.
Of course, tax rates are a political decision. But it's based to a large extent on how much the treasury figures it can get in taxes from the different income groups, capital gains, etc. The more the higher income groups pay, the less the lower income groups have to pay.
(I don't know how to highlight a sentence on this iPad, so I just have to refer to your last sentence.)
No, the more the highest pay, the more the exchequer wins; the lower incomes pay whatever the politicians think they can screw from them and still collect vote payback. The tax man likes nobody; his needs are insatiable because so are voter expectations which, in turn, are pushed his way to fulfil.
The dream of low taxes for Joe Public because Mr Zillionaire is paying more is hogwash. There are not that many of them. The real problem is unreal expectation based on a conditioned belief that somebody else should be obliged to carry your own tab. It's as unreal or unworkable as setting taxation at, say, 15% for everyone. Anyway, it isn't really the high-earning individual who can be the villain, the problem can be the way that companies are able to operate; one really shouldn't confuse the company with its founder and/or main shareholder. There are rules governing company behaviour, and plenty of tiny states willing to house their nominal headquarters and give stupidly low tax rates in exchange. Think recent events in Ireland. Laws exist, but bending them is an art that reaps big rewards, and ignoring demands to collect unpaid dues is also less than an honest way of cooperating with the world.
I'm no leftie, but abuses on such a level are more than just some little guy trying to save a few bucks for his retirement by doing the odd number without paperwork. Back to that 15 % not always being the same thing when talking matters of scale and result.
-
OK guys, I must have stumbled into the wrong room. Big mistake.
I'll go check door number 3.
Caviar Empire, Crappy Day Um, Soc Et Tuem and all that -
Don't worry, there will be other idiots that will also come along and y'all can mug and run them off as well.
Carry on gents.
I heartily agree Mark,
I have been visiting this site for many years. Several before I even registered. I registered because I felt that it had value. It seems to be loosing it's way. I too am afraid to open the door at times, afraid of what i may find. Civility has left I am sad to say. It appears that there are users who are determined to be sarcastic at any cost.
Open doors carefully, Ray