Call us cultural elitists—you wouldn't be the first—but we believe these pigs are backward.No, we mean they are backward.
At least the boar in blue is. (Either that, or he is giving the principle of artistic perspective a real run for its money.) He is wearing his vest so that it buttons up the back. You might say—you wouldn't be the first—that we are viewing his front. "No tail!" you proclaim haughtily. While we cannot explain the pig's taillessness, nevertheless we maintain that he dances with his back to us. Look at his head/neck region. Look at the fat folds there! Look at the folds at the tops of his legs. All of his fat folds mirror the sow's and no one would deny that she is turned away, her back to the "camera."
What does it matter? Since when do we concern ourselves with the costuming of the suicidal animals we analyze? (To be fair, we have commented on such things in the past, but forget that.) We'll tell you:
This matters because we take it as a sign of the boar's determination to dance for
This pig—these pigs! These pigs dance not out of the joy of self-expression. They dance to die.
3 comments:
Meat ads attract some of the worst artists on the planet. Why? "Couldn't make it through art school, I'll just draw pigs cookin' themselves for a livin'."
The male pig appears to not have a tail because he is facing forwards, and the female is facing away(backwards, still dont agree with the msg that the sign is portraying, but just wanted to correct the previous statment.
thanks
Post a Comment