What the ????

[Ducky]

Idiot. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10722740/from/RS.4/)


Hey, artists out there (I mean of the visual kind,) do you really need to chain your OWN legs in a cave to get a good model to sketch from????


My favorite quote:

“It took him over 12 hours because he had to hop through boulders and sand,” Ford said. “He did put on his shoes before hopping.”
...(snip)...

And the drawing?

“He brought it down with him,” Ford said. “It was a pretty good depiction of how a chain would look wrapped around your legs.”




Good that you got the depiction down, idiot. Next time don't be a moron and hop across the desert because you LOCKED YOUR LEGS IN CHAINS AND LOST THE KEY!



ETA:

At what point is "getting the feel" of a piece just being a dumbass?

[Hawk one]

Ehh... While he should have brought with him some means of communicating (i.e a cellphone, which I'm unsure he even has. You know, since the article mentions he's got no listed phone number) I see this more like a case of really bad luck. I mean, most of us has lost keys at one point or another, eh?

And doing research is hardly an unknown thing to artists. A writer who wants to write a crime novel where the stage is set in the Salvation Army, could very well spend some months doing volunteer work for them and stuff, to make it authentic. Alan Moore and Eddie Campell spent months on researching what buildings, clothes etc. in London 1886 would look like when they made "From Hell". Compared to that, putting foot chains on yourself to actually see how it looks is rather bland in comparison.

ETA: Also, thread title rather undescriptive.

[Ducky]

Compared to that, putting foot chains on yourself to actually see how it looks is rather bland in comparison.



EXACTLY!

[Hawk one]

Exactly what?

[Ducky]

Exactly what?



The actions taken by this mouth breather in the name of "research" show a piss poor thought process and lack of imagination. If he were in need of understanding how to draw the pained expression in a victim of crucifixion by nailing his ass up for a day in front of a mirror, I *MIGHT* be able to see that.


Give me any reason why a visual artist can't draw a mannequin's legs with chains on them.

Or why he can't f***ing keep his keys in his pocket.

This wasn't research, it was sheer idiocy.

[Hawk one]

Give me any reason why a visual artist can't draw a mannequin's legs with chains on them.

Or why he can't f***ing keep his keys in his pocket.

This wasn't research, it was sheer idiocy.

I'm sure he could. But if he wanted it to look more authentic - something I see no reason to hold against him - then the logical course of action is to actually do something that requires actually seeing feet in chains. I agree that he could've found other ways to do this, but doing it on himself is initially no more stupid than the other ways.

As for your key comment, that is just pure arrogance. As if you've never lost (as in misplaced) something in your life that was important to you. Drop the false smugness now, please.

This was research combined with a case of bad luck, and claiming his stupid... Well, I think that is starting to border on sheer (and arrogant) idiocy.

[Ducky]

I'm sure he could. But if he wanted it to look more authentic - something I see no reason to hold against him - then the logical course of action is to actually do something that requires actually seeing feet in chains. I agree that he could've found other ways to do this, but doing it on himself is initially no more stupid than the other ways.

As for your key comment, that is just pure arrogance. As if you've never lost (as in misplaced) something in your life that was important to you. Drop the false smugness now, please.

This was research combined with a case of bad luck, and claiming his stupid... Well, I think that is starting to border on sheer (and arrogant) idiocy.



Yes I used to lose my keys all the time.

Which is why they clip to my belt now.

Why is that arrogant?

Why is it not stupid to put yourself in that situation without making sure you could get out of it?

[Hawk one]

Yes I used to lose my keys all the time.

Which is why they clip to my belt now.

Why is that arrogant?

Why is it not stupid to put yourself in that situation without making sure you could get out of it?

Because you had to lose them all the time before you bought that belt-clip. If this person is -not- in the habit of losing keys, then he might not be thinking about it. I usually don't lose my keys or wallet wherever I go, and like most other people that hasn't had this experience with serious consequences going on, I therefore don't take proper precatutions like the belt clip.

