Notes on Art.

A sultry summer Sunday spent shuffling the streets of Edinburgh. The weekend flew by quickly like a clipped-winged sparrow, only plummeting toward the ground after a brief, heart-pounding moment aloft a comfortable current of wind and heat. The day was lovely, indeed. But that death-inducing nose-dive was brought on by the horrifying, pseudo-historical celluloid jellyfish known as Troy.

For God’s sake (Apollo included) DO NOT go see this film. Instead, you can read about it here, which I enthusiastically encourage you to do. And it’s free.

This is not art.

The warmer part of the day was spent with good friends – gingiber & anonymouseth – traipsing down cobbled back alleys and along muddy canals, eventually falling upon the Edinburgh Museum of Modern Art where we challenged ourselves to be challenged by the challenging countenance of art that is modern.

No, really…

It’s entirely possible that I just don’t understand it. That I’m not cultured enough, or that I’m just too dim-witted and dum-founded to appreciate the beauty, poignance, and commentary that modern art conveys and bestows. Probably not, however. Probably, modern art just sucks. Wait – let me explain.

I’m easily moved, and easily inspired by most things around me. And, in fact, there were some nice pieces from the late-19th century that held some semblance of emotion and depth. But for the most part, the idea of creating something and calling it art to challenge popular conceived notions of beauty and substance is total and utter bullshit. And it bothers me, and most of the objects d’fart within that gallery were either completely soulless or completely lost on me.

Take, for example the double stack of glass-enclosed, Michael Jordan-signed Wilson basketballs, still shiny new in their packaging. This is ‘supposed’ to be a commentary on economics, advertising, and idol worship. But really, it’s just a goddamned stack of basketballs sitting in the middle of a room of an art gallery. IN THE WAY. I mean, I had to consciously move around it to continue onward.

Or better yet…there was this light-box stuck on the wall. You know, the kind you find in bus stops around the world. This ‘artist’, Jeff Wall, had taken a photograph of a tree on a city street, with trash heaped all along the base. He turned this photograph into a transparency and pasted it on the the light box, so this ugly-ass picture was lit from behind in glorious full colour. And I stood there for a moment, not being one to dismiss anything at first glance without considering something deeper…

But there was nothing to find. Aha! The caption on the wall next to it might hold some answers! I swear on all that is holy, this is what it said about our man Jeff: “At first glance Wall’s earlier works appear to be journalistic photographs, snapshots, or reportage. By often choosing unremarkable subject matter, Wall disguises the artifice that actually constitutes his work. Each photograph is a meticulously constructed ‘stage set’, a fiction devised through the imagination and control of the artist.”

What the fuck?

Are they trying to trick people into believing this? Do they actually believe it themselves?

This should be edited to read: ”At first glance, Wall’s earlier works appear to be revoltingly average photography of boring demeanour that carry a pallor of bleakness joined with the cold reality of uselessness and self-defined talent. By often choosing unremarkable subject matter, Wall chooses to reveal the fact that he has no vision whatsoever, but tries to disguise this with grandiose display and pretty lights. There is no real artifice in his work. Each photograph is a meticulously drool-inducing ordeal, a ‘stage set’ of the drug-addled narcissism of the self-proclaimed ‘artist’, clearly showing his lack of imagination and control over the medium.”

This is not art.

And this brings up another thought in my mind – one that stayed with me for the rest of the day…that I mused over between dodging nasty pockets of midges and soaking wet Labradors barreling toward us, drooly sticks in joyful mouths. I’m extremely careful how I use the word Artist. I’ve never called myself an artist, but rather someone who does artistic things as part of my hobbies and my job. An Artist, to me, is someone who is a professional – who uses their talent and vision and expression to support their bad habits and continued output. Otherwise, this appellation should be used as a rare compliment given to someone else, not self-described as some sort of progressive title or smug proof of being hyper-avant garde. It is not appropriate to call one’s self an Artist unless they are producing art. And don’t give me any of that “Well, it questions and challenges accepted notions of artistic context.” No, don’t give me that shit.

The hordes of middle-aged, New Age, ultra-insecure, recently-divorced housewives seeking their spiritual freedom and self-affirmation in Marin County could never produce a big enough mountain of dice-jewelry and macaroni sculpture to make me believe that the tiny, embossed letters on their business cards spelling out A-r-t-i-s-t is an accurate portrayal of who they are and what they’re producing. Sorry.

This is not art.

I have made good amounts of money supplementing my income with my artistic pursuits. I have taught classes to many people on artistic techniques and theories. I’ve been away from my paints and my brushes for the better part of a year now, and I am suffering greatly for it. These days, I have a great emptiness within me from not being able to create. I feel so much when I taste that fucking colour and feel it on the palette and on the media and the emotions that tear through me are almost indescribable…and uncontrollable. But it’s utter release, and total appreciation for being alive. I worship my fingers and my eyes and if I lost any or all I would kill myself for not being able to do what I do…and feel what I feel when I paint.

And I am still not an Artist.

