Art is culture, right?

Pogs

I am EXACTLY referring to the coverage of war and the romanticising of it by the media. I also should have made it clear that I agree with some of what he said, not all, same as I agree with some of what the opposing camps say. Never have I said that my beliefs were predicated on war=wrong so therefore a poppy=wrong. You made that assumption.

It can be forgotten not thought of an incapability of a person to empathise with its full horror but I do not see that as being sanitised unless you were predisposed to any of the mentioned - not quite sure what this means.

You don't address the failure of government to adequately fund rehab and the myriad of other areas fundamental to good forces. I would say that the major discrediting and disregard is not by people like me but by the government and those that mindlessly buy their poppies and fail to address the terrible treatment of service people by the government who wheel them out when it suits them reinforce theirplatitude filled speeches. I find it sad that a lot of these 'patriots' with your poppies appear to care very little about that. Listen to Harry Smith on the matter. He knows what he is talking about.

I'm confused Millers Tale.

You state "I think the poppy has been politically hijacked", yet you agree with the Guardian's Art Critic Jonathan Jones who went out of his way to politicise the display.

I am heartily fed up with the much used term that 'war has been sanitised', it hasn't to me but perhaps that's because I read, watch footage, manage to think in a way that allows me to empathise, understand, feel the horrors, see the horrors in a vivid way.

How the hell can war, destruction, death, abject misery be sanitised?

It can be forgotten, not thought of, an incapability of a person to empathise with it's full horror but I don't see that as being sanitised, unless you were predisposed to any of the mentioned but I don't think any rational thinking person is and I most certainly do not imply any one poster is on this thread before anybody feels I am making a personal attack about their ability to empathise.

The only area I could go along with using the term 'sanitised' would be in the footage shown on our current news coverage where the sight of blood has practically been irradicated and I have to admit to having two minds on that matter.

There are constant reminders of war and it's downright gruesome aspects. That ranges from seeing veterans undergoing rehabilitation through loosing limbs etc, school children studying the subject at a level that respects their age to the news coverage of the Palestine/Israel conflict, Boko Haram attrocities, Syrian war, ISIS beheadings and crucifixion of innocent people, I need not go on.

It is obvious the poppy has a different meaning to all of us but I just feel so utterly saddened that such a thing of worth, meaning and good intention can be so discredited, why?, just to make a point that war is wrong, well guess what it doesn't take a b----y genious to work that out but it takes a nation to get behind the empathy of those who have sacrificed their life irrespective of the rights or wrong.

I remember Joan Bakewell last year declaring it was the first year she had ever worn a poppy. I never really did understand why she had a change of heart but her words were typical of the mantra and I found it hollow, soulless and to be frank of little consequence, the same as mine will be to those who dislike anything to do with remembrance poppies.

and ServiceWOMEN- I shouldn't have used the term 'servicemen'.

I don't disagree.

I think the poppy has been politically hijacked, war has been sanitised and Wilfred Owen would agree with him.

The poppy campaign also allows the government and armed forces to shirk their responsibility to serving and former servicemen by encouraging charity to support them.

There is a paucity of mental health support for veterans, properly funded rehabilitation for serving and post serving, interference with pensions, pathetic maintenance of forces accommodation, little help with reintegration back into civvy street.....

Governments prat about with Jingoistic demonstrations of gratitude whilst treating the servicepeople like crap and these art installations sadly are part of this.

They are (Opium) poppies for the masses, designed to distract from the real issues.

I hope he reads that, POGS.

I have no idea at all what it has to do with UKIP, can't see the connection whatsoever. Does that mean the RBL Poppy Appeal which raises funds every year is something to do with UKIP? No. Does that mean the Royal Festival of Remembrance attended by the Queen each year is organised by UKIP? No.

Jonathan Jones is a very narrow-minded and imo ill-educated person. In fact, the Guardian should be ashamed to employ him.

I am not particularly an arty farty type of person, I know what I like when I see it, not because somebody tells me I should like it. Hence art critics have possibly the most useless job in the world for me.

