With my old friend Dr. Oz squarely within the virtual anus of the intestinal machinations of some most recent news cycles, I just can't resist focusing on him again. Here's some really terrible art I've created over the years.
You know, it's just one of those days and I just don't feel like writing. Yet, with my old friend Dr. Oz squarely within the virtual anus of the intestinal machinations of the news cycle, I just can't resist. So, I decided to channel my inner absence of artistic talent and enter the terrifying world of Internet graphics. It may not be pretty, but it's more than sufficiently insulting. And it's a damn good thing that I've been doing my homework over the years so I didn't have to spend 24 hours recreating this nonsense. Here ya go...
Dr. Oz just doesn't care for me. How could he? Back in 2014, when I was writing for Science 2.0 I gave him a rather unflattering nickname (The Lizard of Oz) after Senator Claire McCaskill (D-MO) turned Oz into magic cat food by luring him before the Senate Commerce, Science, and Transportation Committee under the pretense that he would be testifying as an expert. Didn't work so well for the good doctor.
Shortly thereafter our media director Erik Lief fielded a rather suspicious couple of calls from two Oz producers, who by some paranormal bend in the time-space continuum just happened to want to interview "a chemist" (I'm the only one here) about a f######ing weed killer. Could there possibly be some kind of reprisal afoot? It would seem so.
Oz producers. OK, it wasn't them. I think. Photo: Amazon.
This didn't work out so well either.
"Why on earth would Dr. Oz want to talk to me? It's not like we travel in the same socioeconomic circles. He has a 400 room mansion with an unobstructed view of lower Manhattan, while I live in a refrigerator crate under the FDR Drive. I doubt we've ever been invited to the same party."
Now, let's grade the artwork.
2012: Novice. And it shows.
But it did give me a chance to finally display my utter incompetence in computer graphics. Perhaps they're amusing, but I really need to keep my day job.
Three somewhat unflattering pieces of "art" from Science 2.0. Pretty lame, but who could have possibly known where it would go??
2015: Progress. Note the elements of repetition, balance, and unity. (2)
2017: After Babs cloned two dogs. Obvious improvement in abstraction, unity, and emphasis, but still not great.
This one sucks. I don't like the fit of the head one bit.
2017: Finally nailed it. Note the development in rhythm, cross-hatching, and contrast.
Note the seamless integration of the noose and leg. This wasn't easy. If you want to know why the doctor is about to be lowered into two very different entities, I can assure you that it is strictly for the benefit of science, but you're gonna have to read it yourself.
(1) This is a blatant lie. It was a screenshot with a caption. A paramecium with ADHD could have done this.
(2) Just to be clear, I have no idea what any of this crap means. But my friend Jericka Hall sure does. Sent me some art lingo and I threw it together with no thought whatsoever, which is why it probably makes no sense. Jericka is 16 and just started drawing this year. Wow.
Jericka Hall, 2018