Ancient ROMAN SHOPPING CHARIOT

 

1. This exciting entry deserves a comment.

   “More hay, Trigger?” “No thanks, Roy, I’m stuffed.”

   Posted by Phoenix       05/19/2005  at  06:57 PM  



2. A self-styled art terrorist, is he?

   I once heard of a chap who had to paint several rooms in his house.  He used different colors in each room, but used the same protective canvas to cover floors and furniture.

   In the end, he took the gaudiest part of the canvas, framed it, hung an incomprehensible title on it, and sold it to some bimbo at a New York art show for two hundred and fifty grand.  This happened, supposedly, in the early 1970’s.

   I hope it’s the truth, for it’s too beautiful to be an urban legend.  And, considering the usual offerings at such shows, I can see how it could happen.  And if it did, now there is the smart kind of “art terrorist.”

   Has anyone else ever heard this story?

   

   Posted by Tannenberg       05/19/2005  at  08:51 PM  



3. It appears that the Brit Museum took the whole thing with good attitude and good grace. Something to be emulated.

   No, Tannenberg, I don’t recall having heard that story, but I tend to believe it. Unless it was in Newsweak, of course.

   Having seen what some call modern art, I find that I am singularly unappreciative of the form. Most of it looks like very little thought, work or art went into it. I do recall seeing a piece in the Albright Knox gallery that has stayed with me.

   I don’t recall the title, but it impressed me with its craftmanship. It was a yellow canvas where the color shaded smoothly from one end to the other. Whether or not it was art is arguable but it was definitely craftmanship.

   Posted by StinKerr       05/19/2005  at  09:37 PM  



4. Oh Gawd, I’m slow today. I had to see Pheonix’s comment three damn times before I got it.

   Posted by StinKerr       05/19/2005  at  09:39 PM  

Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.