• Café Life is the Colony's main hangout, watering hole and meeting point.

    This is a place where you'll meet and make writing friends, and indulge in stratospherically-elevated wit or barometrically low humour.

    Some Colonists pop in religiously every day before or after work. Others we see here less regularly, but all are equally welcome. Two important grounds rules…

    • Don't give offence
    • Don't take offence

    We now allow political discussion, but strongly suggest it takes place in the Steam Room, which is a private sub-forum within Café Life. It’s only accessible to Full Members.

    You can dismiss this notice by clicking the "x" box

The only explanation is that he has a lobster on his head.

  • Thread starter Thread starter Meerkat
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Meerkat

Guest
I have a new phrase I use to explain absurdity. It is this: "Well, he just has a lobster on his head."

The context: I was an art history major. I'd grown up crazy sheltered and had never heard of any kind of art other than Impressionist art, so I had the idea that art was always objective. Everything went fine for me until I took Twentieth-Century Art. That one was so hard for me because I simply could not get my poor head around the notion that art could be subjective. There I sat as we looked at Surrealist art piece after Surrealist art piece; mentally, I was working so hard to figure out what it all meant.

Finally, as we looked at what had to have been a Dali painting, I gave up. That particular painting showed a man with a lobster on his head. (I can't now track the painting down.) Feeling utterly mentally deficient, I spoke up.

"But Dr Stewart," I said, "what does it *mean*?"

Dr Stewart, who sat on the edge of the dais twirling his glasses in his best art history professor way, looked directly at me and said, "Nothing. It doesn't mean ANYTHING."

It may be laughably obvious to most people, but to me, it was an epiphany. I am actually an eminently logical and scientific person and always try to find the logic to everything. And suddenly I realised that at times, someone might have a lobster on his head, because why not?

So now, when something is just absurd and lacks logic, I shrug and say, "Well, he's just got a lobster on his head."

I encourage this phrase to catch on.
 
Well, but that was Dali. That was Surrealism. A calculated self-aware arbitrariness. Often the iconography of a painting DOES have an underlying symbolic meaning.
 
I have a new phrase I use to explain absurdity. It is this: "Well, he just has a lobster on his head."

The context: I was an art history major. I'd grown up crazy sheltered and had never heard of any kind of art other than Impressionist art, so I had the idea that art was always objective. Everything went fine for me until I took Twentieth-Century Art. That one was so hard for me because I simply could not get my poor head around the notion that art could be subjective. There I sat as we looked at Surrealist art piece after Surrealist art piece; mentally, I was working so hard to figure out what it all meant.

Finally, as we looked at what had to have been a Dali painting, I gave up. That particular painting showed a man with a lobster on his head. (I can't now track the painting down.) Feeling utterly mentally deficient, I spoke up.

"But Dr Stewart," I said, "what does it *mean*?"

Dr Stewart, who sat on the edge of the dais twirling his glasses in his best art history professor way, looked directly at me and said, "Nothing. It doesn't mean ANYTHING."

It may be laughably obvious to most people, but to me, it was an epiphany. I am actually an eminently logical and scientific person and always try to find the logic to everything. And suddenly I realised that at times, someone might have a lobster on his head, because why not?

So now, when something is just absurd and lacks logic, I shrug and say, "Well, he's just got a lobster on his head."

I encourage this phrase to catch on.

I feel the same way when people try to over analyze films.
 
It's important to realise that the juxtaposition of apparently unrelated objects or entities in a work of art can only be truly understood by the artist. For example, another piece which includes an oak tree and a hay wain - what possible connection could those entities have? They are conjoined only by the background and context. However. some might say that the fractal arrangement of the folds flesh of the lobster is not unlike the arrangement of that of the human brain. Indeed, there is also a parallelism between the hard shell of the lobster and that of the human skull. Of course the lobster would have a different view.

On the other hand and after further consideration one might conclude that it's all bollocks and then you're dead. I love Dali's Tempus Fugit work.

Whatever your views, his work paid him well.

Constable! Arrest that man for style and artistic content infractions!

;)
 
There was a spate of surrealist jokes a few years ago, to which the punchline was always 'banana'. Thus Q: Why did the surrealist chicken cross the road? A: Banana.
 
On the other hand and after further consideration one might conclude that it's all bollocks and then you're dead. I love Dali's Tempus Fugit work.

Whatever your views, his work paid him well.

Constable! Arrest that man for style and artistic content infractions!

;)

Have you seen Dali's illustrations for Alice in Wonderland? I bought myself the book and liked it so much, I've been giving it as a gift - for adults, but I don't know why kids wouldn't like it too.
 
Have you seen Dali's illustrations for Alice in Wonderland? I bought myself the book and liked it so much, I've been giving it as a gift - for adults, but I don't know why kids wouldn't like it too.
No, I haven't seen it - will look it up. I had several Dali prints but they've disappeared over the years. On the other hand, I do have a book of H R Giger...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top