I have a feeling her witch hat may be a bit tattered after the last few weeks. The hat above is so much more appealing and, frankly, so much more appropriate. It would look utterly smashing on her during debates.
Especially in such debates where she freely allows her idiocy to shine through, such as the one held earlier today before an audience of legal scholars and law students at Widener University Law School in which she seemed genuinely surprised that the principle of separation of church and state derives from the First Amendment. . .
It borders on amazing really. But, if only she had worn this appropriate hat during the debate, she could have had at least something to blame for her gibberish other than her own ignorance of the Constitution of The United States.
Tsk. Tsk. Tsk. . . and she with Senatorial aspirations. . .
But alas, for you know what they say, if it speaks like a dunce, sounds like a dunce, and debates like a dunce. . . .
I came across this outstanding and inspirational work that produces a sublime combination of graffiti art, found art, sculpture, and performance into one mind-boggling video animation. Imagine how many individual wall paintings must have been created for this project! The video was directed and animated by an artist that goes by the name of Blu (www.blublu.org) who is a member of an Italian artist collective called Studiocromie. The video is just short of 10 minutes. Click on the image to go to the site to view the video which is best when viewed full-screen.
Recent work. . .
"Breathe Normally"
acrylic and vintage ephemeral collage on canvas
11" x 14"
2010
© Michael Sprouse
Here’s a very intriguing find today courtesy of www.revelinnewyork.com. It’s a short film by discussing the art of duo Peter McGough and David McDermott who have spent the last 30 years living life as if it were the end of the 19th century as sort of an ongoing living art work. Fascinating, slightly bizarre, and vaguely unsettling.
I came across an intriguing article in the New York Times entitled, “When Life Gets In The Way Of Art” that ponders, if an artist lies, does it change how we see their work.
It’s a highly worthwhile read and an issue that I’ve come across before in discussion with other artists, collectors, and admirers. Though, these discussions weren’t actually related to the truthfulness of particular artists (the NYTIMES article discusses such examples as the famed civil rights era photographer Ernest C. Withers and the recent revelation that he was a paid FBI informant, and Casey Affleck’s film, “I’m Still Here” documentary – now mockumentary - of the unsightly celebrity disintegration of the actor Joaquin Phoenix, now revealed as a hoax), as much as they were about whether it was possible or not to still admire the work of a great artist after discovering something disagreeable about them. For example, Edward Hopper’s mental and physical abuse of his wife Jo or Clint Eastwood’s conservative politics.
I came to the conclusion that, as a general rule, it is better to judge the work rather than the artist who created it. Of course, there are extreme exceptions to the rule – Hitler, John Wayne Gacy come to mind – and I have personally met artists who were such complete nincompoops that I basically dismissed them and their work in one fell swoop, but overall, I prefer to remain neutral. If there are idiosyncrasies of an artist that merit some form of eyebrow raising attention or scorn, history, or sometimes even the work itself, often has a way of revealing them.
.jpg)
