# BBC news online, or is it the onion in disguise?! **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [September 29, 2004, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685 "2004-09-29T17:19:56Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![Cervaise](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cervaise/32/16693_2.png) [@Cervaise](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cervaise)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2004, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685/61 "2004-09-30T01:47:57Z")
> [@Lobsang](#): > > No, I understand the prose in a medical journal to be real, and having a very well established meaning. I might well be wrong and uncultured, but I see art’s fancy words (often, but not always) as being fake, and used to make the critic sound clever. If you actually knew anything about art, you wouldn’t say this. I think the kid’s work (presuming it is actually the kid’s work, and not an elaborate hoax of some sort) is very, very impressive. Balance of color and composition would be very good for a 20-year-old artist, let alone a 4-year-old. And for those hung up about the money: Buying art, for many, is an investment. Let’s say that this kid does turn out to be, over the next ten years, a towering genius on the order of Kandinsky or Duchamp, and single-handedly drags the art world into a new conceptual paradigm. Wouldn’t her early work then become extraordinarily valuable? and wouldn’t those who got in on the ground floor be entitled to enjoy the financial rewards of their foresight? If somebody paid a thousand bucks for a sketch Picasso made when he was six, wouldn’t he get the last laugh when it sells for millions? Sure, maybe it’ll turn out to be nothing. It might even be a fraud. But then again, it might not be. And even if you don’t know shit about art, as many of you clearly don’t, you must know something about _money._ Yes? ---
**Author:** ![GuanoLad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guanolad/32/42_2.png) [@GuanoLad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GuanoLad)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2004, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685/62 "2004-09-30T01:52:42Z")
Normally I’m one of the first to rant against worthless Art, but I usually do it against the Art As Investment crowd, which I suppose this is potentially a part of. But to be honest, I think the paintings this kid has done, or the ones they’re showing on the website, are actually really good. But then, I always say, Art is what you like; There is no right or wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Frank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/3d9bf3/32.png) [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2004, 2:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685/63 "2004-09-30T02:19:46Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > The critic’s you complain about, on the other hand, are open-minded enough to not get hung up on traditional (and frequently out-moded) ideas of what art “should” look like, which is precisely the opposite of snobbery. I assume these critics would be open-minded enough to recognize the brilliance of a new Titian, Van Gogh or Rodin despite the artist’s “outmoded” traditional ideas of what art should look like? I found Composition VIII to be pretty and colorful, but does it _do_ anything for me? Nah. I found Ancient Sounds to be ugly, but does _it_ do anything for me? Nah. Look, I’m not arguing that these artists aren’t skillful. I couldn’t do what they did anymore than I could do what Michaelangelo or Renoir did. The art just doesn’t appeal to me, that’s all. And I’d like it if those of us who have tastes in art that does not include what is currently stylish were not treated as though we were either ignorant or philistines. ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2004, 2:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685/64 "2004-09-30T02:58:24Z")
> [@Lobsang](#): > > You said I was getting my panties in a twist earlier. I think it is you that is doing that. I am just getting pulled in by it. I am defending my choices of words and getting deeper into the issue, when I _should_ be explaning how I really don’t care all that much about the issue and posted the OP as a knee-jerk reaction to an article which on first impressions seemed way over the top. I saw an international news story about a toddler making a mess with paint and thought “how is that newsworthy” and my first thought was the pit. If that’s what you’re doing, your presentation is all wrong. Pit the article instead of going into a tangent about the girl’s ability or your perceived lack thereof. ---
**Author:** ![Typo\_Negative](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/typo_negative/32/484_2.png) [@Typo\_Negative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Negative)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2004, 3:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685/65 "2004-09-30T03:53:40Z")
> [@Bippy the Beardless](#): > > I don’t remember which doper posted a link to this work as an example of perfection in an earlier thread, but that poster was correct. > [Abstract Art](http://cgfa.sunsite.dk/kandinsky/p-kandinsky17.htm) A print of this hangs in my former dentist’s office. I cannot look at it and not feel pain. I agree with the posters who call this a hoax. In any event, I find them more interesting than Pollock’s work. IMO, Pollock’s stuff is shit. But then, what the fuck do I know? I just know what I like. (and I like what I know 😛 ) ---
