I didn’t really cover Maine’s Tea Party Governor’s decision to remove the labor history mural from the state’s Department of Labor, but the SF Bay Guardian points out that it’s far from the first act of history-art censorship. Progressive politics are not indefinitely sustainable, and so I assume that someday the Lincoln Brigade exhibit at Embarcadero Square in SF will face a similar challenge (even though former Secretary of State George Shultz himself attended the opening).
Probably one of the more ridiculous moments came in San Francisco during the 1950s. In the Rincon Center near the waterfront are a number of murals inside. One of them depicts four canons pointing at a monster or something with a swastika on it, each canon containing the logo of one of the four major Allied nations. There was an effort to have the Soviet cannon painted over on the basis that Stalin’s regime was worse than the Nazis (an early volley in the body count debate) and therefor their participation in the war should not be “celebrated.” Never mind that the Soviets took a burden which probably outweighed all of the other nations combined, and never mind that they were in fact allies during that war, however uneasy the alliance may have been.
Another silly censorship act was at Brigham University where Joseph Smith’s portrait was removed and replaced with a beardless depiction of their prophet. Students were not allowed to grow beards while attending, so he was setting a bad example.
During the McCarthy Era there was actually a proposal to ban abstract art as part of the communist conspiracy – the irony there being that communist art, or “socialist realism” has always been straight-jacketed, and despite the radical impulses behind art movements like surrealism and dada, they were rejected by the Soviet authorities as decadent and of course bourgeois. I’ll try to track down some of the quotations from pro-realism dogmatists of both cultures later.
61 comments
Comments feed for this article
April 4, 2011 at 9:09 am
Michelle
Don’t forget Ashcroft and the statue of the Spirit of Justice.
April 4, 2011 at 10:03 am
Eric Kirk
Well, actually more profound ironic than that was the covering of Picasso painting Guernica at the UN when Powell held his pre-war press conference there in 2003.
April 4, 2011 at 10:27 am
jackdurham
Don’t forget the recent release of a sanitized version of “Huck Finn.” Ughh.
April 4, 2011 at 10:43 am
Eric Kirk
Or the Rolling Stones on the Ed Sullivan show being forced to sing, “Let’s Spend Some Time Together.”
April 4, 2011 at 11:21 am
suzy blah blah
covering of Picasso painting Guernica at the UN when Powell held his pre-war press conference
I just had a good laugh checking out the “controversial” painting Guernica by Picasso. LOL! Suzy thinks it must be Picasso’s little private joke that people think that the painting is about war. It’s not. Other than the name, there is not one other thing that suggests a war or bombing in the piece, LOL, not one thing in the work itself! It just has the name of the town and was painted at the time of the bombing. But it doesn’t depict a military invasion, it’s a picture of some distorted suffering animals and people. They could be suffering from anything. LOL! that’s why it’s a joke, all these important people making a big to do about it being anti-war, anti bombing etc. There’s no military, no airplanes, no bombs, no explosions, fire, nothing like that in the whole monstrous sized picture. In fact it could be some suffering animals and people from any time in history, except for the light-bulb, which is the only modern thing in the whole dang picture, sheesh. It looks like they are suffering from the light-bulb, not bombs. And what does the lantern symbolize? Anti-war my butt, LOL!
But, to give the benefit of the doubt, I guess maybe some idiots think that a light-bulb is a symbol of war and bombing. Suzy personally doesn’t think so. The painting could be interpreted more intelligently as suffering under modern technology, which WAS appropriately symbolized by the light-bulb at that time. That’s what the painting really means, for those who have eyes to see, it has nothing to with bombing. If one actually looks at the painting, other than the name, Guernica, you wouldn’t have a clue as to where the false meaning came from that so many people have given to it. Only the name –LOL! I may be wrong, I don’t know shit about Picasso, maybe he was insane, but I tend to think he saw it as a funny joke. And that he was a master of not only painting, but of the put-on, especially that so many fell for it.
