Talented roaches
Category: Art
Posted on: November 30, 2007 4:04 AM, by PZ Myers
Cute, weird collection of bug art. This was painted by a cockroach?
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
Search this blog
Profile
PZ Myers is a biologist and associate professor at the University of Minnesota, Morris.
…and this is a pharyngula stage embryo.
• a longer profile of yours truly
• my calendar
• Nature Network
• RichardDawkins Network
• facebook
• MySpace
• Twitter
• Atheist Nexus
• the Pharyngula chat room
(#pharyngula on irc.synirc.net)
I reserve the right to publicly post, with full identifying information about the source, any email sent to me that contains threats of violence.
Random Quote
(Complete listing)But could the divine command theorist hold, as some theologians have, that God's will is restricted by His own nature or character? For example, it has been claimed that God's nature is unalterably loving and just, and hence that God cannot violate his nature by performing and unloving or unjust act. Notice, however, that this view places the ultimate source of moral value outside of God's will, in his unalterable nature or character; from this perspective, it is God's inability to will acts contrary to His loving nature which guarantees the goodness of His commands. Thus, to place restrictions on God's will is to admit that something outside of His will determines what is right. So, the 'unalterable nature' approach is not open to the divine command theorist.
C. Stephen Layman, The Shape of the Good: Christian Reflections on the Fondation of Ethics (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame, 1991), p. 40.
Recent Posts
- Texas petition
- Portrait of a Palin presidency
- Prepare for an ugly battle in Texas
- Congratulations to Randy Moore
- Liberal baloney
- Care!
- Watching every cell of the developing zebrafish
- Witch doctors kill
- I wonder who Marty Chalfie is voting for?
- Obama is…Hindu?
A Taste of Pharyngula
(Complete listing)Deep homologies in the pharyngeal arches
A quick reply to some of the arguments made recently
Recent Comments
- Greg in LA on Liberal baloney
- Brad D on Care!
- phantomreader42 on Prepare for an ugly battle in Texas
- Keith on Prepare for an ugly battle in Texas
- SC on Texas petition
- Kel on Prepare for an ugly battle in Texas
- David N on Care!
- David N on Care!
- Bort on Prepare for an ugly battle in Texas
- Tulse on Liberal baloney
Archives
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
Blogroll
(Complete listing)Other Information
Subscribe via Email
Stay abreast of your favorite bloggers' latest and greatest via e-mail, via a daily digest.
« The real scoop on the Texas science curriculum director's resignation | Main | Religion kills »
TrackBacks
(TrackBack URL for this entry: )
Comments
Or Jackson Pollock, learning to his horror that REINCARNATION IS A FACT AFTER ALL AIEEEEEE!
Alternate snide comment: Duuuuuuude. Pass me that roach, okay?
Posted by: Warren | November 30, 2007 4:37 AM
I just consulted Babelfish (Cockroachese > English) and got this:
"These dastardly two-legs are trying to drown me in paint! Send help!"
Posted by: MH | November 30, 2007 6:00 AM
Actually, Peggy Guggenheim's little museum in Venice has two Pollocks which don't look like painters' drop cloths.
Posted by: bad Jim | November 30, 2007 6:41 AM
Looking at this bug art, my brain just jumped about three tracks (don't ask) and came up with this:
PZ, what IS squid/octopus ink? Is it just some sort of mineral pigment -- an iron compound, perhaps -- in solution? Or is it something more complex, a stew of organics? And do the various oceanic critters use pretty much the same ink, or are there lots of different types? Does it have any repellant qualities, or is there only a visual effect?
It would be interesting to know the evolutionary backtrail of such stuff, too. How did it develop?
...
(Okay, it's early, I was up all night writing, and ... well, it's early.)
Posted by: Hank Fox | November 30, 2007 7:34 AM
Combining the subtle attention to detail, admirable persistence and that delightfully understated sense of playfulness for which the whole Blattodea order is quite justly known, this specimen was possibly produced after a late-night binging and partying session in a well-stocked kitchen, and is undeniably one of the finer examples from the cockroach's impressionist period. A Classic.
