Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on Drunk (Second in a Series)


Then why such a low score?

Posted by Mokawi | July 27, 2007 1:16 AM

I'm impressed. The first photograph with the arrangement of fore and background is downright artful.

Posted by lostboy | July 27, 2007 5:05 AM

What prey tell would a 10/10 drinking fountain look like? That one sounded about perfect, but it only got 5/10? I expect orgasms from a 10-pointer.

There is a drinking fountain in Robert Wagner park in Manhattan that recently surprised me when I needed it most. I have this idea in my head that other people think public drinking fountains are gross. It may have to do with the bottled water craze. Is this true?

Posted by Jude Fawley | July 27, 2007 5:25 AM

God, you are a harsh grader! That stream is at least an 8, probably a 9. What do you want, a firehose? And with the the pipe hiss? Wow. It must take a powerful stream indeed to satisfy you.

Posted by Fnarf | July 27, 2007 8:07 AM

Can you please let Charles take over this series? I really need to know if the column holding the fountain's bowl was Doric or Corinthian and I need that somehow related to why butterflies and paper money are cousins by way of Rimbaud.

Posted by Slim | July 27, 2007 8:29 AM

I like how the "whole show is decayed with hints of moss", as if to say, the aesthetic leans towards rubbling, but wait that's not all, it's also garnished with patches of The Great Pacific Northwest Moss. Hooray or Boo, add or detract, it can't be said with that middle of the road catagory score.

Here's to hoping Josh goes inside SCCC to review one of their porcelain inset fountains. Too many more outside fountains and folks will start to talk.

Posted by Phenics | July 27, 2007 8:56 AM

You gotta include "taste" as one of your grading components. The water coming out of these things varies wildly in quality.

Posted by Matthew | July 27, 2007 11:55 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).