Lord, I really miss GG.

someone had to say it!

Wake me up when this thread is over... the amount of sociology shit I had to read at uni is not worth the ipad it was displayed on, wait, we didn't have the material cultural product then. I think we had paper.... yes, definitely paper.

The best way to understand one generation moving to the next in the fact a young bird will imitate its elders calls, but change or add notes to the song. I don't think we are ever any different than that. The mainstream is the thing that has to have a succession, which then is soaked up back into the mainstream, and then this repeats. Life in flux.

Actually, I've met this thread with as much contempt as Andy met my colour wheel, and I said on that, just because someone doesn't care for something, doesn't then mean, that topic or subject doesn't deserve development of ideas or contemplation. So as to not go against what I said, I'm going to bow out and not do what Andy does to me when I take interest in something he doesn't regard. You go for it guys, I'm be in the corner with my colour swatches and dunce hat. Maybe they'll even give me a ball to bounce.

And maybe I'll join you and we can bounce the ball to each other and then maybe others will join and we'll make a little game of it and then we'll have our own little counter culture before we know it.

Actually that sounds like a plan. Dungeons and Dragons anyone?

Last edited by Liam Mac (2012-02-03 11:29:57)

Sooner or later we'll all be washing our Yams in the sea.

I'm not, I'm just saying I don't care about sociology or to some degree history, I'm really not like you, in that sense. So when you derive or think its clever to appear above what it is I'm discussing, and I do the same in return, then I'm doing exactly what you do to me, which I find to be the most annoy thing you do, and I don't what to be like that or fall into that trap.


Something you think is terribly easy to contemplate or work with, I believe is an incredibly deep subject you don't give credit to, and I'm not strictly talking colour in the Ivy world, just design generally. One of the best colourists of all time was Matisse, even the best bowed to him, he studied colour like it was a science, or an infinite set of options. Then you have Rothko attaching meaning to those colours, and expression and all those abstract expressionists.

To denounce it, seems silly to me. So for me to denounce you on something that probably has just as much depth, makes me a bit of a prick.

A prick with a colourwheel.

What we need is the equivalent of Ready Steady Cook, with clothes, Liam turns up with a bag of Ebay finds, then me and Andy struggle to create him the perfect outfit, against the clock, in front of a studio audience.

The way I see it Andy, is you've got some unfortunate strains going on in your life, and your using the forum to vent then indirectly, now as much as I like you, I'm just bored of it now mate.

I'm not. Lets get into this. I love a good slagging match. Someone have a go at me* and I'll counter.

*That effort in Andy's post doesn't count as it was just rubbish.

The ivy palette isn't limited because there are literally millions of colours, one blue shirt is not the same as another blue shirt. I tried to talk about CYMK, high-lights low-lights, mixed tones. I get mugged off, now if you knew anything about colour you'd now what I was on about, people can have and eye for colour or an ear for music. But it isn't the whole story, especially when you look to advance things. Most people with a natural gift get caught in repetition, their internal palette, others look to understand the borad use of it, this is what Picasso said of Matisse. Because Matisse took time to develop a deeper understanding, he could produce more interesting pieces than Picasso, who was a natural.