April 4, 2011 at 11:39 am
Anonymous
Well I don’t know if it helps Suzy, but here’s the Wikipedia entry on the symbolism and meaning.
Interpretations of Guernica vary widely and contradict one another. This extends, for example, to the mural’s two dominant elements: the bull and the horse. Art historian Patricia Failing said, “The bull and the horse are important characters in Spanish culture. Picasso himself certainly used these characters to play many different roles over time. This has made the task of interpreting the specific meaning of the bull and the horse very tough. Their relationship is a kind of ballet that was conceived in a variety of ways throughout Picasso’s career.”
When pressed to explain them in Guernica, Picasso said,
…this bull is a bull and this horse is a horse… If you give a meaning to certain things in my paintings it may be very true, but it is not my idea to give this meaning. What ideas and conclusions you have got I obtained too, but instinctively, unconsciously. I make the painting for the painting. I paint the objects for what they are.[3]
In “The Dream and Lie of Franco,” a series of narrative sketches also created for the World’s Fair, Franco is depicted as a monster that first devours his own horse and later does battle with an angry bull. Work on these illustrations began before the bombing of Guernica, and four additional panels were added, three of which relate directly to the Guernica mural.
Picasso said as he worked on the mural: “The Spanish struggle is the fight of reaction against the people, against freedom. My whole life as an artist has been nothing more than a continuous struggle against reaction and the death of art. How could anybody think for a moment that I could be in agreement with reaction and death? … In the panel on which I am working, which I shall call Guernica, and in all my recent works of art, I clearly express my abhorrence of the military caste which has sunk Spain in an ocean of pain and death.[4]
However, according to scholar Beverly Ray[5] the following list of interpretations reflects the general consensus of historians:
* The shape and posture of the bodies express protest.
* Picasso uses black, white, and grey paint to set a somber mood and express pain and chaos.
* Flaming buildings and crumbling walls not only express the destruction of Guernica, but reflect the destructive power of civil war.
* The newspaper print used in the painting reflects how Picasso learned of the massacre.
* The light bulb in the painting represents the sun.
* The broken sword near the bottom of the painting symbolizes the defeat of the people at the hand of their tormentors. (Berger 1980; Chipp 1988)[5]
In drawing attention to a number of preliminary studies, the so called primary project,[6] that show an atelier installation incorporating the central triangular shape which reappears in the final version of Guernica, Becht-Jördens and Wehmeier interpret the painting as a self-referential composition in the tradition of atelier paintings such as “Las Meninas” by Diego Velázquez. In his chef d’oevre, Picasso seems to be trying to define his role and his power as an artist in the face of political power and violence. But far from being a mere political painting, Guernica should be seen as Picasso’s comment on what art can actually contribute towards the self-assertion that liberates every human being and protects the individual against overwhelming forces such as political crime, war, and death.[7]
And on the Powell incident.
# 2003, Monday 27 January: Guernica found covered by journalists with a baby-blue banner and an UN-logo. “It’s only temporary. We’re only doing this until the cameras leave,” said UN-spokesperson Abdellatif Kabbaj. He clarified: “We had a problem with, you know, the horse” (that is, in the background of a camera-shoot).
# The drapes were installed Monday, 27 January and Wednesday, 29 January only. Other days of the week, including Tuesday in between, there was no drape. On these other days the UN-Security Council’s agenda included Afghanistan, Western Sahara and Lebanon.
April 4, 2011 at 11:44 am
suzy blah blah
I don’t know if it helps …
you don’t know if it helps what?
April 4, 2011 at 11:45 am
Anonymous
Helps you understand the painting.
April 4, 2011 at 11:48 am
suzy blah blah
What makes you think that I don’t?
April 4, 2011 at 12:08 pm
Anonymous
Your post suzy.
April 4, 2011 at 12:25 pm
anon
I got an email from Barack Obama stating that he was running for re-election.
My email program said that the email might be a scam.
I now have much greater respect for my email program.
April 4, 2011 at 1:34 pm
suzy blah blah
Well, maybe you need to read my post again, thanks for nothing.