At least you now seem to admit that in itself, putting on the chain wasn't all that stupid, merely the act of not putting in proper precautions. Which I still maintain doesn't have to be about stupidity. More likely, it's about either lack of key-losing experience, or just generally being absent-minded.

In closing, I could just as well claim you were being stupid all those times you've lost your keys. I guess if you find that an accurate description I can't change your mind. But if you don't like me calling you stupid because of those occassions, then I suggest you hold your tongue here.

[Kiless]

Back on track - I fail to see why he didn't just have the lock locked...and perhaps just place it on top of the chains?

Or perhaps have a broken lock?'

(@#^@*# why the hell go out THERE in the first place? HOURS from civilization? Did anyone KNOW he was out there? NO PHONE? In Australia, we'd be shrugging and going 'well, wattaya expect. &^#$*#&$^.'

No. Sorry, this guy is daft. This could have been a Darwin Award. 'Man found in middle of desert, bitten by snake and dead from exposure and poision - police suspect gang-land revenge killing as victim was chained up and some sick *&#$ even used the situation to leave a calling card in victim's hand in the design of the method of his imprisonment'.

[Hawk one]

(@#^@*# why the hell go out THERE in the first place? HOURS from civilization?

Ehmm, well... Perhaps because he

liked the place?!?!

And since when is it stupid to want to get away from cities and towns once in a while? Can you please answer me that?

[logical muse]

Back on track - I fail to see why he didn't just have the lock locked...and perhaps just place it on top of the chains?

Or perhaps have a broken lock?'

(@#^@*# why the hell go out THERE in the first place? HOURS from civilization? Did anyone KNOW he was out there? NO PHONE? In Australia, we'd be shrugging and going 'well, wattaya expect. &^#$*#&$^.'

No. Sorry, this guy is daft. This could have been a Darwin Award. 'Man found in middle of desert, bitten by snake and dead from exposure and poision - police suspect gang-land revenge killing as victim was chained up and some sick *&#$ even used the situation to leave a calling card in victim's hand in the design of the method of his imprisonment'.
Haha that's exactly what would happen. This time of year our deserts are f****** hot and no one would last doing twelve hours of hopping out there.

f****** = flaming, of course.

[Kiless]

Ehmm, well... Perhaps because he liked the place?!?!And since when is it stupid to want to get away from cities and towns once in a while? Can you please answer me that?

No need to shout.

You're exaggerating.

Nothing wrong with getting out and about. Don't derail from the main point.

A sensible person, who is going to be out in a remote area, such as a desert (and we have plenty of those in Australia) does NOT take such risks.

Since early Australian history (http://www.nma.gov.au/exhibitions/now_showing/extremes/what_is_a_desert/perishing_in_the_desert/) and recent events like this (http://www.guardian.co.uk/australia/story/0,12070,1336960,00.html), this (http://www.abc.net.au/science/k2/trek/4wd/water.htm)and a variety of links on a Fairfax newspaper site here (http://newsstore.fairfax.com.au/apps/browseArchive.ac?sy=nstore&cls=1504)of similar news stories it is a clear and present danger for an unwitting, unthinking and unprepared person to take the risks that they did. A desert is a very dangerous place for the unprepared and even for those who have spent years working there. To tie oneself up without planning ahead is risky. To not have access to communication devices when you are in an isolated region is foolhardy or unfortunate at best.

To combine them together? Yes, this person is stupid.


MANY things could have gone wrong. My example was a mild one of what could have happened and I even attempted to make it funny..

I'm afraid, Hawk, you credit this person with too much intelligence. And there's not enough to make a reasonable argument about the necessity of them 'getting a better drawing by being chained up in a remote cave in the middle of a desert.'

Personally? I say they were probably trying to compensate for lack of artistic talent, if I really wanted to be mean...

Otherwise we'd all be watching Steven Spielburg running into the middle of a warzone with a rolling camera going 'Pah! So much for the studio! This is where the REAL ART can be made! Come on soundcrew, record those bombs and explosions! No trickery with special effects, me!' :D

[shecky]

There's a reason it's called a desert. This Mensa member went out in the middle of it (mistake number one), by himself (mistake number two), chained his legs together (mistake number three), lost the key (this would qualify as mistake number four), while camping in an abandoned mine shaft (mistake number five).

