Saturday, June 06, 2009

I don't paint enough women

So I'm reading Joe Nocera's column in the NYT titled "Poking Holes in a Theory on Markets" in which he takes a couple of compelling shots at the efficient market hypothesis.
Wikipedia (God bless 'em) offers: In finance, the efficient-market hypothesis (EMH) asserts that financial markets are "informationally efficient", or that prices on traded assets (e.g., stocks, bonds, or property) already reflect all known information, and rapidly change to reflect new information. Therefore it is impossible to consistently outperform the market by using any information that the market already knows, except through luck.
And I got to thinking about "The American Investor" and my previous statement that I don't paint enough women. This, if you remember, was coupled with the flawed notion of painting FDIC head Sheila Baer.

This, by the way, is "The American Investor" hung in a corner of my apartment, flanked by "The Enumerated Thain" and just above an oldie--"Forgiving Nixon."

So I got to thinking that I need to stimulate more interesting commentary on my paintings and that one way to do so would be to paint the picture of a woman in the same obscured box technique I employed for "... Investor", title it "The Annotated EMH" or some such nonsense and nab thought-provoking quotes from Nocera's article, plus some others...
“It’s ridiculous to blame the financial crisis on the efficient market hypothesis. If you are leveraged 33-1, and you’re holding long-term securities and using short-term indebtedness, and then there’s a run on the bank — which is what happened to Bear Stearns — how can you blame that on efficient market theory?”
--Burton G. Malkiel, Princeton economist
Now THAT, dear reader, is an annotation. Beats the hell out of "I love New York--Bobby and Sissie from Milwaukee."

This one jumps to mind as well:
“In their desire for mathematical order and elegant models the economic establishment played down the role of bad behavior" --not to mention "flat-out bursts of irrationality.”
--Jeremy Grantham (via Nocera)
Then I thought--given a number of reasons, not the least being the relative obscenity of last few years on Wall Street--that I should involve sex in the equation. So I went on the web and grabbed the first safe-for-work-but-still-naughty image I could find ...

And thought, now THAT would be some good clean fun. Imagine this image (or something similar, perhaps more overtly orgasmic), flipped perhaps, executed in a small-box obscured technique, sans fountain, sporting, among others, the two annotations offered above.

That's what I'm talking about.

I'm torn about whether to render it in black and white or color. Much thought to come.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home