Monday, August 14, 2006

The Pride That Wenteth After A Fall

WARNING! This post contains adult oriented subject matter that some people may find offensive. If you are under the age of 18, or if you have very delicate sensibilities, it is suggested that you read no further.

The genesis of this post might be thought of as a reaction to a reaction.
My friend Dr O2 created a post, to which my friend Nyx responded with a post of her own, which I, in turn, then responded too. Interesting cause and effect (but not an unusual occurrence in the blogosphere, I think)! :) My response was triggered by a picture of Michelangelo's sculpture of David that Nyx posted. I mentioned to her that I had written a bawdy little story about The David a couple of years ago. Nyx then asked if she could read it. Her positive response has encouraged me to share the story more publicly in a post.

In case you have not seen a full length picture of the famous statue of David,
please allow me to direct your attention to this link that also contains some interesting historical trivia about the sculpture (Note: this picture shows the Full Monty...well considering the subject, most of the Monty seems to be missing!). Happy viewing! :D

Actually, the following is not exactly a story, but rather excerpts from a series of emails that I exchanged with a good friend a couple of years ago. I include a brief excerpt of hers because it gives important context to the story. Well, the stage is set, so lets get started!

Me (written to my friend):

When I was in High School, I went on a tour of Italy with my Latin teacher. While there, I saw several of Michelangelo's marble statues. His seated figure of Moses was amazing in its smoothly polished detail. Right down to the veins in Moses's arms. But I was most impressed with his David statue. It was a colossus, 16 feet tall and totally nude. I'll bet that thousands of women in the past 500 years have fainted at the sight of the endowment on that statue! I have read that Michelangelo was gay, and that The David is an image of his young lover (admittedly, this is a controversial interpretation). Well, I think that may very well be possible. The statue of David is like eroticism incarnate. It just shouts youth, vitality, virility! It is, by far, the most impressive work of art that I have ever seen.

My friend:

I've never been to Italy, but that's one of the places I would love to visit, and now with your description of the statue of David its a must see. As far as David is concerned though, I've seen pictures of the statue but I don't recall him being well endowed. As a matter of fact, I was surprised that a big boy like him is depicted as a baby in his genitalia. But then, I think it would've been awkward if Michelangelo had made the statue with something coming down to his knees. Then, it would've been known as The God of Pornographia!

Me:

After I first read your email today regarding The David's economical assets, I began to wonder if my imagination over the years had stretched The David's endowment. So, I started to look for a picture of the statue. I found one, and sure enough, The David has a very tiny protuberance, quite out of scale with the size of his hands. However, his two well rounded companions appear to be of normal size. Ah well, the truth can sometimes be deflating. I'm wondering if Michelangelo, upon completing The David, stepped back from his masterpiece and thought to himself, "Now, my David's nose is not quite right. I had better get up there and adjust it." As he carefully climbed his ladder, hammer and chisel in hand, he neared the top and suddenly his sandal slipped on an upper rung. Momentarily off balance, he instinctively opened his hand to grab the ladder's rail. For a second, it was as if time was standing still. As slowly as thick molasses, the hammer and chisel descended. Michelangelo's head slowly revolved and pivoted downward, his eyes widened, and his mouth opened. The flow of time suddenly returning to normal, the hard steel of the hammer's head impacted squarely upon The David's mighty endowment, severing it cleanly near the base. Michelangelo's open mouth suddenly expelled the words, "Oh my lord Jesus!", as The David's gigantic smoothly polished white marble pride impacted the stone floor and shattered into a thousand little shards. Slowly descending the ladder, with tears welling in his eyes, Michelangelo, the greatest sculptor the world had yet seen, reached out and tenderly scooped the remnants of his David's magnificent manhood into his hands. "Ah well", he said, "David did not slay the mighty Goliath by knowing him to death! May God forgive my arrogance. I shall forthwith refashion the nub like unto that of a male child, that the world and the future may understand the magnitude of the triumph of a boy with naught but a sling and a small stone to defend the honor of a nation!"

