"He suggested I play golf, but finally agreed to give me something that, he said, "would really work"; and going to a cabinet, he produced a vial of violet-blue capsules banded with dark purple at one end, which, he said, had just been placed on the market and were intended not for neurotics whom a draft of water could calm if properly administered, but only for great sleepless artists who had to die for a few hours in order to live for centuries."
-- Vladimir Nabokov, Lolita

Are the sleepless artists really great, or merely properly administered?

Here is the answer.

More than 10 lines people don´t read.

That's bs, it was never published. It just got accepted *without review* then rejected at a later stage when someone actually *looked* it. ref

Okay, so just so you know, I got 100% on the "true art or a fake quiz", hahaha. It's actually not that hard at all, what a joke. A bit off topic but I really don't give a shit.

Further exploration of Marcello's link shows that the organizers of the "journal" not only failed to review the paper but said that they should allow an outlet for papers to be published without peer review. The WMSCI charges a per-paper entry fee and doesn't even require the author of the paper to attend the conference to which it is being submitted. It's not a publication, it's a corporation. Even if they had published the paper, it would mean nothing.

Okay, so just so you know, I got 100% on the "true art or a fake quiz", hahaha. It's actually not that hard at all, what a joke. A bit off topic but I really don't give a shit.

What difference does it make now? I gave the statistics of the results in the paper. About 1.8% of quiz takers got 100%. They had previously seen the masterpieces, identified as such.

That's bs, it was never published. It just got accepted *without review* then rejected at a later stage when someone actually *looked* it.

This is true that the paper was never published, it was accepted to a conference. However it was rejected not after looking, but after MIT guys announced that it was randomly generated using Chomsky's context-free grammar, and the story was everywhere in the media.

In another hoax Alan Sokal published a deliberately foolish paper in the "Social Text" journal. The paper was read by the editors, they even asked to make some changes.

a bit off topic Simkin: why you didn´t post any drawing ?

link not loading in here.

link not loading in here

It works for me. Anyway, here it is again:

http://reverent.org/painting_contest_entries.html