Posted by: Ian B Gibson | November 30, 2007 8:23 AM
Sure, elephants can grip a brush
'Sculpture' bird poo was hailed;
Cats danced in fake photography
Song's what Ono wailed.
Take a child's piddles in paint
Sell them for a couple of thou -
Opinion guides the tastes of time:
Fifteen minutes of "wow".
PZ, oh man, I gotta say
(And critics may reproach) -
But if you call this scribble 'art',
Honestly - it makes me roach.
Posted by: Podblack.wordpress.com | November 30, 2007 8:27 AM
I just consulted Babelfish (Cockroachese > English) and got this:
"These dastardly two-legs are trying to drown me in paint! Send help!
C'mon. You made that up. There's no way babelfish could have translated it that accurately.
"These average two-foot is able swim I the paint! Mail help!"
Posted by: Brian Thompson | November 30, 2007 8:40 AM
back in high school i saw lost of paint eaten off of the canvas buy roaches but never applied to the canvas. The ones I saw left some really great patterns though.
Posted by: zeekster | November 30, 2007 8:43 AM
Next up: The Abridged Holy Bible, edited by a committee of bookworms.
Posted by: Kseniya | November 30, 2007 9:51 AM
Maybe its just pareidolia, but is that an image of PZ in the upper left corner? It's a Sign! It's a Sign!
Posted by: N 'Man O'Rage' R | November 30, 2007 10:07 AM
This might be better than anus art.
Posted by: zaza | November 30, 2007 10:35 AM
Warren:
Pollock could paint. Which makes the evolution of his style to uncontrolled splats even less explicable.
This is not art. It is technicolour insect torture. The "artist" must have been continually poking the poor little critters, since as anyone who has ever put creepy crawlies in a tray knows, they walk till they hit the side and then they just follow the side. Isotropism or something.
Posted by: Jit | November 30, 2007 11:34 AM
"This was painted by a cockroach?"
I'm skeptical. For one, how'd he hold the brush?
Posted by: Drake | November 30, 2007 12:00 PM
And Pollock was "molesting the law of gravity".
And Robert Smithson was "corrupting the earth".
I don't think it says much for the artist, but it is a very interesting study in the motion of insects and how they get around. I don't think Pharyngula is designed to discuss what "art" is on the message board; A bunch of scientists discussing what "art" is can only lead to heartbreak and fluorescent mice.
Posted by: Willey | November 30, 2007 12:18 PM
"Moneighs" (yeah, yeah) have been reliable fundraisers for ReRun and other organizations which place off-track Thoroughbreds and other horses. http://www.thehorse.com/ViewArticle.aspx?ID=10881
Posted by: Faithful Reader | November 30, 2007 12:23 PM
Just another example of taking "outsider art" to its logical conclusion. This is why, when getting my MFA, I spent my time on furniture design. Let's see the little bugs design a functioning chair.
Posted by: Dahan | November 30, 2007 1:42 PM
Come on now, people. The Roches are gifted and engaging artists!
Posted by: Kseniya | November 30, 2007 2:20 PM
Pollock could indeed paint realistically, somewhat in the style of Benton. Some of his dribbled abstractions are quite beautiful.
Posted by: Lyle G | November 30, 2007 10:01 PM
He also talks about sharing credit with his "small artist" collaborators.
Whether or not it's art is a good question. (It's certainly more interesting than a lot of human-produced "art" I've seen.) But the guy is an entomologist by training and it does seem like he's taken steps to provide for the bugs' comfort.
Posted by: Gregory Kusnick | November 30, 2007 11:35 PM
Back in 1910, a group of artists presented a painting by a JR Boronali. It was well received, but it turns out it was painted by a donkey using its tail. "Coucher de soleil sur l'Adriatique"
http://boronali.blogspot.com/2005/12/where-do-i-belong.html
Posted by: bernarda | December 1, 2007 4:50 AM
I think I've seen this before.
"To prevent automated spam sign-ups, please enter the characters shown in this box."
Posted by: dpocius | December 3, 2007 10:00 AM