Well, that's the story folks. I hope you have enjoyed it! :) Now, before you ask me if this really happened, let me say that what you have just read is a total flight of fancy from my imagination. However, Michelangelo was a very astute observer of the human form. His statue of David is not a representation of a boy. The figure certainly has the musculature of an adult man, while his hands and feet seem acromegalically (try saying that three times really fast :) ) oversized! Yet, there is a profound absence of manliness where one would expect such to be. Perhaps there was a defect in the marble, or maybe the master sculptor did indeed have one of the most stupendous accidents in all of art history! ;)

28 Comments:

Blogger Dr O2 said...

Poor David the statue!! I will remember to take him a gigantic football shorts to spare his blushes & others staring loks!!

Well maybe his performance was exceptionally well?

8/14/2006 12:00 PM  
Blogger aNarki-13 said...

hm.
i once read a dr. Ruth book about "knowing people", a really comprehensive work.. Sex for Dummies, i think it was titled..

anyway, one of the things that stuck to my mind (naturally, for a male looking to assert his feeling of self-worth) is the fact that the size of a flaccid "pride" has no relation whatsover to its fully-erect size..

maybe so?

anyway, it is a monument to the fact that its not the size that matters, its what u do with it!

:)) i loved this post!
sorry for being so late.. can i add u to my list?

8/14/2006 8:29 PM  
Blogger aNarki-13 said...

Sex for Dummies

8/14/2006 8:37 PM  
Blogger David said...

Omid, your idea of gigantic football shorts is great! What a prank it would be if some Florentinian youths pulled off a stunt like that! :D Actually, it is not a new idea to cover The David's embarrasing lack of "pride". The link to the picture and history of the statue talks about a time when the statue was forced to wear a girdle of metal fig leaves! Such prudes!! :)

Hello Anarki, I think that you and Dr O2 are thinking along the same lines! :) Of course, you and Dr. Ruth are right about the lack of relation between an Un-Jolly Roger and an Ecstatic John Thomas. ;) I have heard the "size doesn't matter" thing before, but I wonder what Dr. Ruth has to say on that topic? Well, I think it is probably true that men are more worried about size than women. Anyway, I'm glad you loved the post! :) Certainly, you can add me to your list, but only if I can add you to mine! :)

8/15/2006 2:48 AM  
Blogger jarvenpa said...

Yes, when I saw the statue in the marble, so to speak, I did kind of think the...um, decorative bits--were a bit small. But I was really more taken with the nice curls on his head, and the whole dizzying experience of being in Italy in the late spring with a very nice traveling companion.
Your "explanation" made me laugh, thanks.

8/17/2006 3:58 AM  
Blogger David said...

Jarvenpa, you are welcome. I do like to make people laugh. :) I seem to have reminded you of a memorable (are you still dizzy? ;) ) experience. Perhaps it is a memory worth writing about?

8/18/2006 1:59 AM  
Blogger Preciousbabe said...

dear david!
the words "never quit the fight" dont mean that i enjoy the idea of more people getting killed. i, like every other human being, would love to live in a peacefull world where there is no war going on!
but when i see pictures such as these (http://www.arbs2day.com/files/lebanon.htm) on the internet, and hear about what is going on in lebonan, i think "HEZBOLLAH" has the right to defend itself and all those women and children!
"fight" in my words does not mean dropping missiles on other peoples homes, it means "fighting for your right of having a decent life!".
i hope you undrestand what i mean...
:)

8/20/2006 9:26 AM  
Blogger Newsha said...

Thanks David,
I got my gifts and phone calls and emails now. I am happy:).
I am agreeing with you the lady in pic is sad. I was suppose to be instead of her .I would be cuter than her hehe:))
Also I love shirin neshat art work. you can google her name and find her art work. there are amazing.
About my web log I said that I paid the price. I was lost in my new world of freedom and adulthood and finding a really nice person who would really care about me. But I messed up everything. SO no happy birthday from him!
anyway thanks for your nice comment

8/21/2006 4:18 AM  
Blogger Spooky Witch said...