But what I feel from doing whatever it is that I do…the enjoyment and release that it brings and bestows…

That is art.

Absolutely. D’you think Jeff goes through this?

26 Responses to “Notes on Art.”

  1. avalokita Says:
    May 23rd, 2004 at 12:55 pm

    You are the most interesting person on my LJ friends list.

  2. FunkyPlaid Says:
    May 23rd, 2004 at 11:16 pm

    Thank you for saying so, my Taurean sister.
    Just as art, 'interesting' is an exceedingly subjective term…

  3. madame_mage Says:
    May 23rd, 2004 at 2:53 pm

    Actually my feeling is that Jeff is just paying the bills and he has "friends" that either owe him favors or he has something on them.
    ah from your description of yourself, I'd say you are an artist HANDS DOWN..why? because you suffer from being away from your paints, you say you actually TASTE and feel that colour, this tells me that creative streak is a tremenous part of you..thats your soul dude and to not engage in this self-expression of creativity is allowing a piece of you to die..I know you will do what is right for you..your posts and your overall approach to life I really find refreshing..You're funny and truthful..with a heavy emphsis on common sense…thanks for gracing my friends list..

  4. FunkyPlaid Says:
    May 23rd, 2004 at 11:28 pm

    …to not engage in this self-expression of creativity is allowing a piece of you to die.
    This couldn't be more true, but think of how many people are making a career out of manipulating others' ideas of what self-expression is relevant. It's like a defiant child digging his heels in and daring his parents to make him conform.
    But really, who is anyone to say? That's the question that many modernists attempt to pose.
    Thank you for your kind accolades; there is no grace, only opinion. 🙂

  5. spiffington Says:
    May 23rd, 2004 at 5:33 pm

    artistic wafllings…
    So true.
    I think you're right the problem here as you say, partly lies in people's definition of artist and whether they believe they fall under that category or spectacularly miss it. Also the kind of fast, unconsidered, 'I want it now' place we inhabit, encourages more and more 'arteeests' like our friend here to emerge and exploit.
    'Artist' in the case of good ol' Jeff is more likely an embodiment of:
    'One who is adept at an activity, especially one involving trickery or deceit: a con artist.'
    The guy clearly is able to take photos, even if they are poo he can still *take* them, and has some ability to pull the wool over folks' eyes so they believe it is something it is not. In this case, art. He obviously has little concern about what he produces so long as the money keeps coming in (as your friend states).
    By definition though, for those of us more sensitive, the word artist is not that, or even just:
    'One, such as a painter, sculptor, or writer, who is able by virtue of imagination and talent or skill to create works of aesthetic value, especially in the fine arts.'
    'A person whose work shows exceptional creative ability or skill: 'You are an artist in the kitchen.''
    And this is where sensitivity gets the better of us. Unfortunately. Because we look for this, and are often sadly disappointed. I'm sure that's why so many artists are considered mad, or totally misunderstood as to where they are coming from. The majority just don't get it or them, or are able to see the exceptional, pure and simple.
    And some, well some, they know folk are looking for the remarkable and by putting out mediocrity and fooling folk into thinking it is remarkable, they have wasted little of their time and earned most of the cash.

  6. FunkyPlaid Says:
    May 23rd, 2004 at 11:46 pm

    Re: artistic wafllings…
    How often do dictionary definitions of interpretive concepts actually do them justice? How can anyone define Love, Passion, Elegance, Beauty…how can anyone define Art?
    And that's the simple truth: there are people out there who take advantage of that nebulous, mutable definition, and they rape it with reckless abandon, and revel in the carnage and dissension they have wrought.
    But all I'm saying is that I don't like it. I don't connect with it, understand it, or appreciate it. I'm completely open to learning more, but it doesn't hold me at all. And this is about as general a designation as I could possibly make. Of course there are exceptions. And many good ones, at that.

  7. angledge Says:
    May 23rd, 2004 at 7:04 pm

    I'm just glad that I'm not the only person left completely cold by modern art. I go to the galleries out of a sense of duty (or I'm dragged there by someone more "artistic" than myself). Of the hundreds of modern art displays I've seen, only two or three have ever engaged my imagination or made me think.

  8. FunkyPlaid Says:
    May 23rd, 2004 at 11:29 pm

    Yup. Exactamundo.
    'Left cold' is a great term.

  9. zotz Says:
    May 23rd, 2004 at 7:26 pm

    Take, for example the double stack of glass-enclosed, Michael Jordan-signed Wilson basketballs
    Jeff Koon. Vastly overrated, IMNAAHO. I don't think I've seen anything of his I'd give the time of day to. Some other people seem to find it fascinating, though. Why should a piece of art necessarily appeal to everyone?
    They have Henry Moores, Picassos, Magrittes, Ernsts, Miròs, Paolozzis, and Dalis, all of which piss on Koon. I agree that that one's crap, but I wouldn't say it was representative.

  10. zotz Says:
    May 23rd, 2004 at 7:30 pm

    Hmm. Jeff Wall and Jeff Koon. Are you sure you just don't hate art by Jeffs?

