It’s a little difficult to see, but the thing that mom and dad are pushing is a stroller (see the cover of today’s New York Sun for a glorious half-page picture of the horse). Dad is cradling baby, hiding the exhibit from baby’s eyes. He is thus depriving baby of bringing to mind “apocalyptic thoughts.” Shame on him.
When I gaze upon the backside of the horse, I don’t know about you, but I see it as “a story of abandonment, regression, and rapture?an epic of humanity coming apart under the pressure of obscure forces and not-so-distant environmental disasters.”
Such a work of art is priceless, as will be obvious to all but the lowest Philistine, so I have been unable to find how much it costs. It might help to know that recently Damien Hirst’s similar work “Away From the Flock, Divided” (1995) went for just over $3 million. This daring art featured a “sheep, sliced in two and preserved in aqua-colored formaldehyde.”
I don’t know who it was that said that modern artists and the rich who buy their works are horse’s asses, but it’s obvious that this was a person of low education.
They are talking about a species of lizards called tuatara that live “on about 30 small islands in New Zealand?s north.” The disgusting, scaly creatures are in exile on those islands because they have everywhere else been “wiped out by predators.” No word on who or what these predators are or why the predators cannot follow the tuatara to the islands and thus continue their campaign of herpetological genocide.
Anyway, the lizards are about to go extinct and it’s all your fault. It seems that when the weather is hot, more male tuatara lizards are born than female lizards. And we all know what happens when there are more boy than girl lizards. It becomes impossible to get a date and procreate.
This “doomsday prediction”, we are told by researchers, is assured because of (what else?) global warming.
How do the researchers know this? Why, a computer told them so.
Previous computers did not tell them so, which forced the researchers to reprogram them, this time incorporating in their models “physics of heat transfer with terrain data.” Well, that is impressive. The researchers then “simulated climate change and then monitored its effect on specific points across the island.”
What they found was shocking: Rampant maleness, which naturally carries with it the consequence of enforced bachelorhood.
For those of you who are not as computer savvy as I, let me summarize. Researchers programmed a computer to show that when the temperature rises, fewer female lizards are born. They then told the computer that temperatures were in fact rising. The computer then said “fewer female lizards are born.”
The researchers pored over this result and came to the conclusion that “warmer temperatures caused by global warming imply fewer female lizards will be born.” They wrote this in a paper which was duly summarized at Nature. Science in action!
All might not be lost because, the researchers suggest, the lizards might be “translocated” ( = moved) to cooler climes. I just hope that those mysterious predators aren’t in the new translocations.
Another piece of data is in that shows money does not correlate with intelligence.
“Artist” Martin Creed (pictured above) created a “work” called 850, which he will exhibit at the well-known Tate Britain art gallery starting today.
The “work” consists of having joggers, once every thirty seconds, trot through the museum.
Yes, you read that right. Joggers, wearing shorts and looking like they came from the park, will run lightly through a hall or two in the name of “art.”
Guardian writer Adrian Searle claims that the wonderful thing about this “art” is “that it is gloriously pointless.” It’s not surprising the paper should feel that way, since much of its reporting falls into this category. Searle argues that people should not try to decide whether 850 is “art” but “whether the work captures the imagination, whether it gives pleasure and makes people think.”
So, on this theory, I could put a certain piece of Mr Searle’s anatomy in a vice and start to twist, an act which is certainly imaginative and would give me some pleasure. It would also cause Searle to do some serious thinking. But would he call it art?
People should not feel anger or despair over the sort of idiocy like 850, now common in the “art” world. They should instead view it as a chance to raise their income bracket. Since rich people—those people that run galleries and buy and sell “art”—are now utterly incapable of judging quality, and are dead scared of admitting their ignorance, the door is wide open for any “artist” to sell them anything. The only key seems to be that the “work” has to be completely asinine, childish, devoid of any value, and, of course, politically correct.
It also cannot be cheap. The more exhorbitantly priced your excrescense, the better chance it has to sell. For you must understand that the sole purpose of this “art” is to allow its owner to boast that he owns it. Or, in the case of the Tate, to claim that it is unique.