David, this post was just so great, bashing the poor Michelangelo. I am into nude art and I also think the human body is one of the most beautiful things on the earth. I assume female body is one real unique master piece of the whole creation.
It is pity those days people couldn't enjoy privilege of using Prozac or Viagra or even Pe**is enlargement! That model for David's statue could have used it.
I am not sure if the size has something to do with the function but people like BIG things more.

8/21/2006 7:18 AM  
Blogger S.O.Mebody said...

HELLO DAVID,
What you have written here is quite fascinating.
A number of additional points.
In the Victoria and Albert Museum in London the is a plaster cast section, which contains plastercasts of what the Victorians considered the best sculpture of the western world, especially made for the education of British Artists in accordance with the principles on which the museum was founded. Included is Michaelangelo's David, and next to the statue, in a small glass case is a fig leaf of exactly the right dimensions, which was especially created to the cover the statute whenever a female reigning monarch should visit the museum. That's what the inscription says. Whether this practice is still maintained, I am not sure.
As a guy, I have not been that concerned at looked at the size of the endounments of the various Michaelangelo works. It look a television programme, where a female art historian pointed out that all the male figures which Michaelangelo painted on the Sistine Ceiling, including the famous Adam, have genital equipment roughly coresponding in proportionate size to that of pre pubesent boys. In comparison to the paintings, the statue of David is pretty much close to the average for the white male.
It would appear that the Greeks, in their statues were also inclined to slightly under empasise the size of the male equipment of their athletes and gods. It was only in statues of lustful satyrs, with their goat like appendages, that size was empasized. So for the Greeks big was animalistic, small was good.
In the Renaissance, Michaelangelo conformed in his paintings to the Greek norm. Perhaps this is one reason why he could get away with painting the ceiling of the Papal chapel the way he did. Even so when the Dutchman Hadrian VI was elected Pope in 1521, he called the ceiling something fit only for a bathouse and wanted to have it destroyed, but he did not live long enough to see this through. When later on Michaelangelo painted the Last Judgement on the altar wall of the Sistine Chapel, he made all the Saints nude. This was way too much, and during his lifetime, a second painter (I think it was Daniele da Volterra) was called to overpaint all the naughty bits. The recent cleaning of the Last Judgement, has left intact all these additions. So we shall probably never know whether Micalangelo's male Saints, originally looked more like David or like Adam.

8/21/2006 8:34 PM  
Blogger David said...

Ah, finally I can read my comments again! Grrrrr @ Blogger!!

Dear PreciousBabe,
Thanks for visiting my blog again and for helping me to understand your post. :)

Hi Newsha, I am glad that you are happy now! :) I do not know Shirin Neshat, but I will look her up. Sorry that things didn't go well with the really nice person that you met. However, I am sure that you will meet an even nicer person! :)

Thanks Spooky! :) I agree with you that the female body is quite a master work! Isn't it interesting how the standards of beauty have changed over time, though? A few hundred years ago, large women were considered the most beautiful. Today, very thin super models are considered the gold standard. Well, I think that some of those girls are just too thin and it is so unhealthy for young girls to try and emulate them! Maybe you are right, the model for The David could have benefited from some Viagra (of course, this assumes the non-accident theory is correct. ;) )! I think that Dr. Ruth might like to hear your opinions about BIG things! :D

Hello S.O.Mebody, thanks for visiting. Your additional points are very interesting! I suspect that the fig leaf is used when Queen Elizabeth visits the plaster statues. She seems rather uptight to me! I didn't know that Michelangelo depicted all his male figures with miniscule endowments. Maybe he was attracted to boys. If he lived today, he might find himself in jail for pedophilia! I have seen the Sistine Chapel. It is an incredible work of art (and to think that Michelangelo didn't like to paint!)! I am really glad that the Dutchman didn't live long enough to destroy it!

