Destroying artwork

kronckew · 18th May 2016, 05:17 PM

the fickle finger of fate writes, and moves on.

i myself possess no ivory objects d'art, that's my story and i'm sticking to it.

A. G. Maisey · 19th May 2016, 12:08 AM

I thank you for your explanation of the word "pussy" and "pussification", David.

When I complemented Ariel on his use of, and until you corrected my misunderstanding, his authorship of the word, I had taken its meaning to be something along the lines of "weak as a pussy is weak".

In the form of the English language that I have used in my day to day life, for all of my life, in polite conversation we understand the word pussy to mean a cat, most especially a young cat; the word "puss" preceded "pussy" in English usage, "pussy" is what we may think of as the diminutive of "puss". This usage dates back to the 16th century, and is still current usage.

But the word "pussy" has other very legitimate meanings as well. In the late 16th century it meant a girl or a woman --- and it was at that time not considered vulgar, but it did seem to have a sexual connotation, for example, one would not refer to an elderly dowager as a pussy, but would not hesitate to call an attractive girl or young woman a pussy.

In the 18th century it was understood as the proper name for a hare.

In the 19th century it was in common use in the lexicon of the nursery to refer to anything soft and furry. In fact, the term "pussy-cat" originated in nursery usage.

When I have problems in understanding the English Language, my habitual reference is The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary on Historical Principles, so after I read your explanation of the word "pussy", I turned to that source for clarification.

I could not find any entry that verified the use of this term to refer to a woman's genitals, so I turned to the on-line version of Oxford, which is about as up-to-date in terms of English usage as it is possible to get. What I found was this:-

noun (plural pussies)
1 informal A cat.
Example sentences
2 vulgar slang A woman’s genitals.
2.1 [mass noun] Women in general, considered sexually.
2.2North American informal A weak, cowardly, or effeminate man.

From this I can see that yes, when the word is used in a vulgar context, its meaning does agree with your explanation, however, in defence of Ariel's use of "pussification" I offer the opinion that at no time in this entire thread has anybody written in a way that could by any stretch of imagination be considered vulgar.

Thus, we must accept that Ariel was not writing in a vulgar way, rather, his use of language must be considered informal use, and once again, Oxford clarifies this position by telling us that in North America the word "pussy" means "A weak, cowardly, or effeminate man". Considered in the context of this discussion Ariel's use of the word "pussification" must be understood as informal English, and most certainly not vulgar English.

So words can be understood in different ways.

As Humpty Dumpty said:-
"When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more or less."

I offer that the same is true of understanding the meaning of a word:- we all understand what we read or hear in our own way. To Ariel, and to me, the word "pussification" had the meaning of a weakening of society, but to you the word had an entirely different meaning.

As I have commented above, the way in which a word can be understood varies during the passage of time.

During the 17th and 18th centuries in England, the word "occupy" was avoided in polite conversation, especially if that conversation took place in public. This was because at that time the word "occupy" meant "to have sex with". It was avoided in public because if overheard by the wrong person it could get you time in the stocks for the use of obscene language.

In fact, that master of the English language, William Shakespeare only used the word twice in all his writing, I believe it was once in Romeo & Juliet, and once in Henry IV.

But today the word "occupy" is about as inoffensive as a word can get.

The impact any word has depends upon two factors:- the intent of the person using the word, and the understanding of the person hearing or reading it.

I maintain that Ariel is innocent of any vulgar use of language in his use of the word "pussification".

Bob A · 19th May 2016, 01:00 AM

In websites with which I am familiar, the words "wuss", "wussie" and constructs such as "wussification" are used as a less gender-specific synonym for those of a spineless, lily-livered, milquetoast, pro-appeasement sort of bent.

(If I may further occupy your attention, the verb "to spend" has had, in past, a remarkable definition that perhaps reflects in Freudian fashion the gratification one might achieve through one's financial transactions. The connection between the definitions is somewhat uncomfortable to contemplate).

