so this little sojourn of mine in europe has provided me with an opportunity to observe the euro up close and in it’s native habitat.
the euro is terrific. no more need to figure out the exchange rate between francs and d.m’s and guilders and lire and etc. i appreciate the convenience and the utility of the euro. but i have to voice a little complaint…
the euro looks boring. sorry, but it’s true. it’s cool how the lower denominations are small and the larger denominations get progressively, well, larger.
but the art on the euro is kind of lacklustre. old european currencies had all sorts of cool art. sunflowers, geese, famous dead people, etc. but the euro has, drumroll please, old stone bridges. i have nothing against old stone bridges. they can be quite picturesque and, of course, functional. but they’re not particularly dynamic or sexy.
shouldn’t something new and dynamic and sexy like the euro have art that is equally new and dynamic and sexy?
i understand using bridges on an allegorical level, as in ‘the euro is building bridges between people and countries.’ yeah, that’s all very well and good. but why not pictures of cool things like the concorde and the alps and formula-one race cars and swedish porn stars? europe is full of lovely and exciting iconic images that could easily spruce up anyones currency. so why old stone bridges? go look at a euro.
just try to tell me that these drawings of old bridges is exciting.
so, my grade for the euro (in a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being the highest):
ease of use: 10
overall functionality: 10
crappy drawings of old bridges as sole art: 2
ok, my opinionizing is over.
i think that there’s carbon monoxide in my room. if i die or succumb to co poisoning, it’s been nice to know you.
moby