8/22/2006 10:03 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dear David,
The thing about miniscle things, in two dimensional depictions of the male on the part of Italian artists of the sixteenth century, was that it was a form of self-cencorship. Extreemly widespread.
Have a look at this image:
http://www.mala.bc.ca/~mcneil/jpg/caraglio.jpg

It is of a print by Caraglio, after a presentation drawing made by ROSSO FIORENTINO, THAT HE GAVE TO KING FRANCIS I of France. The drawing still exists in the Louvre, but I could not find it on the web. The Caraglio print is a very accurate representation of all the proportions of all the figures. Poor Mars, the man being helped out of his clothes, so that he can all the better greet Venus, THE LADY ON THE BED, has endounments of similar size to the boy Cupid next to him.
Rosso Fiorentino was, I beleive, satirizing the artistic conventions of his day. His friend and colleague Giulio Romano, had got himself into deep do-do, in Rome around 1525, when he made prints suggesting that not all men were that small (THERE WAS A LITTLE BIT MORE TO IT THAN THAT)

What Rosso Fiorentino, wanted from King Francis I, was a job, as Court painter, and a lot of mula. So this drawing was his way of introducing himself. Now if you look at portraits of Francis I, HE HAD AN ENORMOUS NOSE, and quite a reputation. So I believe, that this drawing, where propOrtions were reduced to an absurd degree, was done for the amusement of the Monarch, and was a form of indirect flattery.

s.o.mebody

8/23/2006 8:02 AM  
Blogger S.O.Mebody said...

WARNING DO NOT READ THIS IF U ARE NOT OVER 18

If u want to find out why Guilio Romano ended up for a short period in jail, what you need to do is go to google images and type in 'I MODI'

This is the title of a series of poems written by Pietro ARETINO, and we might translate it as 'THE POSITIONS'. GIULIO ROMANO made a series of engravings each showing a god and a godess. None of the originals have servived, except in small fragments of torn up sheets, to be found in the prints and drawings cabinets of various museums. What we find reproduced now are esentially recreations by others.

Now Guilio Romano eventually left ROME and went to work for the Duke of MANTUA. There in the Palazzo del Te, which the Duke of Mantua had built for the double purpose of housing his mistress and entertaining foreign potentates, Giulio Romano and his asistants frescoed the walls, and in the Sala del PSYCHE, there is a depiction of Jupiter in the form of a sea monster about to have congress with a nymph. This is a scarsely disguised allusion to the Duke himself

http://www.reproarte.com/painter/Giulio_Romano/index.html

If u go to the above u will see what I mean, though the reproduction is not very large.

If you were to google 'MICHELANGELO THE RISEN CHRIST' in the images section, you would come across photographs of the statue by Michaelangelo, of the risen Christ which is to be found in one of the Churches of Rome. Helpfully Christ has been provided with a metal drapery, probably to prevent female parishioner being distracted in their prayers. It was however the Sculptor's original intention to demonstrate that Jesus was male. What you will also find in the images section, are photographs of a Michelangelo drawing for the sculpture, which would suggest, that were the drapery removed, the statue of Christ would resemble the statue of DAVID and not the painting of Adam.

8/23/2006 9:39 AM  
Blogger S.O.Mebody said...

BTW David,
The joke u make at the very end of your post, about there being, maybe, an accident of the chisel, is actually quite close to what happened. The accident occured to the upper half of the statue, and it happened before Michelangelo ever started.

This is all in one of the contemporary biographies of M. There was this enormous block of marble belonging to the Cathedral of Florence. Some incopetent hack had started on a statue, but had left this enormous gouge right in the middle of the block. No one had a clue, what to do with it, how to get any human form out of it and for years the block was left in the open, so that rain got into the hole making the damage worse. It was Michelangelo's idea to rescue the block, by making a statue out of it, which he had to do at an angle. Even so he still had to contend with the deep gouge of the block at chest level. This is why when the statue is looked at from the front, there is an illusion that the chest is quite deep given by the sharp definition, if looked at from the side the chest is seen as what it is with the upper rib cage somewhat compressed.

