
After crepes yesterday, Trae and I spent the afternoon at the Carnegie museum.
Having seen the Sistine Chapel, I am less struck by the art historical import of a mediocre Monet than I would have been a few years ago, but Trae, who was raised in Georgia, marveled at the thickness of the paint and took pictures of himself pointing at his favorite Rothko, reminding me of what it is like to be young.
The collection of American art featured an impressive portrait by Sargent and a landscape by Kensett, my decidedly favorite luminist, but the highlight of the visit was 'Opera for a Small Room,' an installation by Janet Cardiff and George Bures Miller.
As my dear readers surely are aware, hermit shacks are some of my favorite things, and the afore mentioned small room is a plywood hermit shack with glassless windows through which viewers can peer to the soundtrack of opera interspersed with commentary, trains, hypnotism, and rain. The idea was conceived when the artists bought the record collection that once belonged to R. Dennehy from a thrift store in a small town in British Columbia. A plaque outside the gallery explained that Cardiff and Miller were curious about the seeming contradiction of a man from a small town listening to opera, so they created a fictional narrative and environment to explain it. I enjoyed their charming condescension towards the populace of rural Canada and found the installation to be engaging and likable. I have only

two points of critique.
First, we shall assume that the half gallon Heinz tomato can hanging in the center of the shack, displayed in the museum's Heinz Gallery was just a tasteless coincidence, but in a town where the population listens to the symphony in Heinz Hall and worships in Heinz Chapel, we may be in error by assuming that anything is too sacred to be used as a vehicle of catsup promotion. Second, the artists gave R. Dennehy no place to sleep.
On a different note, I am glad my dear readers have discovered that "blog" questions are never as simple as they appear. It is most probable that the last roll will cancel out the one before it, and it is also most probable that the last roll will add to the sequence. That is why dominance arguments are more complicated in infinite partitions.