Whether he liked the place or not isn't the issue. He's a idiot. Who likes the desert.

[Hawk one]

No need to shout.

When you fail to see a point so simple that a 10-year old could see and then ignores it, I deem it necessary to shout. Your comment strongly suggested that you think liking to stay in an abandonded mine is stupid in itself. Not taking precautions is not the smartest thing to do, but judging his intelligence on the grounds of him liking the place... Sorry, but that's just like judging people's intelligence on their musical tastes. Or food tastes. Maybe if we knew more, we found he had a stupid reason for liking the place (such as "the fairies only visit me there"), but until then, the part of your previous post I quoted still stands as utterly moronic and judgemental.

A sensible person, who is going to be out in a remote area, such as a desert (and we have plenty of those in Australia) does NOT take such risks.

Since early Australian history and recent events like this (http://www.guardian.co.uk/australia/story/0,12070,1336960,00.html), this (http://www.abc.net.au/science/k2/trek/4wd/water.htm)and a variety of links on a Fairfax newspaper site here (http://newsstore.fairfax.com.au/apps/browseArchive.ac?sy=nstore&cls=1504)of similar news stories it is a clear and present danger for an unwitting, unthinking and unprepared person to take the risks that they did. A desert is a very dangerous place for the unprepared and even for those who have spent years working there. To tie oneself up without planning ahead is risky. To not have access to communication devices when you are in an isolated region is foolhardy or unfortunate at best.

OK, so he's not having a proper sense of risk in this case? Why not? The story tells us he liked to go there. So I think it's safe to conclude he's been there several, perhaps even many times, with nothing at all happening. When people feel safe, they are more likely than not prone to failing to use proper precautions, no matter how intelligent they otherwise appear. I find this to be such a case. Fowlsound not buying a key clip before he had lost his keys over and over is another. He didn't do it until after he had lost them, after all.

Again, the two things he did wrong were these:
1) Not bringing a cell-phone. Well, even if he did own one, I can imagine that, when you feel safe and also want to be alone you might want to leave it. I agree he should have brought it with him (turned off), but it's not Darwin-award stupid by far.
2) Not securing the keys. Which is something most people don't do, as long as they don't keep losing them.

MANY things could have gone wrong. My example was a mild one of what could have happened and I even attempted to make it funny..

And your example failed. It was not even funny.

I'm afraid, Hawk, you credit this person with too much intelligence. And there's not enough to make a reasonable argument about the necessity of them 'getting a better drawing by being chained up in a remote cave in the middle of a desert.'

Personally? I say they were probably trying to compensate for lack of artistic talent, if I really wanted to be mean...

And you'd be even more stupid than mean to say such a thing. Please stop embarassing yourself like that.

Otherwise we'd all be watching Steven Spielburg running into the middle of a warzone with a rolling camera going 'Pah! So much for the studio! This is where the REAL ART can be made! Come on soundcrew, record those bombs and explosions! No trickery with special effects, me!' :D

Depends on how realistic you want the movie to be. I deem it quite likely that Spielberg did plenty of research on how explosions from real grenades happen before making, say "Saving Private Ryan". That he made proper-looking copies of the real WWII guns, that he made proper-looking uniforms, etc. If you want something to look realistic, you'll at least have to study what real life gives us. Then you can go into your studio and try to recreate that.

And if you're seriously suggesting that wanting your piece of art, whatever medium, to appear realistic is somehow degrading the art itself... Well, I don't think I need to comment that.

[Kiless]

I think you've missed my point too. And since you seem to be turning towards insults (as you have already with fowlsound), I think I'll just sum up my final statement with: no art is worth the loss of a human life.

Even an idiot who, as Shecky neatly said it himself, did the following:
There's a reason it's called a desert. This 'Mensa' member went out in the middle of it (mistake number one), by himself (mistake number two), chained his legs together (mistake number three), lost the key (this would qualify as mistake number four), while camping in an abandoned mine shaft (mistake number five).