"Vulgar" is only truly pejorative when used to denigrate the common run of mankind, by those who deem themselves superior; today, they would be the ones who are in the process of ruining two thousand years of civilisation, so called, while those they look upon as vulgar are more frequently concerned with its preservation.

ariel · 19th May 2016, 01:33 AM

Thanks Alan,

As usually, you are not pussyfooting! :-)))))))

But let's go back to tusks and horns ( please, no arguments about derivatives of the later word!)

I just looked briefly at the recent Czerny's catalogue: plenty of ivory, openly defined as such. If our paranoia is so real, how will they send it to the overseas customers? Why were they braver ( or less prudent) than Bonhams?

kai · 19th May 2016, 03:03 AM

Hello Ariel,

Quote:

I just looked briefly at the recent Czerny's catalogue: plenty of ivory, openly defined as such. If our paranoia is so real, how will they send it to the overseas customers? Why were they braver ( or less prudent) than Bonhams?

International auction houses (including Bonhams) continue to offer ivory pieces; they follow CITES procedures and can legally send items with the necessary papers to overseas customers. However, auctioned/traded African elephants' ivory can't enter nor leave the US due to self-imposed current legislation; also Bonhams SF will probably have to stop auctioning it when California laws change in July AFAIK.

I don't think we can blame Bonhams UK: From what I understand (from admittedly very limited info), this vandalism happened in transit and Bonhams just received the pieces as auctioned; they maybe should have declined to auction them but that is probably asking too much of a commercial enterprise.

At the very least, transferring these pieces across state borders was a really bad decision of the consignee; since this appears to have been a professional, it's hard to conceive this as anything but blatant ignorance and possibly greed. Once held up in transit, I'm not sure wether there even was the alternative option of donating the pieces to a museum rather than mutilating them. Maybe even no-one cared to consider/suggest such a move.

Regards,
Kai

kai · 19th May 2016, 03:21 AM

Just re-tweeting from page 1:
https://www.antiquestradegazette.com...ntiques-in-us/

estcrh · 21st June 2016, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kai

Just re-tweeting from page 1:
https://www.antiquestradegazette.com...ntiques-in-us/

How is this helping save elephants?

VANDOO · 21st June 2016, 03:04 PM

Next we will ban and destroy all types of wood to save the endangered trees. Stupid is as Stupid does is the reason why. It's not about saving anything its more about destroying things.

Roland_M · 30th June 2016, 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by estcrh

How is this helping save elephants?

It's more for the own guilty conscience than for the elephants.

What a world, we are destroying unique artworks to save elephants, which are died 100 years ago.

We destroy old, valuable and rare artworks to save the environment and at the same time we have three cars or more for one family.

