ADVERTISEMENT

Burger King's Twitter feed hacked

  • Blog Post by: James Lileks
  • February 18, 2013 - 1:13 PM

To celebrate General Aggregated POTUS day, Burger King’s Twitter account got hacked to make it look like they were taken over by McDonald’s.

 

 

 

 

This is not good publicity.

  

 

 

This is a family newspaper, so seek it out at your own risk. Lots of profanity. Wonder how long it will take them to fix it? Someone is responsible for managing the account, after all. Or rather was. 

UPDATE: around 1PM, the account is suspended. 

  

MEANWHILE IN RUSSIA Thanks to the meteor, everyone’s familiar with the genre of Russian Dashcam Mayhem. The concept can be expanded to general Russian craziness - which apparently occurs in quantities sufficient to make a daily compilation.

  

 

(via EnglishRussia.com.) 

 

 

ART TODAY The comments rules for the Orange County Resgister say “no vulgarity,” which makes you wonder how they define it. The story's about an enormous dog urinating on the wall of the museum.

Once the shell was placed, Jackson climbed into the dog with a big bucket of yellow paint, which he squirted on to the wall. Now a pump continuously shoots out the paint.

"The way I see it, it's funny," he said. "I understand that Newport Beach has traditionally been a conservative community. But, this is an art museum. This piece of art is making a commentary or statement. The dog is pissing on the museum."

Yes he is. It’s whimsical! And a comment on, you know, things. How art is stuffy and pretentious and needs to be reminding of its vanity with a periodic drenching of ersatz urine.

If you really want to make someone’s day, go online and make fun of it. Someone will have the chance to be contemptuous and indignant towards you on behalf of art, which means they’re a better person with a finely-tuned sense of contemporary aesthetics. Continue to needle them until the victim starts shouting about OBVIOUS REFERENCES TO OLDENBERG MY GOD AN IDIOT CAN SEE IT in the same tone as Felix Unger losing his wits because Oscar does not know the proper name for a ladle.

While the work may indeed be inoffensive by modern standards, I prefer to hold the line on body-fluid art, because if you have no objection of any sort to “Bad Dog,” then you have nothing left to protest “Sick as a Dog,” which ejects projectile fluids from a hindwise aperature. Or one that throws up every five minutes. Or does something equally disgusting.

 

You can say there’s a difference, and perhaps there is, but if you can’t understand why some people find the urinating dog an example of predictable vulgarity, you’ll lack the language and the ideas to protest the inevitable enormous incontinent pit bull.

 

In other art news: It’s the 100th anniversary of the Armory Show, where Duchamp showed off “Explosion in a Shingle Factory” and sold it for $234. Here’s a review of Duchamp’s enduring masterpiece.

"Take the picture which for some reason is called 'A Naked Man Going Down Stairs'. There is in my bathroom a really good Navajo rug which, on any proper interpretation of the Cubist theory, is a far more satisfactory and decorative picture. Now, if, for some inscrutable reason, it suited somebody to call this rug a picture of, say, 'A Well-Dressed Man Going Up a Ladder', the name would fit the facts just about as well as in the case of the Cubist picture of the 'Naked Man Going Down Stairs'. From the standpoint of terminology each name would have whatever merit inheres in a rather cheap straining after effect; and from the standpoint of decorative value, of sincerity, and of artistic merit, the Navajo rug is infinitely ahead of the picture."

The critic: President Theodore Roosevelt.

One can note that there were objections to the Armory Show, just like there were objections to (fill in the blank with something Shocking to modern tastes, but destined to be as inoffensive as Elvis’ hips.) True. But just because someone objected to the alteration or dissolution of standards doesn’t mean that less talented artists wouldn’t alter and dilute them even more.

You could say to Duchamp: “Hey, Mike, I understand that when you present a urinal as a piece of sculpture, you’re making us considering the aesthetics of a commonplace object by recontextualizing it, as well as asserting that the new concept of 'art' can be divorced from creation and talent, and mean just 'selection and presentation.' Got it. But you do know that this means no one will be able to sculpt anything, because it’s easier to get into a museum by putting a pile of fake rubber vomit on the floor next to a box of chocolates and call it a protest against Western body-image standards that result in bulemia.”

He’d probably shrug. Ceci n’est pas un problem.

Lost battle, in any case. And I do like the Duchamp. it wasn’t all Cubism at the Armory show'  Whistler was in the exhibit. Hopper. Sisley. Ingres, for heaven’s sake. 

 

© 2014 Star Tribune