maastrictian pointed me to this art piece, which is quite well-done and rather amusing . . . but, despite the claims in the introduction, is NOT NARRATIVE. When will people figure out that simply alluding to the idea that there might have been a coherent sequence of events, somewhere, sometime in the vague past of the piece does not make it narrative? Sloppy thinking, maybe, or maybe just the fact that due to overwork the word "narrative" has been so badly abused as to cover nearly anything that contains events of any kind happening in sequence. (Except, of course, non-linear narrative. 'Cause it's, you know, non-linear. And stuff. Remind me that that phrase deserves a rant of its own.)
Let's claim narrative back for things that actually tell a story, shall we, people?