8/23/2006 11:28 AM  
Blogger Nirvana said...

Toye inhame safheye weblog belakhare yekio peyda kardam ke safhash mesle man bashe tabrik migam be salighamon;)

8/27/2006 7:42 AM  
Blogger David said...

Hello Nirvana, thanks for visiting, but I am sorry, English is my only language. I have a number of Iranian blogging friends and I have learned a few Persian words, but I do not recognize any of the words you wrote. Please come again and comment in English if you can. Thanks!

8/28/2006 5:58 PM  
Blogger David said...

Hello again S.O.Mebody,
Sorry, didn't mean to ignore you. Well, you seem to be quite knowledgeable about art history, indeed far more so than I. Are you a professor of the subject? It is nice to have such an educated commentary here. I didn't know that Michelangelo had to work around someone elses blunder with the block of marble to make The David! Thanks for your effort! :)

8/28/2006 6:05 PM  
Blogger S.O.Mebody said...

Hi David,
Let us just say that one of the subjects i have studied deeply is Art History, others are history, theology and philosophy. I think I may actually post a reply to your Michelangelo's David, on my site, contrasting western and estern attitudes
to sexuality, maybe calling it 'KAMASUTRA -Nandi, there's a teacher handy'.

What is absolutely fascinating about Michaelangelo's career, is that his decision to sculpt David was TOTALY his own. At that time the artist was told what to do by the patron, usually a rich man (very rarely a rich woman) or by some corporation. He did not have the money to buy his own block of marble. Because there was this botched block, which was owned by the Opera del Duomo i.e. the body of the great and the good who controlled the finances for the embelishment of the Cathedral of Florence, he could just ask for it. The fact that the subject of the work is a person mentioned in the bible, SHOULD, have earned it a place somewhere around the Cathedral, BUT, the Opera del Duomo people might have felt a bit reluctant to accept the final result, so a commitee of Michelangelo's fellow artists was convened to decide where to put it, and they decided to put it in the main
piaza of florence next to the doorway into the town hall. Only very recently Florence had regained its republican freedom after some 50 years of rule by the Medici, and so the giant killer quickly became a symbol of republican freedom. When the Medici returned they did not throw the statue out, but tried to dilute its effect by adding furtur statues by other artists. One such was Celini's Perseus. Now if you read his biography you will find that he had no particular love for the two Medici princes he served and was at heart a republican. From my reading of Victor Hugo's Count of Monte Christo, there is the description of the execution of a criminal that takes place in Rome (or maybe Naples ?) in the nineteeth century. The executioner
decapitates the criminal and then stands on top of the hedless body and forces blood to gush out. When I read this I was reminded of the Perseus, because that is what he seems to be doing, except that the blood that flows from the neck of Medusa has become snakes, as is in conformity with some versions of the Perseus/Medusa myth. Now I have wanted to check if in Celini's day the practice of forcing the blood out of the headless body was also used. Because if it was, then that means that Celini had the last laugh on the Medici. The Perseus is suposed to demonstrate the just rule of the Medici and Medusa the forces of discord, BUT MAYBE it shows the Medici
executioner forcing the life blood out of Florence and destroying florentine republican freedom.

9/03/2006 11:26 AM  
Blogger S.O.Mebody said...

Hi again David,
A few more thoughts that occured to me.

