This story in the New York Times tickled me no end.
If ever one wanted to question the notion of surgeons and God complexes, check this guy out...
It's fair enough when off work to decide to do the house up a bit, or develop a hobby.
It's also fair enough when faced with a life threatening illness to decide to change the direction of your life and to do whatever you damn please.
But this brings primary colour by numbers life to the meaning of grandiose. This guy thinks that having spent all his waking hours turning his home into something Versailles sicked up after too many Pina Coladas on a weekend bender in Houston is the best way to save us all through teaching us the godly meaning of marriage. And he should know about marriage because he's on his second one.
Meanwhile, he is unable to comprehend the basic tenet that if you have a low ceiling in your quarters, Rococo is not your friend. In fact, the Catholic Encyclopedia is quite firm in its assertion that Rococo and Godliness do not mix. Baroque it describes as merely 'base'. (He's got to be Catholic, right? I can't quite imagine the Methodists wanting to take tours.)
"Dr. Walter said he tried to interest curators at the Museum of Fine Arts, Houston, in his project, perhaps to make it a satellite decorative arts museum, but “they could care less.” One of the museum’s curators, Emily Neff, said she had visited his home but wasn’t able to spend much time there and thus had no comment.
He said their reaction was understandable, given that the museum’s collection includes abstract art, which he disdains. “I am a huge threat because what I have done renders everything they have junk,” he said beneath the glinting chandeliers in his great hall."
I have a sneaking suspicion that any wife who encourages her husband to embark upon such a time consuming and obsessive project has ideas of her own about what is needed to make a happy marriage. Time apart.
He could just have gilded a shed and hung out there doing secret husband stuff. Or spent the $1million and four years on actual charity, rather than trying to invoke charitableness via bad paintings. Really the guy should audit money spent versus charity inspired.
Tuesday, 23 December 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I think humanity needs to get back to open air living.
What a strange, strange world this is that has such people in it.
Also, only in Texas.
Also, I don't know if this man has single handedly destroyed modern art, but he's certainly destroyed something. Propriety, maybe.
Also, happy holidays to you, GvH!
Happy holiday to you TPH, and Mr G Bananas too.
Texas does seem like a place where people have some pretty unique interpretations of God's will... And whilst we've all done some silly things to drag ourselves out of our darkest moments, luckily for most of us the NY Times didn't get coverage.
I feel a bit sad for the chap. I daresay for a million pounds he could have bought the real thing, in a European city, albeit on a much smaller scale. I bet his wife would very much have appreciated a pre-loved, chic, baroque apartment in Paris.
Wow.
This is all very confusing. Why mix professionally done gilt with childish "paintings"? Why make your home look like you don't live there? And why on earth has the Catholic Encyclopaedia got an entry on Rocco?
I thought it looked rather fun, until McBobo pointed out just how tasteless the paintings were.
Like you, GVH, I am curious about his wife.
Happy Christmas, hope the dinosaurs on your mantlepiece are behaving themselves.
Hulla
xx
Post a Comment