Dumb and Dumber

See someone making a good objection (discussing the innateness of artistic genius is somewhat dumb) and then jumping to equally dumb, no, wait, even dumber conclusions. Witness this and cry:

Why did Picasso depict women in such ugly, distorted ways in his paintings? Because Picasso is Picasso? Or because he treated women like tissues…soiling and discarding them in his wake. As Jean-Paul Crespelle writes in his book Picasso and his Women:”…Just as he kept old matchboxes or pencil stubs, so he kept his old mistresses ready in hand. Just in case…” Which is the more interesting response?

What a twat.

3 thoughts on “Dumb and Dumber

  1. well, naturally the more interesting is the later statement,
    harsh, but possibly true, he was
    obvious an intense lover and as
    such probably a bit cruel at times
    towards his lovers, however Picasso, is so unique, is style is
    disjointed, cubisitic it would follow that paintings of his lovers
    would follow in the same vein.

  2. I was reading Nigel Beale’s website, just going through and being more and more stunned by the idiocy that permeated damn near everything he published online. At that point I googled “NIGEL BEALE IS A FUCKING TWAT.” This is the first thing that came up.

    Thank you so much for this.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.