Michelangelo's David is clearly a giagantic statue, and yet it also reprents a young man. Imagine then, if Goliath were to scale, how gianormous he would be. We have a pretty good idea of how Michaelangelo envisaged the difference in size between the two: as about 1:2 in height. This is because we have his painting of, David about to decapitate Goliath, on the Sistine Ceiling (Google images: Michelanelo sistine chapel goliath). What is amazing about the Sistine Ceiling is that Pope Julius II gave Michaelangelo a free hand to paint here what he liked. Imagine ! This is the Pope's private chapel, the place where the Cardinals elect a new Pope ! Jiulius' idea had been to have the twelve Apostles, Michaelangelo said: I have a better plan, so the Pope said: go ahead ! We know all this from a letter that Michelangelo wrote somewhat later, also from the lives of the artists by Vasari we know that Michelangelo had the key and would admit no one to see what he was painting. The Cardinals must have thought that Julius was completely mad to allow this ! Pope Hadrian IV DEFINATELY thought this (see my earlier comment here). So the David of the Sistine Ceiling is Exactly how Michelangelo WANTED to show him, again a very young man as described in the Bible. So a Goliath to the scale of the statue of David would have to be the size of the giant from Jack and the beanstalk OR SYMBOLICALY represent the forces of Medici tyrany. Though Michelangelo wrote very little down about his partisanship of the Republic, we know he worked against the Medici when they were trying to reconcquer Florence, by redesigning the defensive walls, and was only forgiven by them because they wanted his artistic talents.

Contemporary to the events in Florence, which saw the instalation of the statue of David as a symbol of republican liberty, was the career of Nicolo Machiavelli as Ambassador for the republic. He has come down in History as the author of "the prince", and many, many times down the centuries his name has been invoked as the principle of evil -'Machiavellianism' SOME would even have you believe that the term "Old Nick" for the Devil, comes directly from 'Nicolo'. I think this would have amused him. After the failed attempt by Michelangelo and others to keep the Florentine republic out of the hands of the Medici, Machiavelli ended up in prison. He was tourtured, just a little bit, just to let him know who was now boss, and then released to spend the rest of his days in seclusion on a farm that he owned outside Florence. He repayed the Medici for their clemency by writing 'The Prince' and dedicating it to the Duke. In the book he exposed all the tricks that princes use to get and keep power. Of course it was given as a series of practical steps, and the forward undoubtedly has all the usual 'yours most humble servant' crap. But if you REALLY want to know what Machiavelli thought about politics you should read instead his "Reflections on the First Ten Books of Livy". Livy had written his history of the Roman Republic, starting from the beginning and continuing ALMOST to his own day; right at the time when, under Augustus, it was already gone. Machiavelli's Book analyses how at its beginning the Roman Republic evolved. How the rich and the poor in Rome were in a state of tension, and occasional physical conflict. Machiavelli sees this as extreemly positive, and in itself the best guarantor of liberty, in that various groups are in a state of dynamic tension with each other, and because no group can completey overcome the other, some forms of compromise have to be continually reached.

The fathers of the American constitution, were extreemly knowledgable men. Between them they had studied virtually everything that had been written up to that date on government, including, most definately, Machiavelli. ONE SUCH was Benjimin Franklin. If you read his autobiography you discover that he came from a relatively poor background. From an early age he had to labour. This was not a time when you had public libraries, BUT Franklin worked in the book publishing trade, and after hours he read all that had been printed. Reading his biography, it sounds almost like Anthony Robbins -the power of self improvement guru. He sounds like Robbins, lots of straight forward advice on how he started on the road to success and what you could do, BUT there is one big difference. Listening to Anthony Robbins talk (AND i HAVE 2X) i do not get the impression that Robbins has made a systematic study of History; and Franclin did. Reading Franklin's biography, as oppose to so many 18th Century works, he does not lard his prose with quotations with this, that and the other. But he could easily have done. And his reading certainly show in the design of the American Constitution. Something called seperation of Powers, or if you prefer Machiavelli's dinamic tension. Unhappily the people of the present American Administration have not got Benjimin's Franklin's breath of historical vision. I cannot remember the name of the guy who said it, and i may misquote a bit, but here goes:

THOSE WHO WILL NOT LEARN THE LESSONS OF HISTORY ARE DOOMED TO REPEAT THEM

9/03/2006 3:12 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

by the way,
i am not being unfriendly when not going into personal details, it is just that i
say a lot of things in a lot of places, some of which could displease some people. s.omebody

9/03/2006 4:45 PM  
Blogger S.O.Mebody said...

coorection when i wrote Pope Hadrian IV

i meant of course Hadrian VI(Adrian Florenz) the dutchman and last non-italian before JPII

Hadrian IV was the only English pope his name was Richard (?) Breakspear

9/03/2006 5:13 PM  
Blogger Dr O2 said...

yeah I saw a david photo with jeans on!!! :-)

Yet the guy is famous for many things but his size(not that it matters) & well that is just a statue which shows no sign of performance :">

9/06/2006 4:05 AM  
Blogger David said...