Whether he liked the place or not isn't the issue. He's a idiot. Who likes the desert.

[Hawk one]

And three of those things are not stupid, as you would have seen if you read my posts. And if you wondered why I did some insults against you, it's because you (and fowlsound) insulted that person on flawed reasoning to start with. You get what you give.

[Kiless]

I'm going to politely suggest you rethink your debating style, Hawk one.

[sphenisc]

There seems to be an implicit acceptance by everyone that this story is true.
There is ample motivation for one or more of the artist, deputy and reporter to 'exaggerate' in the interests of self promotion. Perhaps a bit more scepticism is appropriate. ;)

[Kiless]

There seems to be an implicit acceptance by everyone that this story is true.
There is ample motivation for one or more of the artist, deputy and reporter to 'exaggerate' in the interests of self promotion. Perhaps a bit more scepticism is appropriate. ;)

Oh, I'm certain we could say that about most topics that hit the media. I thought the airplanes hitting a building on Sept 11th 2001 was an exaggeration of some form.... I mean, the first time I heard it, it sounded like a movie promotion. I heard Spiderman was soon to be released and therefore thought it might have been a scene from that film....

But it still provides an opportunity to debate. Politely, that is.

Anyway - how about a broader topic:

Is art worth dying for?

I recall visiting my state art gallery last year where a neat notice informed me of this practice: The International Committee of the Blue Shield (http://www.ifla.org/VI/4/admin/protect.htm), where it acts as the

.... cultural equivalent of the Red Cross. It is the symbol specified in the 1954 Hague Convention for marking cultural sites to give them protection from attack in the event of armed conflict. It is also the name of an international committee set up in 1996 to work to protect the world's cultural heritage threatened by wars and natural disasters.

And this made me wonder if my broad statement that applies to the foolish and life-threatening behaviour of a sole individual should so result in a broad statement by myself that it is not worth dying for art. What do you think?

[Dogdoctor]

Looking at this I wonder where was his car? And why did it take him 12 hours to get back to civilization. How far did he have to hop? I can understand artists like to go places to draw and he liked to draw in mines. That he even actually felt he had to lock the chains to draw it seems a little weird. I wouldn't condemn him yet. My question would be did he learn from his mistake and is he going to take steps to avoid similar mistakes in the future?

[Hawk one]

OK, first of all, I'll admit that everything have written in this post, I have written without reading anything since my last post. This is done deliberately, because I fear that - rightly or wrongly - I'll get too provoked to think straight.

OK, now that that's out of the way, let us go through the list of the apparently stupid things he had done:


1: Going alone in territory far away from people.

Nope, I see no problem here. The want to be alone and away from settlement is a fairly normal one, and I can't give you a count of many times I've been more than 1 kilometre away from anyone else (in closed forest terrain; I assume the distance is longer in open terrain), which I deem a fair starting distance for any incapacitating accident to give me serious problems. 8 kilometers away from a town? Normally, I wouldn't even think about being so far away from people (though I admit that, at least for me, the terrain will play a role.)
As for the mine itself, how big are the risk of collapse anyway? About 1% per year? More? Less? Anything less than that, and I'd certainly deem it a fair chance to take to occassionally visit one.

2: Going unprepared

Apart from the cell phone (which I'll return to later), this is only mere speculation. We have no knowledge of how well he was dressed and so on, as the article tells us nothing about this. THe one thing it tells us is Corneliusien’s legs were bruised, but he was otherwise in good health, Ford said.. Now, I agree that this may very well not be an accurate statement, but if we're going to speculate anyway, let us assume that it is in fact accurate. What does that tell us? Well, it tells us that he was not suffering from dehydration. And neither hyper- nor hypothermia. Which means the temperatures during those 12 hours had to be fairly stable. Too warm, and he would have brought with him water (or drunk from streams or rivers on the way). Too cold, and he'd need to be properly clothed to keep warm.