Infact critics of any kind whether it be art, films, books are a bit like the Emperors New Clothes syndrome to me. I think there are levels however and reading a t.v. mag review is not in the same league as somebody who delves into a subject with a hint of narcasissism in their critique because 'nobody could possibly argue with me darling'.

The poppy display has captured imagination in a constructive manner and for some whatever is done in the name of remembrance it will never be satisfactory, have any worth etc. because we all hold views which will vary.

The poppy display wouldn't appeal to some because of their view and I for one can't help but think using the poppy display to critique it's value as an art installation was just another way to make a statement on his view of rembrance rather than giving a toss about the display itself.

So Mr. Jonathan Jones of the Guardian. When you 'tell' us "This UKIP Type Memorial Demeans Us All' you can stick your comment up your right royal cultural elite jacksie as far as I am concerned and if that upsets the left wing, Quakers, Uncle Tom Cobley and all so be it because your words are upsetting to others too.

Does the fact that the installation of poppies is so popular mean it's a bit low brow, and part of popular culture, rather than "proper art" ?

Jonathan Jones seems to think so.

Is the display of poppies 'art'? Were all the flowers planted on verges and roundabouts this year art? I don't know the answer to that one, but I do know that it is beautiful, symbolic and moving and this is why the moat of the Tower of London is a fitting place for this display:

www.hrp.org.uk/TowerOfLondon/stories/firstworldwar/recruitment-troops

I think Jonathan Jones entirely misses the point and I still think he is a pretentious plonker but I think what Iain Dale said could have been expressed much better!

It was a time when the Commonwealth stood together unlike today when we seem to have abandoned them in favour of a country we were once at war with. Times move on and we should forgive if not forget, but I do think this is an ironic situation.

We commemorate Gallipoli in our town as well as Remembrance Sunday and Remembrance Day, and we have been to an Anzac Day commemoration in a small town Australia where, the young and old all came together to remember.

Surely art is in the eye of the beholder - what someone will think is beautiful, moving and thought-provoking will leave someone else cold. I do think that some art critics and others who avidly follow their thoughts will decree that a load of old rubbish is 'art' and anyone who dares to disagree is not 'cultured', educated or intelligent. A case of the Emperor's new clothes in many case imo.

MiceElf If Jonathan Jones thinks the poppies at the Tower is just a British memorial, he is mistaken. It is also a memorial to the colonial soldiers who died in World War I. Yesterday was the anniversary of the establishment of the ANZACs, many of whom fought, suffered and died in what was essentially a European war. The Governor General of New Zealand, or whatever he was called then, agreed to provide a stated number of white New Zealand volunteers and a stated number of Maoris, who had even less to do with "poor little Belgium" or Gallipoli than their pakeha counterparts. It didn't have much to do with Canadian or Indian soldiers either.

It's certainly captured the imagination, I know quite a few people who travelled to London especially to see it. They all said it was a wonderful and touching experience.

Its made an impact on many young people just by the numbers of the poppies. It could be considered a history lesson in art. Family members have visited and say there were discussions amongst groups looking at the display about the war. I think it really brings home the individuality of those who died - and what the numbers quoted actually look like.

I've just looked at today's Guardian and Jones has written a long, much more nuanced article, defending his view.

It's well argued and he references some of his own family members, but he's on shaky ground I think.

There are thousands of people who are very familiar with the story and horror of that war but he fails to acknowledge that he is not the only one who has a knowledge of history or who is able to empathise with anyone who has suffered the horrors of war.

He also laments that this is is just a British memorial. Well yes, this is Britain. The other combatant nations have their own commemorations and will remember in their own way. To remember the dead of this nation is not synonymous with ignoring the dead of others.

His original article was short, snappy and intemperate, I think he's dug a big hole by positioning himself as he has, and he's now trying to justify himself.

Well said, Mice. The article in question was a piece of élitist arty snobbery.