Omid, I just thought of one hell of a Candid Camera episode. Rig The David with an inflatible extension. When an old lady walks by for a look, hit the button, then capture her shocked reaction! :D

9/06/2006 12:56 PM  
Blogger Kourosh Ziabari said...

Dear David, I became redirected to your English blog by the link of one persian blog, it seems that they filtered your blog in some cities of Iran, although I can access it truely via my governmental Internet service from Rasht.
Let's introduce you my English Blog that is being updated frequently, I write about various political issues of Iran and often the common international subjects in, and maybe you will take an even short visit from it... It would be so grateful for me to host you as my honorable addressee... But before all, let's confess that I am aware about my weak English linguistic knowledge and I have not any arrogation about the grammatic correction of my writings, so please don't laugh at me if I write pretty childish !
by the way, lets give you the suggestion of link exchanging, maybe you agree!

9/26/2006 3:12 PM  
Blogger Kourosh Ziabari said...

Dear David, thanks for your kind tendency and consideration.
It is one of my greatest childhood wishes to come US for studying journalistic sciences... For example the professional Poyenter school would be an ideal place to improve and enhance my knowledge, but It was never an oppertunity for me... maybe you can help me, in the other world, of course you can help me and it regards to your willingness and desire! For example, introducing my weblog by you, would be great on this way... Anyhow, It is honorable for me to be in touch with you, by the way, lets tell that I was selected to moderate a weekly column in WashingtonPost... thanks a lot

9/27/2006 12:31 PM  
Blogger Dr O2 said...

David perhaps we will be the only shocked ones with our own scheme ;-) it is hard to surprise the experienced ;-)

9/27/2006 12:43 PM  
Blogger David said...

Kourosh, thanks for your visits to my blog. I enjoyed visiting yours, as well. Some of my Iranian friends are here in the U.S. in various graduate schools. I hope you will be able to fulfill your wish to study here! I would be happy to give your blog an introduction to my guests in my next post (which is coming soon). :)

Omid, I am a bit confused! Can you please explain to your sometimes dim whitted friend what you are talking about? ;)

9/28/2006 12:49 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

There is a theory that the resurrected Christ is depicted in art with an erect penis. You can certainly persuade any class to stare at paintings of the risen christ to check for this. I don't know what the record is in terms of minutes spent trying to look for the erection. Reminds me a bit of poor ol George Clooney on Solaris, he thought he was engaging in a complex high powered sci-fi classic that challenge the whole post-modernist etc and all he would get questioned about was that scene with his naked bottom in it (very classical and michelangelic though I must say far better than a Wisden centrefold). I say. You aren't even the least bit embarrassed and that is the true legacy of Benjamin Franklin. If you didn't also have nuclear weapons and an beligerent foreign policy with designs on world domination hmmph it would quite sweet. It's always the ignorant uncultured barbarians with better weapons of war wot destroys civilisations.

No of course you dont obsess over penis size in art, it's all post modernist ironic fay erstatz neopragmatic, blush away sir, and so you should, you are a common ignorant barbarian philistine who thinks he has some education and sophistication and is then pretending to have the confidence to talk like a wanker. You are an American. I am not that old but i remember when you were the good guys. You remember that scene in LOTRII, the elfs and the old alliance yeah that's meant to be you.

Though there was a piece of research done on whether men now dressed more to the left or to the right compared with the statue of david apparently if you say it has to do with the discontinuity with the unsynthesized manifold everyone nods.

Though as unitedstatesians go you seem fairly harmless.

12/06/2006 8:18 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home