Again, this of course working out from the assumption that that line is accurate. But there is certainly no evidence that he went totally unprepared.


3: Fastening the footchains to begin with

Nope. I can't for the life of me see what can possibly be stupid about this, considering the reason he had for it. He wanted a drawing to look realistic, then that's his pregorative. Otherwise, any artist who has ever wanted to recreate something realistically (in which Spielberg most definitely belongs, Kiless. His plots are not always realistic, but when he wants the setting to be realistic, you can bet a year's salary that he assembles a research team to make the nazi uniforms and whatnot look proper, after weeks of determined work) are all a bunch of stupid, inferior wannabes without any imagination if they went ahead and actually studied what it is they wanted to recreate. And if you work alone (Spielberg, for natural reasons, doesn't work alone, and therefore has to accomodate to more than just his own whims. Well, I guess Spielberg can pretty much follow his own whims these days. But movie-making people in general have a lot less freedom than any other kind of artists.)

Point is, if you want something to look realistic, then you need to research it. Some things in life you see so often that you don't have to do anything but draw from your memory, other times, the things you want to recreate is a rarity to see in daily life, in which you'll need to research it deliberately. Foot chains are a rarity of today, and while one can guess something about how they will sit on the foot, I will blame no man who puts them on in order to find out for instance exactly where on the legs they'll be located.


4: Losing the keys

I have said before, that this is probably a case of absent-mindedness. Most (adult) people don't buy belt clips. And those who do are usually prone to have lost keys themselves at least a couple of times. While the consequences this time were worse than usual, to blame him and calling him stupid for not fastening the keys is to call everyone that loses their keys stupid. Including fowlsound. If you want to call fowlsound stupid for not buying his belt clip sooner, then that's your option. I personally allow him (and the artist) the benefit of the doubt for the circumstances he's lost his keys in, absent-mindedness included.

5: He didn't have a communication device.

Well, here is the one thing we can definitely agree that he -should- have done, but didn't do. Even if he didn't own a cell phone (in normal circumstances, it's still not necessary to own one), at least borrowing one, or having a walkie-talkie or something would have made pretty much all the difference in this case. He'd have been found and released from the chains within the hour, and probably wouldn't have made the papers. This is the one} stupid thing he did. One inarguably stupid thing, from a list of allegedly five.


Conclusion: Was he stupid for not bringing a cell-phone or walkie-talkie? Yep.
Stupid enough to warrant a Darwin Award? Nope, not by far.
Are people condencending and overly smug for thinking so? Considering the evidence, I'd say yes.

[Piscivore]

Hawk, dude, I like you, but I have to expound on one thing about what you said:


OK, now that that's out of the way, let us go through the list of the apparently stupid things he had done:


1: Going alone in territory far away from people.

Nope, I see no problem here. The want to be alone and away from settlement is a fairly normal one, and I can't give you a count of many times I've been more than 1 kilometre away from anyone else (in closed forest terrain; I assume the distance is longer in open terrain), which I deem a fair starting distance for any incapacitating accident to give me serious problems. 8 kilometers away from a town? Normally, I wouldn't even think about being so far away from people (though I admit that, at least for me, the terrain will play a role.)
As for the mine itself, how big are the risk of collapse anyway? About 1% per year? More? Less? Anything less than that, and I'd certainly deem it a fair chance to take to occassionally visit one.


To put this bluntly, Hawk, you're in Norway. Norway isn't trying to kill you. The desert is. Going out into the desert is as dangerous as going out into a blizzard, maybe even moreso because the danger is slower and much more subtle. You NEVER go out into the desert alone unless at least two of the following conditions are met:

a) two people know where you are going and how long you should be gone. More is better.

b) You have some means of getting back to civilisation.

c) You have some means of communicating with civilisation.

d) someone goes with you. (this is not an error :P)

And the danger from old mines isn't just in them collapsing, although that can happen. There's taking just one step too many and plunging down a hundred feet. There's rattlesnakes- who just love to congregate in groups of twenty or more in dark, cool spots. Other hostile wildlife, including Africanised bees now. Gas. Mines out here aren't the Tom Sawyer sort of thing you can stand up and walk around in, usually.