**Author:** ![dropzone](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dropzone/32/7515_2.png) [@dropzone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dropzone)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2004, 4:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685/66 "2004-09-30T04:09:00Z")
> [@Lobsang](#): > > I stand by my opinion though. If it was done by an elephant (I remain dubious) then it was a particularly talented elephant. I’ve watched her (I believe it’s a female) work and she is very deliberate in her choice of colors and where she puts the paint. What may be just as important, she seems to know when she is done. Not bored with painting, but finished with the one she is working on. I have seen other animals that seem to have an aesthetic sense–and animals of the same species that appreciated it. I had a cat whose assemblages were very much appreciated by my other cats. They enjoyed watching her work (no anthropomorphizing–she would put one together and the others would watch the whole time) and would continue to “admire” it (walk around it looking at it) once she was done. ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2004, 4:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685/67 "2004-09-30T04:30:11Z")
> [@Larry Mudd](#): > > _Finnegans Wake_ is a book, but I feel safe in including amongst “orations” because it needs to be heard aloud in order to comprehend much of it. It’s certainly _not_ gibberish – if anything, it contains much more information that straight prose. It has layered meanings, and is as much about language itself and protomythology as anything.You can ask your ass if he believes it. If that quote is any indication, I’ve met computer programs that can write equally well. The one I have in mind is suffering from a little writer’s block right now, but I did manage to coax this masterpiece out of him: > [@](#): > > It’s just that Miseri was a lot of actual reviews)… Roberto Benigni’s Pinocchio, Yu-Gi-oh: the movie. Wow. Fakest looking herb-smoking scene ever. That would have said $900 (in 2000 dollars). I still don’t see why she talked like that, except there are authors waiting until the end it turns out that [weeklyworldnews.com](http://weeklyworldnews.com) is _so_ not my forte. You might need to read it aloud in order to comprehend all the layered meanings. 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2004, 4:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685/68 "2004-09-30T04:50:44Z")
I have a book about animals that create art, but I can’t seem to find it now, and I can’t remember the name of it. Pretty neat book. Lousy read: the text is a bunch of blather about how the animals are expressing their reincarnated souls by drawing squiggly lines in the sand with a stick, but the big, glossy color photographs were fascinating. Mostly dogs, some cats, but a few horses and other animals. I was trying to Google the title, though, and I came across [this essay](http://www.abslogic.com/AnimalArt.htm) about animals who create art. It’s pretty interesting, but I was particularly amazed by this bit: > [@](#): > > Until Koko and Michael, the art that had been done by animals could not be considered incontrovertibly representational drawings. However, those that were respected as authorities on abstract expressionism, without knowing who the artist was, viewed them as genuine works of art. Jerome Witkin, a professor of art at Syracuse University, said that the drawings by Siri, an elephant, were “very, very beautiful. They are so positive and affirmative and tense, the energy is so compact and controlled, it’s just incredible. This piece is so graceful, so delicate, I can’t get most of my students to fill a page like this.” Witkin compared Siri’s art work with that of Willem de Kooning. **When they were shown to Kooning, his wife, Elaine, who was an excellent artist in her own right, had this to say, "We felt they had a kind of flair and decisiveness and originality. . . The drawings do not have a random quality. They are not accidental. They have the same kind of rhythm and verve one sometimes observes in the little dance steps [of] elephants . . ."** Anyone else want to claim that abstract art doesn’t “mean” anything? ---
**Author:** ![Ms2001](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ms2001/32/18463_2.png) [@Ms2001](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ms2001)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2004, 4:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685/69 "2004-09-30T04:57:45Z")
> [@](#): > > When they were shown to Kooning, his wife, Elaine, who was an excellent artist in her own right, had this to say, “We felt they had a kind of flair and decisiveness and originality. . . The drawings do not have a random quality. They are not accidental. They have the same kind of rhythm and verve one sometimes observes in the little dance steps [of] elephants . . .” Just goes to show that people can find patterns in anything if they look hard enough. The pitted surface of the moon looks like a human face, a group of stars looks like a giant mythological hunter, a cloud looks like a giraffe, and an elephant’s painting expresses “rhythm and verve”. ---