April 4, 2011 at 3:01 pm
Eric Kirk
Maine may have to pay the federal Department of Labor for the mural the Governor had removed.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/04/04/963414/-US-Labor-Department-Demands-Maine-Mural-Refund!
April 4, 2011 at 3:01 pm
tra
It just has the name of the town and was painted at the time of the bombing….it’s a picture of some distorted suffering animals and people. They could be suffering from anything…
Well I’ll grant you that it’s possible that there was some other cause of mass suffering that just happened to coincide with the bombing. But it’s hardly unreasonable to assume that the suffering depicted by the artist was related to the bombing, and war in general.
If the Wikipedia quote is accurate, and the artist, while working on the painting, said…
In the panel on which I am working, which I shall call Guernica, and in all my recent works of art, I clearly express my abhorrence of the military caste which has sunk Spain in an ocean of pain and death…
…then I don’t think there’s any great mystery about the overall message of the painting.
April 4, 2011 at 3:09 pm
scott LaMorte
My favorite example of whitewashing controversial art may be Diego Rivera’s “Man At The Crossroads,” later repainted and renamed “Man, Controller of the Universe.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man_at_the_Crossroads I had the honor of seeing the recreation in person.
April 4, 2011 at 4:33 pm
suzy blah blah
I’ll grant you that it’s possible that there was some other cause of mass suffering that just happened to coincide with the bombing
Tra, first of all it’s a poetic work of art and obviously not an illustration of a news event. Of course I know that it’s not considered reasonable to assume that it is not about the bombing of Guernica. But that’s my point, there is nothing in the painting itself that in any way suggests that it’s about that event, or war in general. NOT ONE THING. Yes, I know that it is not considered a great mystery as to the meaning of the painting among almost every educated individual around. That’s also my point. And that’s why, for me, it is so poignant, and so funny. The emperor wears no clothes. The proof is in the painting.
I clearly express my abhorrence of the military
That is a nonsensical (mis?)quote in referring to this painting. No such thing is expressed. Unless you think that the light-bulb symbolizes the military –LOL. No, all that I can see that the “experts” have is the name Gurnica and some vague translated remarks made by an eccentric wealthy bohemian taken out of context and spun for an agenda. There is absolutely no evidence in the painting that it has anything to do with warfare. Try forgetting about what others claim Picasso said with words, and what others say in general, and Wikipedia, and what your college art teacher believes, etc., and look at what Picasso said with his images. Look at the painting with an open mind.
April 4, 2011 at 4:50 pm
tra
Look at the painting with an open mind.
Oh, I agree that it can be interpreted any which-way, that’s the nifty thing about art!
Plus it can be interpreted as having numerous levels of meaning, for example, at the most concrete level it can be interpreted as a lament over the bombing of Guernica, at another level as a condemnation of all warfare, at another level as just a portrait of suffering in general, at another level as a commentary about the overall absurdity of life itself, and on and on.
I don’t begrudge anyone their interpretation. I’m just saying that given that we know the context of the painting (the bombing of Guernica) there’s nothing wrong with applying that information to our interpretation of the painting (I’m not saying we have to I’m just saying that we can if we want). But without that information, I’d certainly agree that the painting itself doesn’t specify a military cause for the suffering that is depicted. If someday in the distant future, the history of the painting is lost, but the painting (or an image of it) survives, it will still be as great a work of art as ever, and any attempt to assign a military explanation for the suffering shown in the painting will be just another theory.
April 4, 2011 at 5:11 pm
longwind
Guernica was strafed and bombed by German and Italian airplanes early in the Spanish civil war. It was that war’s first great atrocity, and Picasso created the war’s first great popular propaganda.
More Wikipedia: “The Spanish Republican government commissioned Pablo Picasso to create a large mural for the Spanish display at the Exposition Internationale des Arts et Techniques dans la Vie Moderne (1937) Paris International Exposition in the 1937 World’s Fair in Paris. Guernica shows the tragedies of war and the suffering it inflicts upon individuals, particularly innocent civilians. This work has gained a monumental status, becoming a perpetual reminder of the tragedies of war, an anti-war symbol, and an embodiment of peace. On completion Guernica was displayed around the world in a brief tour, becoming famous and widely acclaimed. This tour helped bring the Spanish Civil War to the world’s attention.”
