« | Home | »

The Future of Exhibition Sponsorship

Tags: |

The LRB blog has been invited to an exclusive panel discussion at the Barbican next Thursday on ‘the Future of Kitchens’. It’s part of The Surreal House exhibition, which is disinterestedly sponsored by IKEA.

Comments on “The Future of Exhibition Sponsorship”

  1. Camus123 says:

    Who is invited? I’d like to be there and I’m sure that pinhut and AJP Crown would relish the opportunity to air their views on the future of kitchens.

  2. A.J.P. Crown says:

    As it happens I’m quite interested in the idea of surrealist architecture, mostly because not much was ever done with it — not by architects at any rate. Aldo Rossi alluded to DiChirico in some of his drawings, but that’s as far as he went. Then there’s a pink-covered book on architecture and film by … a woman who died, whose father worked for Harold Wilson; anyway, it mentions Bunuel. Other than that… I’m a bit worried by “everything that the rational, functional Modernist house is not”, that can’t be right. I don’t see any future for kitchens. Furry teacups is all in the past.

  3. A.J.P. Crown says:

    The Future of Exhibition Sponsorship
    Thomas, is there anything wrong with IKEA sponsoring ‘The Surreal House’ or ‘The Future of Kitchens’?

  4. alex says:

    why have a panel discussion when you can have a lino discussion? or even a worktop workshop.

  5. Fatema Ahmed says:

    And more from inside IKEA (from ‘Stealing Beauty’ by Guy Ben-Ner):

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8ygeihSPlk

  6. A.J.P. Crown says:

    For the one non-Guardian reader here, this works quite well with the surreal house.

Comment on this post

Log in or register to post a comment.


  • Recent Posts

    RSS – posts

  • Contributors

  • Recent Comments

    • andymartinink on Reacher v. Parker: Slayground definitely next on my agenda. But to be fair to Lee Child, as per the Forbes analysis, there is clearly a massive collective reader-writer ...
    • Robert Hanks on Reacher v. Parker: And in Breakout, Parker, in prison, teams up with a black guy to escape; another white con dislikes it but accepts the necessity; Parker is absolutely...
    • Robert Hanks on Reacher v. Parker: Parker may not have the integrity and honesty of Marlowe, but I'd argue that Richard Stark writes with far more of both than Raymond Chandler does: Ch...
    • Christopher Tayler on Reacher v. Parker: Good to see someone holding up standards. The explanation is that I had thoughts - or words - left over from writing about Lee Child. (For Chandler se...
    • Geoff Roberts on Reacher v. Parker: ..."praised in the London Review of Books" Just read the article on Lee Child in a certain literary review and was surprised to find this rave notice...

    RSS – comments

  • Contact

  • Blog Archive

  • From the LRB Archive

    Chris Lehmann: The Candidates
    18 June 2015

    ‘Every one of the Republican candidates can be described as a full-blown adult failure. These are people who, in most cases, have been granted virtually every imaginable advantage on the road to success, and managed nevertheless to foul things up along the way.’

    Hugh Pennington:
    The Problem with Biodiversity
    10 May 2007

    ‘As a medical microbiologist, for example, I have spent my career fighting biodiversity: my ultimate aim has been to cause the extinction of harmful microbes, an objective shared by veterinary and plant pathologists. But despite more than a hundred years of concentrated effort, supported by solid science, smallpox has been the only success.’

    Jeremy Harding: At the Mexican Border
    20 October 2011

    ‘The battle against illegal migration is a domestic version of America’s interventions overseas, with many of the same trappings: big manpower commitments, militarisation, pursuit, detection, rendition, loss of life. The Mexican border was already the focus of attention before 9/11; it is now a fixation that shows no signs of abating.’

    James Meek: When the Floods Came
    31 July 2008

    ‘Last July, a few days after the floods arrived, with 350,000 people still cut off from the first necessity of life, Severn Trent held its annual general meeting. It announced profits of £325 million, and confirmed a dividend for shareholders of £143 million. Not long afterwards the company, with the consent of the water regulator Ofwat, announced that it wouldn’t be compensating customers: all would be charged as if they had had running water, even when they hadn’t.’

Advertisement Advertisement