Roland

19th May 2016, 12:08 AM	#2
A. G. Maisey Member Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 7,059	I thank you for your explanation of the word "pussy" and "pussification", David. When I complemented Ariel on his use of, and until you corrected my misunderstanding, his authorship of the word, I had taken its meaning to be something along the lines of "weak as a pussy is weak". In the form of the English language that I have used in my day to day life, for all of my life, in polite conversation we understand the word pussy to mean a cat, most especially a young cat; the word "puss" preceded "pussy" in English usage, "pussy" is what we may think of as the diminutive of "puss". This usage dates back to the 16th century, and is still current usage. But the word "pussy" has other very legitimate meanings as well. In the late 16th century it meant a girl or a woman --- and it was at that time not considered vulgar, but it did seem to have a sexual connotation, for example, one would not refer to an elderly dowager as a pussy, but would not hesitate to call an attractive girl or young woman a pussy. In the 18th century it was understood as the proper name for a hare. In the 19th century it was in common use in the lexicon of the nursery to refer to anything soft and furry. In fact, the term "pussy-cat" originated in nursery usage. When I have problems in understanding the English Language, my habitual reference is The Shorter Oxford English Dictionary on Historical Principles, so after I read your explanation of the word "pussy", I turned to that source for clarification. I could not find any entry that verified the use of this term to refer to a woman's genitals, so I turned to the on-line version of Oxford, which is about as up-to-date in terms of English usage as it is possible to get. What I found was this:- noun (plural pussies) 1 informal A cat. Example sentences 2 vulgar slang A woman’s genitals. 2.1 [mass noun] Women in general, considered sexually. 2.2North American informal A weak, cowardly, or effeminate man. From this I can see that yes, when the word is used in a vulgar context, its meaning does agree with your explanation, however, in defence of Ariel's use of "pussification" I offer the opinion that at no time in this entire thread has anybody written in a way that could by any stretch of imagination be considered vulgar. Thus, we must accept that Ariel was not writing in a vulgar way, rather, his use of language must be considered informal use, and once again, Oxford clarifies this position by telling us that in North America the word "pussy" means "A weak, cowardly, or effeminate man". Considered in the context of this discussion Ariel's use of the word "pussification" must be understood as informal English, and most certainly not vulgar English. So words can be understood in different ways. As Humpty Dumpty said:- "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more or less." I offer that the same is true of understanding the meaning of a word:- we all understand what we read or hear in our own way. To Ariel, and to me, the word "pussification" had the meaning of a weakening of society, but to you the word had an entirely different meaning. As I have commented above, the way in which a word can be understood varies during the passage of time. During the 17th and 18th centuries in England, the word "occupy" was avoided in polite conversation, especially if that conversation took place in public. This was because at that time the word "occupy" meant "to have sex with". It was avoided in public because if overheard by the wrong person it could get you time in the stocks for the use of obscene language. In fact, that master of the English language, William Shakespeare only used the word twice in all his writing, I believe it was once in Romeo & Juliet, and once in Henry IV. But today the word "occupy" is about as inoffensive as a word can get. The impact any word has depends upon two factors:- the intent of the person using the word, and the understanding of the person hearing or reading it. I maintain that Ariel is innocent of any vulgar use of language in his use of the word "pussification". Last edited by A. G. Maisey; 19th May 2016 at 02:32 AM. Reason: a missing letter

18th May 2016, 05:17 PM	#1
kronckew Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Room 101, Glos. UK Posts: 4,250	the fickle finger of fate writes, and moves on. i myself possess no ivory objects d'art, that's my story and i'm sticking to it.

19th May 2016, 01:00 AM	#3
Bob A Member Join Date: Feb 2014 Posts: 444	In websites with which I am familiar, the words "wuss", "wussie" and constructs such as "wussification" are used as a less gender-specific synonym for those of a spineless, lily-livered, milquetoast, pro-appeasement sort of bent. (If I may further occupy your attention, the verb "to spend" has had, in past, a remarkable definition that perhaps reflects in Freudian fashion the gratification one might achieve through one's financial transactions. The connection between the definitions is somewhat uncomfortable to contemplate). "Vulgar" is only truly pejorative when used to denigrate the common run of mankind, by those who deem themselves superior; today, they would be the ones who are in the process of ruining two thousand years of civilisation, so called, while those they look upon as vulgar are more frequently concerned with its preservation.

19th May 2016, 01:33 AM	#4
ariel Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Ann Arbor, MI Posts: 5,503	Thanks Alan, As usually, you are not pussyfooting! :-))))))) But let's go back to tusks and horns ( please, no arguments about derivatives of the later word!) I just looked briefly at the recent Czerny's catalogue: plenty of ivory, openly defined as such. If our paranoia is so real, how will they send it to the overseas customers? Why were they braver ( or less prudent) than Bonhams?

19th May 2016, 03:21 AM	#6
kai Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 3,255	Just re-tweeting from page 1: https://www.antiquestradegazette.com...ntiques-in-us/

21st June 2016, 03:04 PM	#8
VANDOO (deceased) Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: OKLAHOMA, USA Posts: 3,138	Next we will ban and destroy all types of wood to save the endangered trees. Stupid is as Stupid does is the reason why. It's not about saving anything its more about destroying things.