Monday, April 09, 2007

One thing I find frustrating is when I'm reading an article in the paper, and the whole point and argument of the article is some sort of argument about something visual...and then they don't provide the reader with the frickin' visual!

Don't tell me all about the complaints about the design of something and then don't let me see what you're bitching about.

This article on outdoor advertising:

"In all cases, the problem begins with the designs themselves: They are inappropriate, disconcertingly trendy, overdone and overpowering. They would only increase the rampant commercialization of the public realm."

Oh yeah?
Let's see.
Oh, what?
No pictures?

Looking up one of the companies that they're bitching about...this is what they're talking about.

Here's another one.

When I read about the Asian American Artist whose posted public art was vadalized with a "hateful message", I wanted to see.

"Mathew Tom, a 22-year-old art major, is the creator and the subject of the messages. He won second place and a $250 prize from the art department for what he calls "racial artwork." He uses his paintings to try and expose the racism in American culture toward Asian-Americans."

Of course I want to see what kind of art would induce such hateful messages.
Is there a picture in the article?

I had to hunt it down through clues in the article.
Here is Mathew Tom's controversial art.

I hate that.
Reading the paper online shouldn't be like a scavenger hunt.