1. Tuesday Night Trivia was interesting. Probably not something I'd attend too often if I lived in the area, but only because I was pretty much useless until the visual round at the very end. (Contrary to certain recent comments about me, I'm well aware that I don't know everything. ;P) That last round was really my thing, though (see some of the answers starring in Dusty Plastic HELL #2, Where's April??? Part 2, Turtle Spew, and A Crayon Haiku #16 on SC; I also drew a picture of one here). I did, however, get our team a point for the Big Brother 5 question, but that's because I figured there's no way Nakomis (Jennifer) could've been voted off. She's gorgeous -- watch the videos and you'll see what I mean.
Oh, and apparently because of an incorrect but marginally clever answer to another question, Caren and I are now betrothed. So just tell me when and where to show up, Caren, and I'll be there in my rented white tux.
2. I wish I had one of those walk-o-meter things from the Adult Happy Meals at McDonald's -- I'd be really interested in seeing how many miles I walked today. Also, on the street, I ran into some guys doing body fat percentage tests for free, so I stepped up to give it a whirl. The machine got an E4 error, which means that I have less than 4% body fat and therefore that the machine couldn't read it. I felt pretty good after that.
3. Apparently, Scary-Crayon is pretty close to overshooting its allotted bandwidth for the month, which I suspect will happen in 2-3 more days. Funny that the site undergoes a huge popularity surge when I'm not even around to update it.
4. And wow, I figured Wendy wasn't too pleased with my remark about the Van Gogh (although, to be honest, I thought I might have overreacted to and/or misinterpreted her expression), but I had no idea just how pissed she was. Granted, she wrote that last night (I just got around to reading it), and I thought we parted on good terms tonight, but wow, now I'm not sure. I feel the need to respond, though, so here are my responses to Wendy's points:
4-1. She writes, "It was no secret to anybody that I was thoroughly excited about seeing the Van Gogh's." Actually, either I wasn't aware of that or it slipped my mind at the time. As you see, I do tend to read blog entries late, and apparently I'm elsewhere when a lot of important things are said (I lag behind and tend to fall out of earshot of groups, as you might have noticed). I did pick up that she wanted to support the museum by paying full price, but I didn't actually notice her giddily commenting on the paintings with Val until after I'd made my remark.
That said, even had I known how much Wendy admired van Gogh, I might have made a similar comment, though it probably would've been worded differently. Had I known that the hair on her arms was standing on end as she viewed the paintings (I didn't -- again, I don't claim to know everything), or had I known that she was undergoing a quasi-religious experience (as Sydney noted, I'm not in tune with what specific persons are feeling when they view artwork -- again, I don't claim to know everything), I might've said, "Okay. So, what do you see in this?" If anyone wants to furnish an answer, I'd be very interested to read it.
4-1A. I mean, seriously, if I write that Voltaire's Candide is my favorite novel ever and someone else comments, "I read it... I wasn't impressed. I could easily write a book like that," -- by which I would assume that that person did not mean to say that he/she was a spectacular writer, but that Voltaire's work is highly overrated and easily matched with a modicum of thought -- I'm pretty sure I wouldn't get pissed. I could see getting upset if someone said something like that about one of my drawings or stories (and, actually, my mom did say something like that about my Cyber Shredder pic above, which irritated me a little), but while I really like Plato and Voltaire, your criticisms of them aren't going to offend me in a personal sense. In fact, I'd be very interested in discussing them with you. Just an example.
4-2. Next, Wendy writes, "By criticizing something that said person KNEW I loved so much, said person was basically criticizing me by implying that I am an idiot for liking Van Gogh." Not necessarily, though of course that hinges on Wendy's (or another's) answer regarding why you admire the work so much. If the answer were, "Because it produces X feeling in me," but the speaker were unable (or unwilling) to explain how the technique, the subject of the painting, etc., conspired to bring about that feeling (and, moreover, how the artist designed the work with intent for them to have that effect), then I'd argue that your reaction is shallow, or that perhaps the work itself is shallow, because I could just as easily note that, for me, the painting produced a feeling of not being impressed. However, if you can say, "No no, you've got it all wrong -- you're missing this here," while the work may still fail to have the desired effect where I'm concerned, I could at least say, "Ah! I see what he was trying to do."
4-3. Quoth Wendy, "Even if said person could reproduce a Van Gogh to a tee (which I highly doubt), it doesn't matter. ... So what if they can be reproduced by some pompous little brat? That little brat wasn't the one to come up with the concept of those paintings in the first place!" Again, the point wasn't so much the reproduction of them as the implication that it wouldn't take much skill/though/etc. to produce a work of the same caliber, because the paintings struck me as shallow and meaningless. It's not just the paintings that failed to impress me -- it's the concept of them, too (at least as I understood or failed to understand it -- and if what I overheard was right, it sounded to me like he just tried to reproduce the vision of a person drunk absinthe, which, at least at face value, is hardly impressive). However, I admit that perhaps I'm missing something. I noted in conversation that my favorite pieces were the religious works -- possibly because at least there the meanings were evident, or at least I was looking for the meaning there and more familiar with what to look for. (And even there, as Anon saw, I was cracking jokes about the three wise men coming to gift the baby Jesus... with molestation.) A swirly meadow is pretty difficult for me to draw meaning from as it is, let alone for me to convince myself that whatever meaning I drew from it was the meaning that the artist intended. And with the absence of the latter, I'm just engaging in groundless speculation.
But if I had known I was butchering Wendy's art buzz, I probably would've been more tactful about it, if I said anything. So apologies, Wendy. I didn't mean to be the negative, immature, and arrogant supreme asshole you make me out to be.
A final note, though. Wendy writes, "People are different. We all have different likes and dislikes. That is what makes the world a wonderful and interesting place." In turn, I submit the following: If all of our diverse likes and dislikes are just that -- likes and dislikes -- and have no objective truth to them, what's so wonderful and interesting about that? It strikes me as rather shallow and meaningless. Besides, from there you'd run into ethical issues... if there is no objective value where, say, art is concerned, or where writing is concerned, what of other areas? Is there such a thing as true value at all? And if not, why should anything I say affect you in the least?
Discuss amongst yourselves.