As an art expert, it has been our pleasure to visit all of the great art museums of the world. The Louvre, for instance, where we not only know the name of every guard in the place but their kid's birthdays as well. Sunday we decided to take a gander at the National Gallery of Art. We arrived thirsty, having just finished a stint at the gym, where we attempted to flee our demons on a treadmill that leads nowhere. So we made our way to the nearest museum water fountain, first making sure that it wasn't a work of art, and drank deeply. The water was tepid, hot almost. This is a deliberate ploy, no doubt, on the museum's part to funnel the parched to the cafe, where a Diet Coke fetches the price of a minor Rembrandt. Art museums are treacherous places, designed to fleece the unwary. We didn't fall for it. Instead we turned our finely tuned connoisseur's eye--we were here to slake our thirst for art, damn it!--to the works on display, starting with a wonderful Max Ernst sculpture, Capricorn. It's a big fine hunk of metal, perfect for making burnt offerings to.

We avoided the whole Canaletto and His Rivals show, it's just painting after painting of Venice and gondolas and blah blah blah, instead we scuttled into the Gabriel Metsu exhibition where we were entranced by this:

What a painting, you can say what you want about Metsu but he knew how to paint a dead rooster suspended by one leg. We also liked his "Baker Blowing His Horn"...

Bagels are ready!
Then we trundled off to the "contemporary art", where we saw three ugly Mark Rothkos, a couple of Frank Stellas that made us nauseous, and Francis Bacon's "Study for a Running Dog", which gets our vote for best in show.

We passed by the Georgia O'Keefe's in a disqusted silence, same for the Roy Lichtensteins, what a bore that guy is. Same goes for Robert Mangold's "Yellow Wall," we could paint a better picture with our peter.
Alma Thomas's "Red Rose Canata" looks more interesting here than it does in the museum. There it just looks tacky.
Jasper Johns' "Dancers on a Plane" pissed us off, but he made up for it with his "Target."

Museums should be safe places for children, and we were somewhat disconcerted by the open display of Picasso's "Nude Woman", 1910:

Who needs this filth thrust into the faces of their children?
The Matisses were too pretty, the Dufys too colorful, the Andrew Calder mobile room made us dizzy. Isamu Noguchi's "Great Rock of Inner Being" just took up space in the lobby. Giacometti's "Walking Man" bored us. We liked James Castle's "Purse ! Discusses" a lot.

The same goes for Kim Rugg's "No More Dry Runs". Finally, a newspaper that isn't full of lies!

Finally, we have severe doubts about the skills of Agnes Martin. Oh, and we got to see Jackson Pollock's "Lavender Mist"! How exciting were the three seconds we spent before it!

We should add, to inform the unwary, that there isn't a single Dada-related work of art in the whole place. George Grosz, ditto. What kind of a museum completely ignores the greatest and funniest intellectual movement of the 20th Century? But includes this monstrosity by that fakir, Roy Lichtenstein?
