masterpiece

This is soooo bad that I'm in a fluster of angry delight!
A fourth form (year 10) creative writing class has taken over the marketing department of our National Museum:

"OMG" the class clowns said to each other (or whatever it is the kids say these days to express wide-eyed wonderment) "the wikipedia page on Picasso reckons people had sex before 1990! Well, it reckons he did, at least. That must be why he's so famous. This is newsworthy - let's mangle a few synonyms together into a really long sentence."
And so they looked up Roget’s thesaurus google and found that 'many', 'several' and 'prolific' were sort of related, as were 'interesting', 'revolutionary' and 'sensation'; also 'art' and 'work'.
Uh, kids:
1. Picasso was prolific; not his art nor his relationships.
2. How many works of art does a relationship need to equal, for Picasso to have been as prolific a relationship producer as he was an artist? 50 paintings for every lover? A painting a kiss? Are we counting sketches here? What about one night stands?
3. The first half of the sentence is only grammatical as a reversal of the phrase "His relationships with his many lovers and several wives were as interesting...". What you actually meant, I expect, was something different: "As he had many lovers and several wives, his relationships were as interesting..."
4. Why, if his relationships were as interesting as his art, was it the art that created the real sensation?
5. How can something non-revolutionary be as interesting as something revolutionary AND real-sensation-creating?
6. Does a New Zealand audience really need a generalised gloss reminding us that this guy was a real arsehole of a ladies man before they'll go see a picture by Picasso?

morning glory

I once got kicked out of a flat for being too happy in the mornings. How insufferable I was in my salad days!
Now, of course, part of the problem of forgetting (gasp!) to put up this post last night is that it's morning-cotton-wool-head gal writing to you, not night-owl gal.
Coincidentally, this ad is all about mornings:

As with employment law, the devil writes the fine print:

Insufferable milk!? That clash and the doors slamming was Anchor getting kicked out of our flat.

the creed of woolly thinking

I really hope Senior College students have to recite this every morning, like a pledge of allegiance:


It is as if the PR guys were reading Ayn Rand while listening to Whitney sing "I believe the children are the future" and thinking about how much more awesome NZ is than any other country, while knowing they had to write in a subtle "we know your child is a genius" vibe to lure in the Parents.
But - ay? If greatness can't be taught, why would the path start at an educational institution? Why is "NZGREATNESS" all one word, but with NESS hanging up in the air like it was left over from a "Beware of the LOCH NESS MONSTER" sign? Why prefix the silliness with "believe" phrases as if this is some religious cult, and they're not entirely 100% certain? How are they redefining success?
This last question is answered around the corner:
Since when did such generic means become the goal? FYI, "highest possible qualification" is not a reference to a doctorate but to the controversial Cambridge examinations.
Sarah, the easiest way to compete internationally is to participate in a minority sport which not many nations bother with.
However this is the preferred "NZ" way to achieve greatness so it's not much of a redefinition of success after all.