Can the weather be clement?

Why is 0! = 1?

I'm not going to answer that question.

Having seen the film My Kid Could Paint That I feel that I am either cynical with things like this, persuaded by the documentary maker or some other reason that I've not had.

The main ratio of the film, to me, was the idea of art. The story's about a four-year-old kid who painted some great abstract art which people bought for thousands of dollars. It then seemed that maybe her dad did the painting, or at least finished it for her and sold it under her name. In spite of the doubt that I have on who painted the works, I found that it is the people who bought the art that irked me.

Are you buying the art because a four year old prodigy painted the work (and perhaps not like the art itself), or are you actually taken by the artwork for what it is - standing alone and speaking for itself? It seemed that when it was revealed that the girl may not be the artist, some of the "collectors" felt robbed. But they bought the painting!!!!

I am somewhat confused. Moliere Aware winner Yasmina Riza wrote "ART" which was quite on point about the reasoning, or lack thereof, about abstract art. Is there anything that needs to be understood or does it just have some form of pretense and people buy the art without explanation?

I understand if you buy a Klimt or Miro and it turns out to be a fake it is fraudulent and you are paying millions for a copy. But these people had bought art which was not in this category.

ALAS... it is quite the conundrum which is something to ponder.

To quote Ms Riza: "Read Seneca."

Le funny quote:

One time, this guy handed me a picture of him, he said, "Here's a picture of me when I was younger."

Every picture is of you when you were younger.

"Here's a picture of me when I'm older."

"You son of a bitch! How'd you pull that off? Lemme see that camera!"

- Mitch Hedberg