I've just read the original article. Jones makes a number of valid points about the display. The thrust of his argument is that the ceramic poppies prettify the horrors of war and the dreadful reality is sanitised.

That, I think is a fair point.

Where I think he is wrong, is his attitude towards the thousands who come to see the installation in asserting that they are unaware of, or indifferent to, the nasty reality.

I'm not at all sure that is the case. Every day our screens are filled with the horrors of man's inhumanity to man and I don't think that people are so ignorant or insensitive that they fail to make the connection.

Every one of those poppies was nominated by a descendant of someone killed in that war. Each has an individual story and those who nominated will have researched that person and be very familiar with the circumstances of their death.

Jones also laments that the crowds were not at the Kiefer exhibition.

Well, no. It's costs £15 to attend at the RA and whilst I agree that this is heart stopping - one of the most extraordinary exhibitions I've ever seen - it's not so readily accessible or well known.

That's just a fact, and those who are moved by one piece of art should not be sneered at because they have failed to visit another.

I'd have thought it was the other way round!

Nothing particularly pretentious in Iain Dale's opinion as quoted in the OP. Of course, I'm not familiar with Jonathan Jones's usual style (not being a Guardian reader).

We all know what the poppies symbolise. At least most of us do so it is sad that some people are treating it as a fun day out and/or merely an art display.

I am so pleased that someone has brought the poppies and all they mean to the public's attention. I do realise that once a year many will buy a poppy and the money does go to help service and ex-service personnel and their families, and this year should be more thought-provoking than ever. The money raised does not go to just service personnel themselves, it helps the whole family, so the RBL Poppy Appeal is more far-reaching than some other charities.

It is also extremely difficult, in our area at least, to find any younger people who are in the least bit interested in helping with the Poppy Appeal - in a year or so we will find that there is absolutely nobody who wants to take on this once-a-year appeal if younger people do not come forward.

So in my opinion the more attention that is brought to this the better.
No, I don't think the poppy display should stay there until 11.11.18 - they have been purchased by people and should be despatched to those people after 11th November this year. Perhaps another similar display will be undertaken in four years' time and more funds raised for this worthwhile charity.

I wouldn't use the word that Iain Dale used, but I would say that the description which Jonathan Jones used - fake, trite and inward looking probably applies to Jonathan Jones himself. Pretentious plonker would be more my description.

Art is so subjective. One person's art is another's mawkish twaddle, and always has been - look at the green lady that so many people used to have a print of in their sitting-rooms. As soon as a work of art becomes much loved by the masses, it ceases to be art because the critics start to doubt their own taste. As in - if Joe Bloggs loves it, it can't be tasteful.

Much as I loved the poppies when they started to flow, I think there are too many of them now. It no longer looks graceful. I think it was a work of art, but has ceased to be one.

And I'm with jings about remembrance day. I know it's the anniversary year, but I do think many, many people have gone over the top with it. Yes, the war ended, and it was celebrated then. The quiet remembrance works for me, but not the almost carnival atmosphere that some seem determined to revive.

I think MrsP should have her own thread!

Mrs. P said I shouldn't be afraid of the C & T words, if I'm thinking them I might as well say them, so here goes :-

Christmas & Turkey

Not wishing to use the T or C words, both of which are horrid.

BUT I do agree with the sentiments, and staying in the same neck of the woods anatomically and not being sexist, the guy is just an a----hole.

Only seen the poppies from a coach, but I was moved by the experience, certainly a work of art in my book.

There are also two meanings listed for the 'c' word, one of which is "an unpleasant or stupid person", but I don't think that would make it any more acceptable to use in general conversation...

I have just checked the dictionary definition of 'twat' and it seems to have two meanings the second of which is 'contemptible person'. That was what I always thought it meant but was taken to task a few years ago when I used it in that context. Pleased to see I was right !

I'm with Eloethan on the use of the word "twat", disgusting word to use in any situation.

I don't agree with his view of the poppy installation either. I love it and can't see how it glorifies or "prettifies" the horrors of war. I hope it stays.