Thanks to the lovely Phlegm, I've been handed a puzzle that's had me cogitating furiously for much of today. She posted an article on her blog that linked to - of all things - an inflatable Vincent van Gogh painting!!!
This poses all sorts of questions.
- Why does this even exist? Who was it woke up one morning convinced that the world really needed an inflatable Vincent van Gogh painting???
- Why van Gogh in particular? Why not Rembrandt, or da Vinci, or Constable, or Monet, or Picasso? What is it about van Gogh that qualifies (?) him for historical puffery like this?
- Why inflatable? I mean . . . there are so many good prints out there of all sorts of art. Why fill one with air?
- Why should art be in a can in the first place?
Finally, would Don McLean ever have written and recorded 'Vincent' if his inspiration had been inflatable rather than inscrutable?
Peter
4 comments:
Van Gogh wasn't a genius, he was just digoxin toxic.
If he'd have laid off the purple foxglove extract, he'd be just some name scrawled across the corner of a forgettable painting in a Holiday Inn lobby. ;)
That is the first good hard laugh I've had in days.
Thanks.
In regards to the video, was there some magic in old microphones that has been lost? Every time I see old videos, the singer is at a comfortable distance from the microphone. Compare to anything in the last 20 years or so where the singer must practically eat the microphone.
I love Archie McPhee. I don't think that there's a more interesting store anywhere.
Post a Comment