article review
Sunday, July 5, 2009
I've got a backlog of drawings that I want to touch up and colour on my computer, but this heap of junk would sooner combust than spend 257 of its 256mb letting me use photoshop.
Anyway, there's this forum writer today who wrote some crappy shit. Can't mince my words. It's crappy shit. He and Ace should get a room and gas themselves.
He proposes that war heroes be forever immortalised as, among other things, battalion and unit names. Fancy a commando unit named "The Adnans"? (sounds like a crappy sitcom series with canned laughter) How about a medical unit named "The Elizabeth Choy"?
Fair enough, he suggested that a ship be christened "The RSN Lim Bo Seng", which isn't an uncommon practice. But as for his other two suggestions, I must infer he's got balls of steel submitting his letter to the forum.
"Within Each unit, the unique character of its hero and his act of valour can serve to inspire the members as they assume their duty in the nation's defence."
This guy must have obviously relished every moment of house activites in his JC. Obviously, his next suggestion would be for the Black Knights to be renamed "Gryffindor".
I know some may also know that, around the world, this practice of immortalising heroes is not something that has been unheard of. It sure seems as if Canada does practice this, but then, maybe that's part of why it seems Americans hate them so much.
Oh, and another gripe. The newspapers also cover this story on a photo winning a UOB painting contest once more. While some
rational people would say that painting, as pretty much observed in
dictionary.com, and for those who want more authoritative sources,
Encyclopaedia Brittanica, webster and
Oxford, is something that requires the application of paint to produce art, apparently the good people of UOB would like to disprove that definition. My gripe, however, is not with UOB. Unless of course, they start influencing other competitions that I might join in reinventing definitions.
My gripe lies with a mentally incompetent person who was apparently interviewed by ST on the incident.
"When asked why a photograph had won a competition for 'paintings', visual artist Michael Lee, 37, commented that it was a- wait for it- "stupid question".
He said, "the photograph won not because it was a photograph but it was a critical and innovative expression of the artist's interest." Pausing, he said that perhaps the name of the competition could be changed to perhaps "2-D art of the year or "Image of the Year".
(F***, I hope his art isn't as cmi as his creative capacity for names of art competitions.)
Within this short paragraph, inconsistencies prevail. Firstly, who the heck said the photograph won because it was a photograph? If it won for that reason, then my god, I would have a reason to be riled by the actions of UOB, giving a winner to a photograph on the sole basis that it is a medium that people wouldn't normally associate with the word "painting".
Secondly, this is the reason why I think sometimes, visual art can be a pain in the butt; not only are the works incomprehensible to the average man (oh, but we aren't pandering to the average man, you say?) but the artists themselves are, too. Why go out and defend the win of the submission of that medium, if later you say that perhaps the competition name should be changed? (to a piece of warm shit, may I add once more) It is precisely because you think that there is a dispute with the winning of that entry of such a medium.
What adds insult to his own injury is that he first said it was a "stupid question", possibly to elevate his throne as a visual arts designer in displaying his expression of obviousness at the whole situation. See how he likes it next time when he enters a photography competition and someone wins for submitting a bonsai.
Michael Lee, go get an adjoining room with Ace and Chia.
I know that this post is much more biased than what I usually do, but then nothing.
Labels: opinion, straits times
posted by joseph at 2:37 PM