inky, blinky or yes we have no bananas

Purveyor of wonderfully hideous men’s fashions (although style is very much in the eye of the beholder) OppoSuits presents this Pac-Man bit of tailoring that seems the natural and dignified answer to pin-stripes (or at the very least, the natural consequence of novelty ties), via Neatorama. The gang’s all there but no ambulatory fruits to be found in the maze. We are in agreement with their suggestion that one ought to wear this for his court-arraignment and would also be appropriate attire for a job interview—or a televised debate. At only around eighty euro, it seems within anyone’s clothing allowance.

figleaf and fishcake

Kottke helps us make acquaintance with an expert remixer that that introduces snippets of film dialogue onto works of fine art. Popquotery allows us to better appreciate both.
This particular quotation is from the 1988 comedy heist A Fish Called Wanda, superimposed on a 1907 portrait called A Rose by Thomas Pollock Anshutz. Incidentally, Anshutz was a nudist and exhibitionist and helped (sat for) Eadweard Muybridge pioneer his animation and motion picture techniques, but ensured his success at the Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts by dismissing his competition for conduct unbecoming of a teacher in allowing a male model to appear before a sketch class of females sans loincloth.

…but satisfaction brought her back

Originator of the gothic genre with his novel The Castel of Otranto, Horace Walpole, was also an avid cat-fancier. His favourite companion was a tabby named Selima who was sadly discovered one day in 1747 to have drowned in a goldfish bowl, presumably while trying to extract her prey. To console his loss, the earl commissioned a poet friend to eulogise the cat’s death with an ode, which is really quite amazing and includes a warning clause for the morbidly curious:
From hence, ye beauties, undeceived,
Know, one false step is ne’er retrieved,
And be with caution bold.
Not all that tempts your wandering eyes
And heedless hearts, is lawful prize—
Nor all that glisters, gold.

That tribute, however, was the last for beloved Selima. Painters captured her imagined final moments, mesmerised by the tantalising fish, including artist William Blake, who illustrated a publication of the ode. Private loss had quickly become public and wakes for felines became quite common afterwards.

our lady of the ladle

The utterly fabulous Messy Nessy Chic reports that one can be hostelled in Julia Child’s home in Provence. The small retreat in the countryside was built in 1966 by Child and her husband and called La Pitchoune, Little Thing, and the property has conserved Child’s famous kitchen exactly as she left it. During most of the year La Pitchoune is host to a culinary school, as homage to the palette-awakening work of the French chef, but during the off-season, guests can rent the place. We should model our kitchen off this one.

muzzled oder totem und taboo

In a chilling development, a German comedian could face hefty fines and a prison sentence for a encore act directed at the president of Turkey—who has gone on record (as some other choice demagogues) saying while he welcomes criticism, those critics will be sued. Adding to the list of not just taboo subjects of conversation in Turkey, like defaming Ataturk’s memory zum Beispiel, or questioning the official party line on the Soviets’ allegiances in World War II, but illegal ones, Germany’s diplomatic corp was called to the carpet—well, rug—for this satire, causing the Chancellor to intervene, perhaps out of fear that her tenuous deal for a refugee-exchange with Turkey might be jeopardised over this spat.
Germany, along with a few other European nations, has a law on the books regarding the slander of foreign heads of state, which is rarely but selectively enforced and carries with it a possible jail-term, if relations are not smoothed over. What do you think? This is horrible, but I suppose that libeling a dictator in this instance carries a punishment less than that for sacrilege.

petard hoist much?

VICE magazine has an interesting dialogue about the broader political ramifications of the Panama Papers, whose depths are barely plumbed but the biggest travesty so far to me appears to be that much of what will be uncovered is (barely) legal and within that exculpable framework of protection that skirting the law has crafted.
The immunity of the elite to the tax-regimes of their own creation, fashioned as a cushion in some instances to buoy what’s too big to fail in this whole global Ponzi scheme, adds insult to the injury of pervasive economic injustice. The early analysis is pretty captivating, mooting its impact, whatever the revelations, on the US elections, as antithetical to America’s zealous persecution of Swiss and European banks and the expatriate population, that country is a tax-haven itself, with many splintered jurisdictions. Despite what bombshells might drop, sadly probably no more heads will roll and we’ll be made to suffer less transparency and distracting debate of gilded escapades that draw attention away from bigger social problems—still I am hoping that this preliminary assessment is wrong and there will be some gore and shame to watch.