**Author:** ![Ilsa\_Lund](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/a6a055/32.png) [@Ilsa\_Lund](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ilsa_Lund)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2004, 5:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685/70 "2004-09-30T05:19:21Z")
> [@Mr2001](#): > > > [@Larry Mudd](#): > > > > Finnegans Wake is a book, but I feel safe in including amongst “orations” because it needs to be heard aloud in order to comprehend much of it. It’s certainly not gibberish – if anything, it contains much more information that straight prose. It has layered meanings, and is as much about language itself and protomythology as anything.You can ask your ass if he believes it. > > If that quote is any indication, I’ve met computer programs that can write equally well. > > The one I have in mind is suffering from a little writer’s block right now, but I did manage to coax this masterpiece out of him: > > > [@](#): > > > > It’s just that Miseri was a lot of actual reviews)… Roberto Benigni’s Pinocchio, Yu-Gi-oh: the movie. Wow. Fakest looking herb-smoking scene ever. That would have said $900 (in 2000 dollars). I still don’t see why she talked like that, except there are authors waiting until the end it turns out that [weeklyworldnews.com](http://weeklyworldnews.com) is _so_ not my forte. > > You might need to read it aloud in order to comprehend all the layered meanings. If you’re serious, then all you have done is prove that you’re an idiot; not that _Finnegans Wake_ is trash and modern literary criticism invalid. ---
**Author:** ![matt\_mcl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/7ab992/32.png) [@matt\_mcl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/matt_mcl)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2004, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685/71 "2004-09-30T05:36:01Z")
> [@](#): > > Some more artsy tossers come along and talk utter meaningless nonsense about how it faciltates the expression of modern anti post historic superbalism with it’s fruelatic morphing of sausageism and glass qualities. It just makes me want to post a thousand rolleyes smileys. **Lobsang,** have you ever picked up a well (i.e. clearly) written book about modern art and studied it? My brother bought a two-volume set entitled _Art Across Time_ for a class, which he later gave to me, and I’m enjoying it a great deal. It makes the meaning of even very difficult pieces come across quite clearly. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2004, 5:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685/72 "2004-09-30T05:46:48Z")
> [@Mr2001](#): > > If that quote is any indication, I’ve met computer programs that can write equally well. No, you haven’t. Seriously. The snippet you provided isn’t even close to what Joyce was doing in _Finnegan’s Wake_. I’m not saying I understand the passage **Larry Mudd** quoted, but it’s clearly not gibberish. There are obvious associative themes between his word choices, sometimes by meaning, sometimes by sound. I can’t analyze the whole passage: I haven’t read _Finnegan’s Wake_, and Joyce is way outside my ability to process without an annotated text to work with, but there are a couple of things that stand out to me: > [@](#): > > A bone, a pebble, a ramskin; chip them, chap them, cut them up allways. Joyce invents a lot of words. Some are almost impenetrable, some are easier. “Ramskin” most likely is his word for a condom (usually made out of sheep’s intestine in Joyce’s day), and the associative imagery of “a bone, a pebble” makes me guess he’s refering to trash or roadside litter. The second half of the quote re-enforces that impression, as they sound damaged: chipped, chapped (scuffed) and cut into pieces (probably refering to the condom). And (assuming this is in the original text and not a transciption error on **Larry Mudd** ’s part) “allways” has a double meaning: the trash (or whatever it is) is always cut up, but it’s also cut up “all ways,” or “into very small pieces.” If I’m right in my reading of “allways” and “ramskin,” then there’s a clearly violent/sexual theme going on here. It is a very small intuitive leap to go from “mutilated condom” to “mutilated penis.” > [@](#): > > For that (the rapt one warns) is what papyr is meed of, made of, hides and hints and misses in prints. In this sentence and the next, we have several direct references to the history of written communication. Note the word “papyr,” which is not just a idiosyncratic spelling of “paper,” but is also a truncated version of the word “papyrus,” a primitve type of paper and the root of the word we use today. It’s probably significant that the word “made” is initially misprounced so as to sound like “mead,” but I don’t have enough context to know why. “Hides,” of