- Joined
- Sep 18, 2014
I'm replying here so as not to derail.
In the British Museum are all these Egyptian mummies. Most of these are dead royalty/nobility, and it took what was then expensive state-of-the-art medical procedures to preserve the bodies.
As a result, scientists can study the mummies and learn many details of how they lived and died.
Also among the mummies is an incredibly well-preserved corpse nicknamed Ginger. He was a poor commoner, and when he died he was buried in the desert sand. Coincidentally, these desert conditions preserved his corpse in a better state than many of the royal mummies in their expensive tombs. Even some of his hair is intact.
As a result, more can be learned about Ginger than a lot of the pharaohs and court officials - not because of any special qualities or achievements of his, but because of a chance set of circumstances.
Chris is basically Ginger. He is noteworthy because so many details of his life are documented on the internet. We have access to Chris, in a way we only typically do to celebrities.
Thus, I think it's perfectly understandable to project superlativeness onto Chris, because we are conditioned with the idea that celebrities represent superlative achievement in some field: the richest, the most powerful, most sexually attractive, most proficient at their sport or art.
Chris is primarily known for being stupid, repulsive and bad at art; we make him the stupidest, the most repulsive, the worst artist - because that's what naturally fits the level of detail we have on his life.
***
I realise I've meandered way off point. I do agree that Chris would not be anyone's client of choice. I suppose I just wanted to make the argument I've tried to make above alongside that.
So Chris is going to be a time capsule for popular culture from the mid 90's - ?? for future historians, that's a interesting thought.