If you paint it, it will open


So meta. Is La Rondalla gonna hurry up and open soon? I was supposed to have my wedding there.


22 Responses to “If you paint it, it will open”

  1. Whataperv says:

    How is this meta?

  2. Is that the painter currently showing at the Dew Drop Inn (Church and 17th)?

  3. moto-waki says:

    i am not the painter & i cannot see the painter in his painting. i’m giving soccerkarate the benefit of the doubt that he knows what he’s talking about & imagining that the artist is obscuring his own image within his work.

    we all clear now?

  4. moto-waki says:

    and in the painting la rondalla is open for business.

  5. Whataperv says:

    A few points about art and life:

    First of all, calling anything meta-life is pedantic. Meta-life would technically be a self-referential life, which a person’s life is. All persons are live in reference to the act and meaning of living in some way or another.

    Mimesis and meta-art aren’t the same thing. Mimesis, as you suggest, is basically all art. However, there’s nothing “meta” or “meta-art” about a representation. Magritte’s “The Treachery of Images” is meta-art. Renoir’s “Lilies” is not. If you’d like me to explain why, I can. Or, someone can “google it.”

    The term meta-art should be confined to art about the creation or reception of art or else the term has no meaning. While one could make an argument about how all art is about the creation or reception of art, it would be pedantic.

    It’s the same thing with simulacrums. Simulacrums are not the same as a simple representation or the same as “meta-art.” They have to do with representations of representations and while there are differences of opinion about what a simulacrum is, these opinions do not typically include self-referencing as being identical to or necessary for a simulacrum.

    The term “meta” is beginning to be overused in the same way “ironic” is overused. This is why I don’t simply take someone’s word that the painter is in that painting. Also, whether or not the restaurant is open in the painting has no relationship to whether or not it’s “meta,” but it would make it a simulacrum.

    • moto-waki says:

      hey, whataperv knows how to copy & paste!

      • Whataperv says:

        Google it.

        • GG says:

          Yeah, I remember being a freshman in undergrad and thinking my totally banal arguments were over everyone’s head rather than just hackneyed/inappropriate. Yes, we all know what “meta” means (and even what “simulacrum” means, although you’re not exactly using it correctly!). This is all just making me grateful I grew out of that stage many years ago, here’s hoping you do too, whataperv!

          TL;DR: Man, KIDS.

    • blah says:

      That was too long and not funny at all. You lose.

    • Ariel Dovas says:

      What if we renamed the blog Meta Meta?

      Oh wait, has this gone on long enough that it has now become meta again?

      If I misuse meta enough ways in this response will your head eat itself?

  6. live_fast_die_ says:

    i dinned and ditched from there when i was 17 (1987) they didn’t chase me but waited for me outside the Chatterbox (what’s it called now?) the man only asked that i didn’t come back until i could not only pay my bill but pre-pay before I ate there again.

    Stuck in the Mission cause my rent is soooooooo cheap!!! (Knock on wood)