Skip to content


December 27, 2010

Vi and I visited LACMA (Los Angeles County Museum of Art) last weekend to check things out.

I’m not an artsy dude but there are some types of art that I really enjoy.  That doesn’t mean that I can explain why I like a certain piece.  I hear people talk about art the way some talk about wine – you know, they tell you that the wine taste like bark or that they can taste the metal barrels that the wine was “rotted” in – all this while sounding very fancy.  Pass me a beer, please.  Art Appreciation classes in high school and undergrad did me no good.

If you can get me to taste wine – I’ll usually have two reactions.  I’ll tell you it tastes good or that I don’t like it.  I’m not creative or smart enough to tell you why.

My reactions to art are pretty much the same thing only I have a few more reactions.  They can be summed up and described as follows:

1.  “That’s AWESOME” or “Whoa”.  These responses are self explanatory.

2.  “REALLLY?” (almost yelling) Vi likes this response the most.  This is my reaction when I see pieces of crap (well, at least in my eyes) that are passed off as art.  Some examples include – a 2×4 piece of wood painted red or a giant hair comb.

3.  “What the?” Very similar to #2 in meaning.

4.  “Dude, that’s OLD!”  I usually use such a proclamation after looking at a bowl that was crafted in 16 B.C.


This warranted a “REALLLLY?” response.

Ladder: “REALLLY?”

Painting: “Whoa”

Campbell Soup Can: “Really?”

This was a hybrid reaction:  Upon seeing this initially: “What the?”  After Vi explained to me that the piece was a social commentary on abortion.  My “What the?” turned into “Whoa!”.

And the legendary comb….

4 Comments leave one →
  1. noel permalink
    December 27, 2010 8:13 pm

    i think the “whoa” painting is also a social commentary.
    it’s a commentary on the nature of sexual promiscuity: these women
    are so slutty, they don’t got crabs, they got lobsters. as a
    representative of the unwashed masses, i tend to think of
    objective/context-free/whoa-type beauty as “art”. methinks art
    requiring captions or backgrounds for appreciation would more
    appropriately be filed under the “historical artifact” category
    (although they needn’t be mutually exclusive).

  2. Chuck permalink
    December 27, 2010 9:21 pm

    There’s a common joke that if the girl orders lobster on the first date, by rule she must sleep with the guy. LOL

  3. effectivepull permalink*
    December 27, 2010 9:42 pm

    @Noel, I agree regarding your definition of art. I didn’t even talk about the photo exhibit there. No “whoa” moments whatsoever. Just a bunch of random nonsense.

    @Chuck, no wonder. I never took a girl to a place where she even had the option of ordering lobster!

  4. jeannie permalink
    December 28, 2010 2:25 pm

    whoa on the awesome comb. the kind of comb I imagine for them dudes with really hairy backs!
    Still, I want to go to LACMA and do some what th-why? on my own 🙂

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

  • RSS What’s Scott Doing Now?

  • teamLARD Twitter Feed

  • Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

    Join 17 other followers

  • Advertisements
    %d bloggers like this: