Anyhow, an hour or so later, I sauntered back and took another look at the by now nearly finished painting. And my opinion this time? Unrealistic garbage, I’m afraid.
Don't get me wrong, I told her. As far as being an accurate representation of the ponds and its environs, it was spot on. However, that's all she'd painted, which was the problem. You see, it takes two to three hours to paint one of these things. But what would happen if, to use an obvious analogy, she'd taken a photograph whose exposure time was three hours? The motionless things, like trees and houses, would come out OK. But anything that was moving during the exposure would come out blurred, of course. So, given that it took me some five minutes or more to cross the artist's field of vision, I should have been recorded as a multi-coloured blur going from one end of the painting to the other. Not a sign, though. Not just of me, but of ducks, cars, other pedestrians, and in fact anything else that was moving at the time.
You may recall that Leonardo da Vinci and colleagues used this very technique for their famous “Mona Lisa Flashes Her Tits” animated sequence, unfortunately only one frame of which survives today.
Whatever, as I'm on the subject of art, perhaps I should mention that I am, in fact, something of an artist myself. I am currently going through a post impressionist phase. Here is my impression of a post:
3 comments:
Ducks arent difficult just superglue the cunts paws to the grass.Same with cars.Shoot out the tyres.Why does my laptop take 20 fucking mins to load?Special Branch taking the piss.
It sounds like my laptop these days. It's nothing to do with Special Branch. It's actually a conspiracy between Microsoft and the hardware manufacturers. They're trying to force you to buy a new machine.
Will this new machine have ducks?I think not.Will it makke me popular with leather queens?I think NOT!
Post a Comment