LOL. I don't know how you derived the insinuation part, and I can assure you I make no assumptions about comparable dimensions. That's all part of some context you are creating in yourself and ascribing to me. Why one might do this might be an interesting thread in itself.
My question would be more along the lines of the old Sesame Street question, "One of these things is not like the others./One of these things just doesn't belong, /Can you tell which thing is not like the others./ By the time I finish my song?" I am actually curious about this. Cheers; Chris On Fri, Jun 8, 2012 at 12:34 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: > In a message dated 6/8/12 10:50:20 AM, [email protected] writes: > > >> I dunno. In the 20thC we saw an artist submit a urinal to a show, >> another slice open an eye on camera with a razor, another spatters and >> pours paint, another preserves a dead shark, another wraps buildings >> in fabric, another casts a decrepit house from the inside. All were >> considered important art. Now someone turns a dead cat into a flying >> machine, and folks get upset. It might be a useful conundrum for >> aesthetes to investigate. >> > Your insinuation that the flying-cat episode was the first time anyone has > been upset by something in an art show is inane. Moreover, the suppressed > assumption that the cat-upset was of comparable dimension to the earlier > upsets is woefully misplaced.