Guernica is the most famous anti-war work of art in the world, Suzy. Please stop arguing about what you don’t know, it’s so suggestive of your posts on narcissism.
April 4, 2011 at 5:12 pm
suzy blah blah
I agree with your last sentence. But what do you think of entertaining my idea of the painting being a criticism of modernity, especially modern technology, (which I admit includes the military) and a condemnation of that. I’m not saying that it is in any way absolutely that, but ultimately, to me, it makes a lot more sense of the imagery than warfare does. The hand with the old fashioned lantern seems to try and block, or futilely defend against, the modern 1930s light-bulb, which hangs over the whole scene menacingly. It’s the main feature, or at least a prominent one. What does the light-bulb have to do with the bombing of Guernica? One would think it’d be an airplane dropping bombs if it’s really about war.
April 4, 2011 at 5:13 pm
suzy blah blah
I mean the tra’s last sentence.
April 4, 2011 at 5:16 pm
suzy blah blah
Guernica is the most famous anti-war work of art in the world
Yes, I know, that’s the point –duh
.
April 4, 2011 at 5:53 pm
tra
Actually, I like your interpretation, where the light bulb represents modernity, encroaching on the familiar world of the past, represented by the old-fashioned lantern.
In fact it makes so much sense that it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if we were to find out that the painter had mentioned that he had those themes in mind…though ultimately, of course, it doesn’t necessarily matter whether he did or not, if the artisitic shoe fits, we can wear it.
Cheers.
April 4, 2011 at 6:19 pm
suzy blah blah
it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if we were to find out that the painter had mentioned that he had those themes in mind…
I doubt if he said anything like that, judging by what he said as quoted above by anonymous cutting and pasting from Wikipedia, “…this bull is a bull and this horse is a horse… If you give a meaning to certain things in my paintings it may be very true, but it is not my idea to give this meaning … I make the painting for the painting. I paint the objects for what they are.” But who knows, this quote sounds, to me, a little bit like a put-on too, Picasso playing the role of the idiot savant -LOL. He probably got bored from all the stupid questions he was asked, thinking to himself, why don’t they look at the paintings for answers.
the artistic — shoe
LOL!
April 4, 2011 at 6:44 pm
tra
I agree…I think that the “bull is a bull, the horse is a horse” quote, assuming he said it, was probably in the context of “stop pestering me with your stupid questions and trying to reduce my work to a single, simple explanation…this is art, people, you ‘re just gonna have to figure it out for yourself (now, how about another bottle of wine).”
April 4, 2011 at 7:10 pm
suzy blah blah
Figure it out for myself? omgosh, now you’ve got me really upset!
April 4, 2011 at 7:37 pm
Anonymous
The young today have no sense of history.
April 4, 2011 at 8:28 pm
Matt
For a little blatant promotion (which is still in line with this thread), I just wanted to let you guys know that the singer/songwriter Buffy Sainte-Marie is going to be playing in Eureka. I mention this because she was in-fact black-listed by the White House under Johnson and Nixon. There’s more about that in her bio on her website and on wikipedia. If you’re interested in the show, see buffyconcert.com
April 5, 2011 at 8:08 am
suzy blah blah
All in all, it’s easy to see by anyone actually looking at the painting, rather than naively following along with the popular opinion of it, that the image has nothing to do with war.
April 5, 2011 at 8:19 am
Eric Kirk
I haven’t really kept up with this discussion, but that last statement suzy is, well,…. um. Innovative.
Yeah, that’s the ticket. Innovative.
April 5, 2011 at 8:44 am
suzy blah blah
-sigh, yet another flippant and condescending reply from our esteemed host.
