If you go someplace to look at a b*tthole...

By Margaret -
...you should at least be able to see it.

I took my Dad to see Picasso's Suite 347 exhibit at the Bass Museum last night. Once inside, my Dad immediately started to complain about the lighting. The lights were low to protect the art but if it were up to him he'd have brought a searchlight. He was so irritated that he asked the poor volunteer "is there someplace we can go to see the art?" Sheesh, Dad. (I noticed that these etchings were dirty as sin and wondered if the low lights were to hide all the private parts.)

After listening to Dad's ranting about being unable to see anything, I noticed there were pieces as high up as about the ten foot level. (Maybe they were the naughtiest ones?) We tried to look in the catalog, but they were tiny even in the book. It was a complete failure as far as he was concerned but we just kept laughing to ourselves like a pair of crazy bums loose in a smutty art shop.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more