It may be that individually the actions he took were not stupid in and of themselves, but they compounded exponentially. The fact that he failed to take the most elementary precautions making for the "stupid".

I agree with whoever said above that something about this story is fishy, though.

And not in the good way.

[Hawk one]

Pisci: Since you're actually presenting a proper argument here, I have no problems accepting that the desert is more dangerous than most Norwegian climates (Though to be nitpicking, the real danger about blizzards is that they can sometimes appear rather out of a sudden, turning a nice trip into a nightmare. Which is why when people are skiing on our vast (and beautiful) mountain plateaus, the same rules about not going alone and such pretty much applies here as well.). Thus, I can see that the risk-ratio is significantely higher than I assessed, which in turn made it most definitely less smart to embark on such a trip alone in the manner he seemingly did.

Assuming it happened at all, of course. For now, I'll choose to believe it, though.

[Piscivore]

No worries. Kiless and I- and anyone else who grew up in this climate- have had the dangers drilled into us since childhood, so we got it immediately. Every year two or three (often more) hikers are pulled off the local "mountains" (they would probably only qualify as "hills" to a European) half-dead from exhaustion and dehydration- and these are within the city limits.

Last summer, I was a camp counsellor at my daughter's school science camp. It was up in the AZ highlands- pine forest, beautiful, cool (never got above 80's to 90's F). But still desert. Had a kid fall over unconscious in the middle of the mess lineup. Turns out he hadn't drunk anything but soda for half a day (despite warnings) and was seriously dehydrated. On a cloudy, 78F day. If he'd been out walking by himself when it happened (which they'd do, despite the rules :boggled: ), if he'd gone outside the camp bounds (which this time no one did, but I was told has happened), he might have died within yards of dozens of people and a major intersate highway. Which also happens. :(

And, incidentally, I've never lost my keys. Ever. :p

ETA: I've also never seen more than an inch or two of snow on the ground at one time, so I know scheiss-all about blizzards :)

[Bikewer]

The fellow should have checked in to one of the numerous websites dealing with "self bondage". They usually list a variety of safety considerations and fall-backs....

[ImaginalDisc]

If I were going to chain myself up in a dark hole in the middle of the desert, I'd at the least bring a bottle of water, and bolt cutters. I can lose keys, but it's hard to accidentally drop a set of bolt cutters.

[Hawk one]

Pisci: I also have to correct you on one thing: Norwegian animals do try to kill us.

For instance, my sister was ønce bitten by a moose...

[Ducky]

Mind you moose bites can be pretty nasti...

[Hawk one]

*We apologise for the faults in these posts. Those responsible have been sacked*

[Amapola]

*We apologise for the faults in these posts. Those responsible have been sacked*

Whew, what a relief! :D And you are right about moose...... one chased my cousin (while she was in her car!) for a good quarter mile one day. She was delivering mail on a rural route in Utah and the story actually made it to the national news. But I digress.

I'm afraid I have to agree with Fowlsound, Kiless and the others on this one. This guy is sharp as a marble. I too love the desert, and often go camping out there. BUT I take water and food, I make sure not to lose my keys, I don't go alone, I let people know where I will be and for how long. I call in when I get back. I'm even an artist and go out there to paint or draw...... but I sure do not lock myself up in chains in a mine shaft. :eek: Does this guy not realize how dangerous mine shafts are??? Obviously not. And why in the Wide World of Sports did he not drive his car back? Or did he cleverly lose ALL of his keys???

I also agree that there is more to the story than the guy is telling. Maybe after hour 7 (or so) of hopping across the desert it occured to him that he was a bonehead, and wisely decided to say as little as possible about the incident.

[Godmode]

I don't think it's fair to judge how an artist gets their inspiration. A painting or drawing is just as much about the artist's emotions as it is about what they see. They are not cameramen. Perhaps he wanted to see how it felt to be restrained in that way, and no doubt this experience will be used by him in his future art as well.