April 5, 2011 at 9:04 am
Eric Kirk
Well, the one poster has a point. In interpreting a painting. particularly an abstract one, sometimes context is helpful. You know, like who the painter was. What he was commissioned to do. The name of the painting.
what the artist says about it.
My understanding, granted, it might be part of the lore you disdain, is that he was trying to convey the feeling of the Guernica victims as he knew them, not a literal depiction.
But I could be wrong. Just adding my two cents.
April 5, 2011 at 10:19 am
suzy blah blah
… trying to convey the feeling of the Guernica victims as he knew them
I disagree. I think he was conveying a lot more than that. Consider a famous piece like The Thinker by Rodin. Just this morning I learned from Wikipedia that, “The Thinker was originally meant to depict Dante in front of the Gates of Hell, pondering his great poem.” But one doesn’t need to know that information to understand the art. It depicts, very strikingly, a universal aspect of the human experience. The context, or the artist’s name, or the things he said about it are superficial and completely unnecessary to the experience of having a deep grasp of and understanding of what is expressed. I don’t see that it would be any more meaningful if it were a depiction of Milton or Homer or whomever.
Similarly, the Guernica painting depicts a far more universal scene than the name suggests. If it had a more generic title, like the Rodin, it would never be seen as anti-war. It could be a scene from anywhere, and anywhere in time, except for the light-bulb. And the light-bulb, a central part, and curiously an important part of the picture, and obviously a singular image, one which he chose to anchor the scene with, has nothing to do with the bombing of the city of Guernica, or of the war, or of war in general. Just saying.
April 5, 2011 at 10:29 am
Erasmus
Suzi is demonstrating a deeper engagement with art than her detractors. Her comments remind me of what D.H.Lawrence said about literature: trust the tale, not the teller. A great work of art transcends the circumstances in which it was created. What the painter or author has to say about a creation is peripheral to the meaning that a sensitive viewer or reader can glean from it. The bombing of Guernica was the spark; the painting burns brightly on its own terms, and ignites a spark in us.
April 5, 2011 at 11:59 am
Eric Kirk
True enough Erasmus. I think that’s even where the “eye of the beholder” cliche comes from. If it represents universality of suffering to suzy, and therein lies the truth for her. Works for me.
And if it represents the beauty of the experience of peanut brittle for another, then therein lies the truth for that individual.
I forget which artist said it, but something about how the artist no longer owns it once it’s out there.
April 5, 2011 at 1:47 pm
suzy blah blah
If it represents universality of suffering to suzy …
sigh -There’s a quote by Picasso somewhere, I’ll try to find a link, he said that when he began to build his infamous “Straw Man”, he started by trying to sneak some words inside of the thing’s mouth. It’s an old classic trickster technique that he began utilizing in his Blue Milkshake period, when with much awareness and high consciousness, Pablo, ahead of his time as always, and thrifty, as his mother back home in Spain had taught him to be, recycled all of the straws that he brought home from his visits to Cervantes’ Aunt’s Avant Malt and Milkshake Shoppe across the Seine from The Other Side … Today those straws are worth 38million dollars or so. That’s another nifty thing about art, hey!
April 6, 2011 at 9:46 am
suzy blah blah
Actually, I like your interpretation, where the light bulb represents modernity, encroaching on the familiar world of the past, represented by the old-fashioned lantern.
Tra, –I don’t know about Picasso but my feeling is that modern science and technology is the thing that is causing the suffering, ie the destruction and death of the natural pre-modern style of life still being led in towns like Guernica 1939.
But I wanted to add that I think there is a very important distinction between the technology itself and the means. Things like nuclear power and fossil fuel are, in my eyes, the symptoms, not the underlying problem. I see electric cars, solar panels, etc. as merely bandages, not solutions. The underlying problem is modernity itself, especially it’s cute spoiled brat son with the bright and shiny light-bulb hat –Technology. (oh sure Suzy knows what a hypocrite she is as she multi-tasks on e-bay and watches The Price is Right on tv). I’m not innocent, and I’m plenty naive, but I think we all share the responsibility as we see it, if we see at all. But isho, until the problem is attacked at the root, we are only replacing bandages. The idea that we can use this modern life-style we’ve discovered to improve life, that we have the right to use it, is an exorbitant conceit. Yes, I’m all for modern hospitals and such. But I also like the sound of a creek, and star-filled night skies.
