Writer Niven Busch lying on sofa with a newspaper over his face as he takes nap from screenwriting.

Bought the biggest one they had and hung it in our living room.

Makes me want to doze off every time I fall into the sofa.

As the value of higher education continues to decline, these are some great alternatives: Start a business, travel the world, create art, make people laugh, write a book, work for a charity, master a game, master a sport. Splendid!

Want better (not to mention more memorable) pictures of your landmark travels? Shoot original photos instead of the same, diluted ones everyone else always takes, says photographer Thom Hogan.

“A long time ago I noticed something interesting about my workshops: students took better pictures in Capitol Reef National Park and Escalante-Grand Staircase than they did in Arches National Park and Bryce National Park. I don’t mean technically better; I mean aesthetically better, unique, and more interesting than the ones I see taken at workshops of name parks. It took me a couple of years to figure out why, but it turns out to be one of those hidden dangers of photography (and art in general, actually): unintentional copycatism.”

In summary, it’s easier to take great photos of low-profile places than high-profile ones, because your less tempted to recreate the same picturesque shots. (If it’s the latter that you want, postcards or desktop wallpapers do a better job.)

Consequently, when visiting your next classic American or International “name park” such as Grand Canyon, the above mentioned Arches, or Paris, “look for the shots that are yours,” counsels Hogan, which result in better-looking photos anyway.

In other words, just say “no” to cliché photography.

As recently seen in a book read to the girls. Anyone know the book?

Although I’ve been bored with NASA since the ’80s, this commemorative logo, released in 2008, looks slick.

“What is art?” is perhaps the most futile question ever asked. It’s like trying to argue what the best color is.

But I think I’ve found what the definition of great art is: a visible, audible, or experiential creation that gets people talking. Yes, that includes shock artists that insipidly use controversy to attract publicity. And no, art doesn’t have to be properly marketed or seen by lots of people to make it great. But if an original creation, whether accidental or intended, doesn’t make a lasting impression on at least one beholder, it can’t be great art. Am I wrong?

Panting by Jonathan Janson, a Vermeer impressionist