I’d be interested in some art historian’s perspectives on this — is there some controversy on the idea that this is a painting of a tapestry? If so, what’s the implication? What’s the shock part? I guess he’s perhaps trying to help us see it as a similar image of ‘breakage’ in which case, what, is this tapestry itself supposed to be hung in God’s or the devil’s house in the hamptons? Maybe the essay is just a bit of insider baseball, but I feel like I missed the hook.