“For we are not pans and barrows, nor even porters of the fire and torch-bearers,…”
Nor are we cats!
Still emphysematous from laughter. I received this image from Jerry: another badly painted “cat.”
Is he an Imperial Walker?
Is he a tooth?
Is he in the initial stages of spaghettification?
Indeed, what is it? I renounce this too, to the eye of the beholder. For I present another painting of a “cat,” which carries with it even more limitless hilarity; he/she/it resembles not – even in the smallest degree – any other cat…ever. One friend hypothesised that medieval artists hadn’t grasped how to…grasp implements such as paintbrushes or palate knives; however, this work is not quite medieval; it is mid-nineteenth century. Is it an unattainable endeavour to persuade a cat to remain immobile? This guy certainly appears to be moving. I stand by my aforementioned ultimate contemplation: the unavoidable inference that this Artist too, just didn’t like cats!
A Classicist Writes... 
Maybe it’s an Impressionistic cat rather than a poorly observed and rendered cat. . .
Regardless, it lacks a neck and has giraffe legs.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Bahaha!!!
LikeLike
Oh my goodness! I’ve seen a lot of bad cat paintings, mostly “thanks” to Jerry’s website, but that one takes the cake! I think your idea that it’s the model for an Imperial Walker is a good one – that’s what it most resembles, and somehow one expects bad stuff to come from a cat that looks like that, as with a Walker.
LikeLiked by 1 person
These guys seem to gravitate towards Jerry! The IWs didn’t have necks either 😂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Pingback: …on cats what ain’t cats part deux – A Classicist Writes…