I know, shocking.
View their (his) comments here.
If you'll click the link, you'll see some lovely craftwork made out of items commonly found in sandwiches.
One of them being this thing:
Is this a sandwich?
Without a doubt, No. Listen, Dan-o and I aren't some sandwich nazis trying to force rigid rules and make and uber-sando world of perfectly formed sandwiches that all fit a myopic sandwichworldview.
Other than the two crucial (yet loosely defined) sandwich ingredients, bread and filling, two important factors come into play.
Firstly, Intent.
Did the sandwich maker intend to make a sandwich? Or were they attempting something else, like a wrap, a piece of art, a sushi roll, or whatever?
Secondly, in the words of Harry Caray, Would you eat it?
Does it look tasty? Does it contain ingredients that please your senses?
In the case of these sando-animal creations, the answer to both is a resounding no.
The person who crafted them, as creative as they are, didn't intend them to be sandwiches. It's an artwork, not an edible.
Secondly, I won't eat a sando made of bologna and wonderbread. It's an insult to the memory of the eponymous Earl.
That said, I would never accuse a person who likes bologna in between two slices of bread of not eating a sandwich (heathens), unless of course, they made it into a a mouse or a cat first, then they should just go back to art school or pre-school, wherever they teach such horrible things.
I understand this is a loose definition, and it may not satisfy some. It's hard to accept, I know, that some things just aren't sandwiches.
Oh, one other thing. Though the address of this blog may mislead you, meat is not a requirement for a sandwich. There's plently of delicious veggie sandos out there that fully qaulify.
Anyway,
This is a man who knows about sandwiches.
3 comments:
A-ro I fully agree with your rant and find your argument highly entertaining but why take out preschool? Thats just rude, we don't play with our food nor create with it, thank you very much.
Alex Roome, lets face some facts. In response to your single credible assertion (that the artist did not intend to make a sandwich when he created these delightful miniatures). Of course he wanted to create a damn sandwich when he made them. Otherwise he could have used some other material that was more conducive to sculpting like clay or Play-Doh. He used sandwich ingredients to make non-conventional sandwiches. They were and continue to be designed for eating. Perhaps this was part of the artists nefarious intent to attract you to his work in two ways (eat-i-bility and adorableness) and leave you with one conflict: To eat or not to eat.
Furthermore, I would promptly call you out for trying to assume the guise of a simple sandwich lover. You are no less than a full blown prosetylizing sandwich preacher. You ask if I would eat the sandwich, yet answer the question immediately, as if it were rhetorical. The question was not rhetorical. If I believe those creations to be delicious looking, then they are. You may continue to preach, but know that your pulpit is one giant shit sandwich that nobody wants to take a bite of.
In our response to your previous post, we included a link to a collage of creations by the same artist. In an honest attempt to come together and build a consensus as to the true nature of a sandwich we would like to concede that the following creations in that image not sandwiches:
-The Mostly Cucumber Rat
-The Lettuce-as-Lilly-Pad Frog
-The Two Bees Rejoice in a Sea of Cheese and Tomatoes
-The Bell Pepper Flower
-The Duet of Lovingly Crafted Geese
We eagerly await your measured response.
P.S. A link to the image we are referring to can be found Here
Post a Comment