[bigred]

The actions taken by this mouth breather in the name of "research" show a piss poor thought process and lack of imagination.

This wasn't research, it was sheer idiocy.
And we all know how rare that is among artists. After all, they're so well known for their practicality and ability to think logically and all. :rolleyes: lmao

[tkingdoll]

And we all know how rare that is among artists. After all, they're so well known for their practicality and ability to think logically and all. :rolleyes: lmao

Erm...what?

What are you basing this on, exactly?

I can think of dozens of examples of artists who display logical thinking.

In fact, I can think of examples from just about every art style and movement that needed exceptional logic skills to produce their art, like M.C. Escher, Michaelangelo, The Boyle Family, Da Vinci, Picasso, etc.

Perhaps you have some sort of stereotypical image in your head of artists being drug-taking hippies who wander around in smocks covered in paint, talking about 'muses' and looking at rainbows, yes?

[Ian Osborne]

Is anyone else wondering whether this was all a set-up designed to add a few hundred bucks to the value of the drawing?

[Kopji]

Is anyone else wondering whether this was all a set-up designed to add a few hundred bucks to the value of the drawing?
LOL, yeah. Or more if he makes it on a TV talk show. Larry King: "Artist in Chains: time well spent."

I'm gonna go with "forgetful-but-smart-enough-to-turn-it-into-a-buck". Be nice to see the drawing though, might change my mind if it's really good.

Baker is on the road to Las Vegas from LA so someone might stop by on the way to TAM to ask how this all turned out. Probably pleasant this time of year.

[Kopji]

Here more detail -
linky (http://www.thenewstribune.com/news/nationworld/story/5442982p-4914210c.html)

(Schwarzenegger) I will judge him by his art
(Yoda) Yes, by his art judge him we will.

[bruto]

Sorry, Hawk, but I have to go with "stupid" here, assuming the story is true as told. I can accept that the guy liked the desert and was accustomed to camping in mine shafts alone. Risky, maybe foolish, not necessarily stupid. I can even accept that for some reason he felt he had to chain his legs together for verisimilitude, although it seems odd that he had to do it there, since the story suggests that the surroundings were not an element of the picture. Many artists are able to make sketches, details, studies. You know, if you're doing a Laocoon or something, you don't really need to get the guys to wrestle a big snake.

But he didn't go to the mine shaft with his legs locked, did he? He locked them there. Once locked, he couldn't have gone far, and it's much more likely that, as is possible with most Master padlocks, he locked it without ever checking that he had a key with him. It's one thing to lose your car keys, or misplace something during the day. To miss that vital step when one is alone in the desert, about to lock one's legs together, is stupid. Does that make him a "stupid person?" Not necessarily (though the follow up article makes it pretty clear he's very eccentric), but the thing he did was just plain stupid.

[Kiless]

Sorry, Hawk, but I have to go with "stupid" here, assuming the story is true as told. I can accept that the guy liked the desert and was accustomed to camping in mine shafts alone. Risky, maybe foolish, not necessarily stupid. I can even accept that for some reason he felt he had to chain his legs together for verisimilitude, although it seems odd that he had to do it there, since the story suggests that the surroundings were not an element of the picture. Many artists are able to make sketches, details, studies. You know, if you're doing a Laocoon or something, you don't really need to get the guys to wrestle a big snake.

But he didn't go to the mine shaft with his legs locked, did he? He locked them there. Once locked, he couldn't have gone far, and it's much more likely that, as is possible with most Master padlocks, he locked it without ever checking that he had a key with him. It's one thing to lose your car keys, or misplace something during the day. To miss that vital step when one is alone in the desert, about to lock one's legs together, is stupid. Does that make him a "stupid person?" Not necessarily (though the follow up article makes it pretty clear he's very eccentric), but the thing he did was just plain stupid.

yeah, this whole argument about liking to stay in abandoned mines? in a remote desert? and locking yourself up? Get real. It's stupid

[Kopji]

hey at least his drawing did not show the key lying on a nearby rock