April 6, 2011 at 9:57 am
suzy blah blah
–and the sound of a cow mooing, and a horse shuffling her hoofs.
April 6, 2011 at 8:20 pm
moviedad
I’ve come to the conclusion that “Wikipedia” is responsible for the elevation of the lazy-minded. Why does anyone think they’re doing something when they cut and paste some factoids from Wiki? Are they stuck in some virtual space-time continuum where we are all their aged Grandma, and we haven’t heard of this new Wikipedia thing. “Oh you poor soul, you seem unclear on your facts. Here, let me help you with large pastes of basic information on your subject, but wait, not so fast. You can’t cite it as a reputable source. It’s open to manipulations…..” Ok, Wikipedia is great, yeah, wonderful they’ve invented an…….Encyclopedia! Just…not as good.
Sorry, I know I’m being snippy, but come on. have a thought already, if you want to rely on Wiki for your information and edification fine, read it. then come back and say whatever you have to say about it. But these huge pastes of banal information are annoying. They’re meaningless.
April 8, 2011 at 8:04 am
suzy blah blah
I agree Moviedad. A commenter like the one @ April 4, 2011 at 11:39 am has nothing intelligent to say. But he just can’t keep his mouth shut. So, even though he doesn’t understand the thread, he tries to bully me by blindly cutting and pasting Wikipedia paragraphs and attempting to shove them down my throat.
But what is even more lazy-minded, and especially snide, are Eric’s tactics. Like making condescending and flippant remarks to me when he hasn’t even read the thread. And instead of attempting to reply to a real idea of mine, putting words in my mouth, saying, “it represents universal suffering to suzy”, so that he can further his offhanded smart-alecky put down by implying that the words that he puts in my mouth are a “cliche” and comparable to, and no more relevant than, “peanut brittle”.
When the subtleties of the conversation are over his head, instead of just keeping his mouth shut about the things he doesn’t understand, and listening and learning, he feels that he must chime in to try and maintain a semblance of his ego’s superiority.
April 8, 2011 at 9:03 am
Eric Kirk
I, um…
Oh never mind.
April 8, 2011 at 9:48 am
suzy blah blah
You see what I mean? In yet another weak attempt at sarcasm, Eric uses one of his hackneyed responses to imply that it’s beneath him to consider the subject’s relevancy. Pitiful.
April 8, 2011 at 10:11 am
Eric Kirk
But…
April 8, 2011 at 10:18 am
suzy blah blah
Eric you are just an asshole sputtering farts …
April 8, 2011 at 11:05 am
Anonymous
“The idea that we can use this modern life-style we’ve discovered to improve life, that we have the right to use it, is an exorbitant conceit. Yes, I’m all for modern hospitals and such. But I also like the sound of a creek, and star-filled night skies.”
Thanks for clarifying everything for us. Very helpful to those of us who are just lost. I’m for modern hospitals and such, too, and I like the sound of a creek, and star-filled night skies, too. Great to know there are others out there just like me.
April 9, 2011 at 1:56 am
suzy blah blah
Your welcome Anonymous. There are a few of us out here who feel this way. But Eric, not unexpectedly, follows along with the majority of the ignorant sheeple in viewing this picture as being anti-war –when most obviously it’s not.
April 10, 2011 at 6:39 am
moviedad
Suzy, you have a mean bone in you somewhere.
I want the hospital, to have a creek running through it, or at least some kind of radio, so one could listen to KMUD and let the healing begin, or how about a dvd player so one could put on a nature documentary, or a symphony…or the “Puppy Channel” my last visit was a living hell, filled with Fox news Vs MSNBC, with non-stop inanity, violence and culture of death squared. No wonder people don’t die until they get there.
