A character in Milan Kundera’s Immortality notices that
“…painters and sculptors from classical days to Raphael and perhaps even to Ingres avoided portraying laughter…a beautiful face was imaginable only in its immobility. Faces lost their immobility, mouths became open, only when the painter wished to express evil.”
He notes that the exceptions, such as the Dutch painters, depict subjects “beyond ugliness or beauty,” as does much photography. Indeed, he compares the immobile beauty of the classical face to the photographs of the present, and specifically to a book of pictures of John F. Kennedy in which the president is laughing, lips parted and teeth bared, in every image.
“A few days later he found himself…in front of Michelangelo’s David and tried to imagine that marble face laughing like Kennedy. David, that paradigm of male beauty, suddenly looked like an imbecile! Imagine Mona Lisa as her barely perceptible smile turns into a laugh that reveals her teeth and gums!”
Kundera seems not to have seen the many advertisements and video images of precisely those transformations occurring, with precisely that effect. His character reflects:
“A face is beautiful because it reveals the presence of thought, whereas at the moment of laughter a man does not think…in the instant that he grasps the comical, man does not laugh; laughter follows afterward as a physical reaction, as a convulsion of the face, and a convulsed person does not rule himself, he is ruled by something that is neither will nor reason… A human being who does not rule himself (a human being beyond reason, beyond will) cannot be considered beautiful.”
I do not wholly agree with these ideas, although I like them; counter-examples occur immediately to me, but I’ll leave the arguments to you. I wanted only to say this: so far as I know, this is the only photograph of me laughing completely, laughing senselessly. I didn’t know Abby was taking it, and I like it a lot; this must be what I look like often; in real life, I spend enormous amounts of time laughing and being unreasonable, profane, and amused, however I come across here, and that is sufficient cause for this to be my GPOYW.


![The wonderful Enormous Air posted Soren Kierkegaard in the Coffee-House, a sketch in oils by Christian Olavious, 1843.
Raynor wants to know why all Bakers have the same hairstyle. Raynor likes to ask questions. Raynor ought to be careful what questions he asks about the Order of Bakers unless he wants to wind up “rotto dal mento infin dove si trulla.”
But this is scarcely a secret: we’ve modeled our haircuts on the style made famous by the dashing Søren Kierkegaard, whose contemporaries were as smitten with him as ours are with us; said one Hans Brøchner:
“My only definite impression was of [Kierkegaard’s] appearance, which I found almost comical. He was then twenty-three years old; he had something quite irregular in his entire form and had a strange coiffure. His hair rose almost six inches above his forehead into a tousled crest that gave him a strange, bewildered look.”
Thus is this instantiation edition of GPOYW dedicated to Herr Ganan, who asks but never answers.](http://15.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kq6va10nOT1qzhjvto1_400.jpg)



