random post of randomness

by Paul Barnes

It shouldn’t be random, but it is.

I’ve been tearing a part the studio (again) for the last couple of days due to the In-Laws:  Wisconsin Edition giving The Husband and me a table for the kitchen that is a much more reasonable size for our space; the previous kitchen table has moved into my studio.

Hence, the tearing a part of the studio. *shrugs*

…I do wonder how I get any art made, like, ever.

Speaking of art, I have a new artistic crush.  His name is Paul Barnes. <–That’s his work about…and below…

His website is under-construction, so here’s his page on Thumbtack Press.  I think I might have mentioned him before, but I now have a full-blown art-crush; it bears repeating, I think.

Aren’t his creatures sweet and wee?  They’re so creepily kawaii.  I want one (or seven) of his paintings.

I do have a birthday coming up, but really, art is an anytime-of-the-year type of offering. *whistles*

by Paul Barnes

*insert segue here*

I finished reading The Witches of Eastwick today, and all I can say is that I think that John Updike took Pat Robertson’s rant about

“The feminist agenda is not about equal rights for women. It is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians.”

a little too seriously.  Also?  It has every kind -ism in the history of the universe in it.  The narration is all wackadoodled and sloppy.  The research is lousy and seems to only have come from the caricaturization of Medieval/Early Modern in craptastic novelizations.  And, quite possibly the most insulting thing, is that, after all the “I hate men”-ness that permeates the novel (even that is an overwrought caricature), all the women get married again.

It’s like the whole novel was some sort misogynistic, guilt-ridden male fantasy that had to end in marriage to make the characters, who were very much two dimensional characters who I didn’t really like and didn’t really care if horrible things happened to them, safe for work again.

Can’t have those wild, free-spirited, liberated women running around without the manacles of marriage to weigh them back down again. *EYE-ROLL HEARD AROUND THE WORLD*

Oh, and evidently, John Updike hates conceptual and postmodern art.



And, since I’m in a ranty mood, here’s an interesting, infuriating, naively unrealistic video.

Before I begin my deconstruction and general crankiness with this video, what do y’all think?  Is it just me that there are some major issues in here?

Y’all chat amongst yourselves, and I will post my rant about this video later this week (or next week’s blog at the latest).



  1. Love the new layout, by the way! I am also embarking on Witches of Eastwick (omg! it’s so bad, ya gotta read it) I definitely need to watch the video soon (not feeling like getting on that particular rant at the moment… might be useful to show in Humanities class as a conversation starter). I do like Barnes’ work… there’s something eerie/blurry about it that’s appealing (and sad).


  2. Barnes’ creatures truly are a bit sad, aren’t they? POOR LITTLE CREATURES!

    I’m glad that you live the new layout. It’s definitely one of the least annoying ones that I’ve ever run across. That’s a miracle on the order of loaves and fishes.

    I really think this video could be useful for discussion in a Humanities or Art History class; there’s a lot of thoughts in there that severally undermine current art practices and concepts and seem to be totally, naively Modernist. *sigh*


Leave a Reply to Katrina ('Trie) Blasingame Cancel 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