BERLIN (Reuters) - A German man became so angry in an argument with a taxi driver over parking that he struck him on the head with a machete and chopped off the man’s finger.

The 70-year-old man stormed off after remonstrating with the cab driver about his parking early on Wednesday morning, said police in Limburg-Weilburg in western Germany.

Soon afterwards, he reappeared at the driver’s office armed with a 24-inch machete and attacked the 60-year-old, who was taken to the hospital with head injuries.

The assailant fled the scene, but later gave himself up. He is likely to be charged with attempted homicide, police said.
____________

It is my understanding that this “attack” was in reality just a horrible accident. The driver was wearing a Wantanabe design, and the “attacker,” disoriented and confused by the design, believed he was being attacked by a mutant plant and tried to defend himself with a machete.

What is this idiot designer trying to prove? Could it be more obvious that he\’s just trying to get his designs in the news? Could it be more pretentious?

Supposed high fashion is so ridiculous these days that this is what’s required in order to be remembered. This designer is merely prostituting himself in order to get attention. Pathetic.

The models? They all look as if they’re thinking, “I am going to regret this.”

However, the artist who designed the clothing pictured above was inspired by nature, and used nature in his own art.

The Art World is a huge, ever-growing thing. No one person can cap it off, saying, “This is not art. What Picasso did was art…but what you are doing is not.” We cannot put Art in a box and say this is what it is. Some art is going to be appealing to you, Dr. Doll, and some to Rosi. Just because the creation displayed in these pictures does not appeal to you as art, does not mean it is not art.

Picasso and Van Gogh created their art, and they were not popular at the time. Beethoven composed amazing music, but was ridiculed for it.

I don’t like seeing people say, “Well this isn’t art because it doesn’t look like anything I’ve seen before.”

If something is created, and the creator calls it “art,” then it IS art. You might not like it. But it IS what it IS.

You suggest a number of valid points, to wit: genius has almost always been misunderstood, and the appreciation of art is an intensely subjective experience.

But, to link these designs to Picasso and Van Gogh, is I think a flight of fancy. Picasso and Van Gogh were geniuses. Picasso understood the concept of epistemology. He was a pioneer in the movements of Modernism and Postmodernism. (I hate the term “Postmodern”; it always reminds me of a clown following an elephant with a scoop shovel!)

Picasso saw that human conciousness is a series of fragments, not a coherent chronological narrative. He knew that, if there is such a thing as reality, it was revealed only through numerous (perhaps simultaneous) perspectives. Thus, he founded Cubism and studied collage.

Van Gogh was, similarly, a genious and pioneer of the Modern and Postmodern movements. He, too, questioned the nature of reality. Life was, at least in part, a matter of perception. Life was, to him (like all the impressionists) filtered through one’s perceptions. Pure total reality was, to him, not a fit place for human existence. But a world of pure imagination was not fit for human existence, either.

It is true that for many people, if they don’t understand something, it is trash.

But, you know, not everything is by definition art simply because we don’t see worth in it. For every Piccasso and Van Gogh, there are 1000 shams. I once saw an “art” diplay of a dried flower in a soup can. The “artist” wanted $200.00. If that was art, I’m a mother superior.

Here, we have something similar to the soup can, only here the medium is purportedly clothing. Some socalled art isn’t art; it’s simply a sham pretending to be art so as to gain a profit.

And Reuters would never, ever lie.