I must be a philistine! Why the hell would anyone want to pay $140m for this painting? I presume it's the right way up? A few years back, on a trip to London, we went to the Tate and saw a Pollock 'in the flesh'. Jan made the comment that it looked like he did it with all the paint he had left over. We looked and looked and couldn't see one redeeming feature. In fact we both concluded that it was a load of rubbish. All I could keep thinking about was the 'Emperor's New Clothes'. I can't be the only one?
It has just occurred to me that the words Pollock and bollocks sound very similar. I rest my case, m'lud.
***
OK, another little rant. Why do film makers make it so difficult for you to understand a plot? Last night we watched a new, very glossy, series about terrorists called The State Within. It was very well made with the big exception that it was really difficult to understand what was going on. Fast moving photography, moving from scene to different scene/bit of the plot, left you bemused, reeling and straining to understand what the hell it was all about. There must have been at least five sub plots and it became a strain to keep up. Now I know I'm getting old and my faculties are not what they used to be but purleese give me a break. We discussed the film this morning, after my brain stopped hurting, and quite a bit of stuff came out that only one of us had grasped. Still, I think it was exciting and I'll try and figure another bit out next week.
No comments:
Post a Comment