Go the Museum because...the painter was a SEX MANIAC!!!!

I was a little too tired to actually give out with a cynical chuckle. But, jeez, this fucking headline in the NY POST is a goddam laugh.

How do you get anyone to read your review of what's on exhibit in a museum?

TELL EVERYONE THE ARTIST WAS A SEX MANIAC!!!!

Watta headline. PS, the "SEX MANIAC" in question is NOT the one who painted that rather gruesome work of nude pedo-art. More on that moronic fact later.

I like Barbara a lot. I'd almost feel sorry for her, but a) I'm sure she's in on the joke, and b) she's actually a paid staffer at a time when newspapers almost don't even exist. So you don't feel sorry for ANY writer being PAID.

I could just imagine her getting an invite to the NEUE (a snotty museum that charges $20 to get in) or being assigned by a senior editor. Hey, multi-millionaire Ronald Lauder (son of Estee, the twat who made a fortune selling perfume-stink to rich bints) wants coverage for the latest exhibit at the museum HE funded. Nevermind The New York Times, he wants the common idiots to pay up $20 to get in, too. He wants the place to be PACKED!

"Hmm, yeah, yeah," cool Barbara thinks, "but how the FUCK do I promote an exhibition of German and European painters? By simply mentioning that there will be a lot of works by Edvard Munch, who created the "The Scream?" Maybe I could run an example of how often that painting has been parodied??"

Er, no, no. Lauder would be pissed off. Besides, "The Scream" is NOT part of the exhibit.

"Ah, yes," Barbara realizes, "a good headline would be: "The Scream" Painter was a "SEX MANIAC." Yes, perfect for the tabloid that once headlined "Headless Body in Topless Bar." Don't bother to back up the "sex maniac" charge with any lurid anecdotes. Just mention that, well, he was an ARTIST and did NUDES.

PS, since Munch didn't do any nudes that scream "SEX MANIAC," sneak in a garish pedo-esque picture by Heckel, instead. He's part of the exhibit, as well.

Fuck, no POST reader is going to even notice that the article about Munch, the "SEX MANIAC" actually displays a picture by another artist entirely.

Barbara's copy, following the lurid "SEX MANIAC" line, is just mildly salacious. She mentions poor Eddie's breakdown, a Van Gogh-esque moment he shot himself in the hand, and that he "slept around." Yes, "slept around" is how she described a male, not a slut. That's some kind of reverse sexual stereotyping, or something. "Slept around." Jeez, Barbara.

The result? Some pervs who read The Post might think about journeying to a MUSEUM. Except when they discover that it's $20 to get in, and no, unlike the Metropolitan, it's not "pay what you wish."

It IS a bit disturbing that the Post chose to include a pedo-image and didn't address how much of a "SEX MANIAC" Mr. Heckel was. But to use a Barbara catch-phrase, "that's another story."