Thought the Da Vinci Code was Terrible?
Then you’ll *love* these mocking tributes to Dan Brown’s popular and completely unreadable stack of (toilet) paper.
The O’Keeffe Enigma
Becca, a hiply attractive, postfeminist “Goth grrrl” and part-time bookstore employee, accidentally discovers a shattering secret while stocking books at a Borders megastore in Sacramento. During a quiet moment of messing around with those “magic eye” books, she turns to gaze, by chance, at a Georgia O’Keeffe calendar resting on a shelf nearby. What she discovers hidden within one of O’Keeffe’s famous flower paintings shocks her, and, if revealed to the public, could initiate a series of ideological tremors that will rock American culture to its core.
Art historians and feminist critics have long believed O’Keeffe’s portraits of flowers to be thinly coded expressions of independent, unapologetic female sexuality; but Becca has discovered that hidden within one of O’Keeffe’s iconic irises is the disturbing image of a decidedly nonsensual and matronly Betty Crocker whipping up a batch of hungry-boy biscuits for her newspaper-reading, pipe-smoking husband. What strange message is O’Keeffe sending to the future with this image?
More at the Chronicle [registration may be required], such as:
The Michelangelo Mystery
Antonio, a dashing but unassuming apprentice curator for the Vatican’s vast art holdings, one morning accidentally wipes a bit too hard while cleaning the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel and discovers a shocking secret: It appears that Michelangelo, in his first draft of the image of God creating Adam, did not depict the two figures gently touching fingers, but rather giving each other enthusiastic high-fives.
And three cheers for finally moving Reagan below the fold.
4 Responses to Thought the Da Vinci Code was Terrible?
Leave a Reply
Archives
- February 2016
- April 2014
- March 2014
- April 2013
- March 2012
- January 2012
- March 2011
- February 2011
- February 2009
- January 2008
- September 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
- May 2005
- April 2005
- March 2005
- February 2005
- January 2005
- December 2004
- November 2004
- October 2004
- September 2004
- August 2004
- July 2004
- June 2004
- May 2004
- April 2004
- March 2004
- February 2004
- January 2004
- December 2003
- November 2003
- October 2003
- September 2003
- August 2003
- July 2003
- June 2003
- May 2003
- April 2003
- March 2003
Categories
You know that moving below the fold and staying below the fold are not the same? A search for coffin + low might net a search engine hit. Noticed, btw, that there is no alt attribute on the img element.. shying away from ekphraksis for the text-only browser crowd?
Sheer laziness on my part Francois 😉 I need to be a bit more xhtml compliant.
Do you use a text-only, btw?
dial, dawn, dove.
I do use Lynx, a text-only browser, often — at least daily. It helps with those sites whose stylesheets lead to wonky display (like column overlap)in certain browsers. It is also a dream for being able to use keyboard shortcuts to navigate. And it is very interesting to read what an author might give as a description of an image they use — like reading a paratext. It is worth for example reading Weez’s alt tags at http://www.weez.oyzon.com — you get a bit of narrative to go with the image.