course, refers to the forerunner of papyrus, when scraped hides were used to record important information. The phrase “hides and hints and misses” has a great rhythm to it. We get a touch of alliteration with “hides and hints,” a play on words with “hints and misses,” _and_ the associative meanings of “hides” and “misses.” If something is hidden from you, you are likely to miss it. Joyce was pretty infamous for his dirty mind, so I’m certain there’s some additional meaning to “miss” in this passage, but I can’t guess what. What does the sentence as a whole mean? No idea. But it clearly means _something_. > [@](#): > > Till ye finally (though not yet endlike) meet with the acquaintance of Mister Typus, Mistress Tope and all the little typtopies. IIRC, _Finnegan’s Wake_ is supposed to roughly parrallel the journey of Odysseus, although I might be confusing it with another of Joyce’s novels. Normally, I’d do a Google check to confirm this, but I’m trying to interpret this passage blind. Working from that assumption, I’m guessing this sentence refers to the protagonist’s “journey” through Dublin. Note the distinction made between “finally” and “endlike.” The meeting will take place after an extended period of time, but will not yet be the end of the journey. I don’t know if “Mister Typus” and “Mistress Tope” are re-occuring characters in the novel or some symbolic creation for the purposes of this passage. Note that “Typus” continues the (if you’ll pardon the pun) literary symbolism of the previous sentence (“type”) and sounds suspciously close to “typhus,” which may work into another, larger theme or plot point of the book. No idea what to do with “Mistress Tope,” although I like the word “typtopies” to refer to their children. Wether they refer to actual children or metaphorical children isn’t clear from this one sentence. I can’t make heads or tales of the rest of the passage, except to note the re-occurance of “typtopies,” this time reversed and used as an adjective: “toptypiscal.” (“typical” might be another association for that neologism, but that’s just me free associating.) Now, I may very well be pulling every last word of that out of my ass. If I am, though, I’m having trouble performing the same stunt with your computer generated quote. Now, that _could_ be because I already know there’s no meaning to that passage, and I already “know” there’s meaning to _Finnegan’s Wake_, and am somehow deluding myself into finding what’s not really there in one quote, and deluding myself into not finding it in the other. Or, it could be that _Finnegan’s Wake_ really is one of the greatest novels ever written in any language, and your quote is just random gibberish. ---
**Author:** ![roger\_thornhill](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@roger\_thornhill](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/roger_thornhill)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2004, 5:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685/73 "2004-09-30T05:48:54Z")
> [@matt\_mcl](#): > > It makes the meaning of even very \*\*\*difficult \* \*\* pieces come across quite clearly. Love the choice of word!! ( **Lobbers** , I’m essentially with you on this one.) ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2004, 5:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685/74 "2004-09-30T05:54:11Z")
> [@Mr2001](#): > > Just goes to show that people can find patterns in anything if they look hard enough. The pitted surface of the moon looks like a human face, a group of stars looks like a giant mythological hunter, a cloud looks like a giraffe, and an elephant’s painting expresses “rhythm and verve”. You don’t find it at all interesting that she was looking at a painting by an elephant, _without knowing it’s by an elephant,_ and says it shows “the same kind of rhythm and verve one sometimes observes in the **little dance steps [of] elephants**”? Is that a straight up coincidence, or what? ---
**Author:** ![pulykamell](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/pulykamell/32/3166_2.png) [@pulykamell](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pulykamell)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2004, 5:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685/75 "2004-09-30T05:56:36Z")
> [@Lobsang](#): > > However, I can see I am fighting a losing battle. Some people obviously see genuine quality in mess that I somehow don’t. That’s the thing…I don’t see a mess in those paintings. There is a keen sense of composition and color there which I would think is fairly evident, but apparently not. With all honesty, I would I would be proud if _I_ had made those paintings, as a 29-year-old. I mean, look at the Pollackesque painting. Look at the dark borders, and all the white scribbles near the edges. The white scribbles disappear towards the center, which is dominated by hues of red and yellow. The shapes of the scribbles all concentrate the painting toward the center. There is an undeniable “rhythm” and balance to this painting. Like I said before, this is not the work of an ordinary 4-year-old. And the first painting, an expressionistic piece reminiscent of Kandinsky, once again, the kid shows some innate understanding