I won’t even go into the harried nurses who argue with you when you try to tell them that the doctor has realized that you’ve been overdosed with certain drugs and he’s stopped them, but the nurse insists on further injections, and won’t give up until you bring a little “Street” into the situation. No, I won’t go into that…..
April 10, 2011 at 8:23 am
Mitch
Here’s a quote of Picasso’s that I just made up:
“It’s about war, people. That’s why I named it Guernica.”
April 10, 2011 at 10:54 am
suzy blah blah
LOL!
April 10, 2011 at 3:48 pm
Eric Kirk
Eric, not unexpectedly, follows along with the majority of the ignorant sheeple in viewing this picture as being anti-war –when most obviously it’s not.
But, I validated your interpretation, didn’t I? As well as the peanut brittle interpretation. You’re not such an elitist as to dismiss the peanut brittle interpretation, are you?
April 11, 2011 at 6:38 am
suzy blah blah
-more sputtering from the Eric the asshole …
April 11, 2011 at 10:06 am
Eric Kirk
suzy – I’ve often thought that you’re on the young side, but now I’m wondering if you were my girlfriend in our third year of college. She would also get mad about stuff like this, and speak just as colorfully. You should have heard her when I dared suggest that the film Gallipoli was just a cheap if grandiose exploitation/imitation of All Quiet on the Western Front!
April 11, 2011 at 11:43 am
suzy blah blah
Believe me folks, I would never ever, not in a lifetime, not even for one second, have been Eric’s girlfriend. Sheeesh, talk about misinterpretation –(to each his own, LOL). We’re all different, just like all restaurants are different, even one McDonald’s is not the same as the next, know what I mean? … but, Suzy’s open minded, maybe this awkward stumbling drooling soulless klutz isn’t really that bad a guy after all, there’s a sort of twisted charm about the way he tries to keep smiling at you while he drops the knife, in the soup –like the scene in that famous still life by Picasso, the one about dividing the proletarian’s children’s lunch justly, the one he entitled, “Let Them Eat Peanut Brittle”. And I do have to admit, Eric’s kinda cute when he puffs out his chest and talks about how he validated this or that. And look now, see how he brings up one of his old punching bags from his college days to wax nostalgic over, one of his first strawman models, gee that’s sooo touching (ouch). It makes Suzy think, while she’s sitting here trying to type text into her phone, on the backseat of this vibrating droning micro-bus traveling south towards Miranda, looking out the back window at traffic, clouds and hills … You remind me of a kid I know who’s in 4th grade, he likes to put his hand under his armpit and flap it up and down a lot.
April 11, 2011 at 11:55 am
Eric Kirk
That was me!
April 11, 2011 at 12:01 pm
suzy blah blah
removed due to complaints of vulgarity
April 11, 2011 at 12:26 pm
Eric Kirk
Suzy – have you thought of writing children’s books?
April 11, 2011 at 12:29 pm
Mitch
Eric,
Have you ever been diagnosed with masochistic tendencies? You could charge, you know, instead of just accepting pointless abuse for free.
April 11, 2011 at 12:35 pm
Eric Kirk
Oh, it’s just suzy being suzy. I don’t take anything blog-related personally. Otherwise I’d have stopped this thing a long time ago.
April 11, 2011 at 1:11 pm
suzy blah blah
Better try re-reading the thread Mitch, it was Eric who punched the punching bag, not Suzy, got it? But you, as always, have got a good point –no longer will anyone be strapped down and forced to read my blog-commentary for free. I’ll start charging you suckers …
April 11, 2011 at 1:40 pm
Eric Kirk
To be honest, some of my posts were passive aggressive. It’s kind of like poking your kid sister in the back seat until she spazzes out and starts swinging at you. Her actions get seen through the rear-view mirror while yours don’t.
April 11, 2011 at 1:50 pm
suzy blah blah
Live! –exclusive rear view mirror view of suzy’s next over-the -top spazzed out hissy-fit
April 11, 2011 at 4:26 pm
silence do good
hey suzy, you’re right on as usual!!!