of color and compositional blanace. The painting is not just a haphazard jumble of colors. There’s a beautiful interplay between the complementary hues blue and orange, concentrating on that circular form near the center of the painting. The colors and forms all lead the eye toward this focal point. There is a playful movement created through the contrasting colors and forms. And this is not some bullshit art talk. This is what I see. The middle painting is not quite so impressive, but it still shows an unusual understanding of form and color. We’re not bullshitting you. This is very interesting work for a four-year-old. Had a 25-year-old produced this, I would say it’s solid and compositionally sound, but ultimately very derivative. For a child, it’s nothing short of incredible. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2004, 6:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685/76 "2004-09-30T06:00:48Z")
> [@matt\_mcl](#): > > **Lobsang,** have you ever picked up a well (i.e. clearly) written book about modern art and studied it? My brother bought a two-volume set entitled _Art Across Time_ for a class, which he later gave to me, and I’m enjoying it a great deal. It makes the meaning of even very difficult pieces come across quite clearly. Again, though, this raises the question of what the purpose of art is. I’m with you, in that i find it very interesting to have the meaning in artworks explained to me by an expert. The feeling of being educated like this is often akin to having the clouds part and the sun come through—everything is suddenly clear and you have a new appreciation for what you’re looking at. Yet some people argue that if an audience cannot find meaning in an artwork without having it explained by someone with long years of expertise in the field, then that piece has failed one of the fundamental tests of a work of art—its ability to communicate. Of course, starting down this road is probably only going to lead to the same old argument about “good” art versus “bad” art, “popular” art versus “elite” art, “highbrow” versus “lowbrow,” even, following Clement Greenberg, “avant garde” versus “kitsch.” That debate never seems to reach any satisfactory conclusion. ---
**Author:** ![Miller](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/miller/32/481_2.png) [@Miller](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Miller)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2004, 6:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685/77 "2004-09-30T06:06:02Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > Yet some people argue that if an audience cannot find meaning in an artwork without having it explained by someone with long years of expertise in the field, then that piece has failed one of the fundamental tests of a work of art—its ability to communicate. My favorite counter to that argument is to ask, “If I read _Hamlet_ aloud to a crowd who speaks no English, does that mean it’s a bad play?” ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2004, 6:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685/78 "2004-09-30T06:09:50Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > My favorite counter to that argument is to ask, “If I read _Hamlet_ aloud to a crowd who speaks no English, does that mean it’s a bad play?” Sure, and as a basic logical proposition that’s fine. But it’s also a reductionist and essentially evasive answer that really fails to take into account the fact that the gradations of artistic knowledge and aesthetic taste are much too complex to be encompassed by a simplistic linguistic analogy. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2004, 6:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685/79 "2004-09-30T06:12:45Z")
> [@Miller](#): > > Or, it could be that _Finnegan’s Wake_ really is one of the greatest novels ever written in any language, and your quote is just random gibberish. I spent several years in a \*Finnegans Wake \*reading group. Needless to say, it changed the way I read and write; it changed my relationship to language. Mining _Finnegans Wake_ for its gems is a synergistically productive task: for each measure of effort, you get back a double or triple measure of reward. That said,\*\* Mr2001\*\* is correct in that a computer program could probably produce text that’s just as opaque to him, or to anyone else not interested in digging for what’s diggable. But he’s wrong if he thinks a computer could produce a text that were as rich in buried treasures as _FW_. It might interest him, incidentally, that there’s a pretty large subset of people in A.I. research who are interested in _FW_. ---
**Author:** ![lissener](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lissener/32/6139_2.png) [@lissener](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lissener)\ **Post date:** [September 30, 2004, 6:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685/80 "2004-09-30T06:15:50Z")
BUt more on track, “found art” is perfectly valid, artistically. THe paintings of that girl–and of elephants–can become art depending upon their context. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/bbc-news-online-or-is-it-the-onion-in-disguise/266685.md?page=5)