  11. FunkyPlaid Says:
    May 23rd, 2004 at 11:35 pm

    Yeah, you're right.
    All Jeffs must die. 🙂
    Most of the artists you mentioned I'm really fine with. Their work doesn't exist as a commentary, a rhetorical question, or a moral lesson disguised within a hollow visual shell. They don't take advantage of the levity of peoples' interpretative abilities.
    In that sense, I concur.

  12. kittynitro Says:
    May 24th, 2004 at 4:22 am

    All Jeffs must die?
    Couldn't we allow just a couple to live? (Anyhow, I like Jeff Koons. His photographs with Cicciolina were funny and well-composed. And, if I may say, a nice commentary on the plastic and artificial nature of traditional porn.
    Now, his porcelain statues of Michael Jackson and Bubbles, I can do wihout.)

  13. FunkyPlaid Says:
    May 27th, 2004 at 2:20 am

    Re: All Jeffs must die?
    Okay, a couple.
    But I get to choose!

  14. blu_matt Says:
    May 23rd, 2004 at 7:36 pm

    I think I'm having vodka fueled flashbacks here… 😉
    Art… quoi?

  15. FunkyPlaid Says:
    May 23rd, 2004 at 11:36 pm

    Yeah, I couldn't just let it go. 🙂
    See how you make me think?
    See how you make me drink?
    See Darren think. See Darren drink.
    Puke, Darren, Puke.

  16. fragiletender Says:
    May 23rd, 2004 at 9:20 pm

    Jeff Wall – don't have an opinion, not seen any. Jeff Koon – don't like his work at all. OK, that's them out of the way.
    First off, I must admit my personal bias – I do define myself as an artist. I make art almost every day of my life, when I'm not making art I'm thinking about or writing about it, I exhibit regularly, I run an artists' group and I curate art exhibitions. What's more, if you saw my work many of you might think I was a con artist, since it's resolutely non traditional. As yet, I make absolutely no money from my art, but I definitely do consider myself to be a professional contemporary artist.
    I do agree that the word artist is too widely used, although perhaps it's more accurate to say that it's too vague and ill defined a term. As it stands, there is nothing to differentiate what I do from someone painting pretty watercolours of cats. Now, there's nothing wrong with painting cats. However, if myself and the cat painter both call ourselves artists, then it's easy to see how an audience might be confused by that. It's like comparing eggs with bananas – they are two very different things and you may love one and hate the other, yet they both fall under the general category of food. This last one is a particularly difficult question and one I've been struggling with for years. Here's my current definition:
    Who do I think is really an artist? The person who absolutely must make art, the person who is cranky, crazy and unbearable without it. If you've got a compelling and constant drive to create and crucially IF you obey that drive, then you're probably an artist of some kind. If that urges only comes around once every five years rather than every five minutes then you may be a potential artist, but you're not an artist yet because you haven't trained youself to think about it every five minutes. If you just think about making art but don't ever do it, then you may be a potential artist but you're not an artist right now.

  17. FunkyPlaid Says:
    May 24th, 2004 at 12:01 am

    Surely. You make a life out of creating art, promulgating art, appreciating art, and gathering artists together. I could never challenge that title, regardless of what I thought of your empassioned product. Certainly intention goes a long way into how I feel about others' work. Some drip with emotion, and others drip with vacuousness.
    But that's where opinions come in, and as an artist, you open yourself up to them the second your work hits the public eye. You described it well when you said that it's an ill-defined term. But the process of defining, itself, is ever in flux. It's like Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle.
    But we could play advocate and define artifice until the coos come home. And some do. I'm happy with appreciating and accepting what I enjoy, and appreciating and discarding what repels me. I just don't want to be duped, and I get easily insulted by people who denigrate such a prestigious title with wasted talent…and moreso, false pretenses.

  18. fragiletender Says:
    May 23rd, 2004 at 9:33 pm

    I have a lot to say about this, sorry for taking up so much space.
    There are several interesting ideas in this discussion.
    1) People don't like contemporary or modern art.
    Fair enough, not everyone is going to get contemporary art, just as not everyone gets opera, modern jazz, boxing, comics or dance music. There's nothing wrong with not liking contemporary art – if you've given it a good go and it just doesn't appeal, then fair enough. You may prefer more traditional forms of art (which is fine), or you may not be drawn to art at all (again fine, not everyone is visual, after all).
    2) That people don't understand modern art.
    If you care enough, you can learn more about it by reading, looking and thinking about it. However, if you are not drawn in by the art in the first place then you probably won't bother and indeed, why should you? If the artist hasn't interested you enough to make you look more closely, make you think, make you go off and read up about it, then they've failed. Unfortunately this is one area in which contemporary art does itself a huge disservice – most writing about art is absolute, unadulterated bollocks. I struggle to read and understand most art critics and I've had years of being steeped in the jargon and the concepts. If you do want to find out more about contemporary art then read what artists have written about their own work rather than critics, it's invariably better written and will give you a much better insight into what's going on.
    3) That artists are just con artists.
    I find this a profoundly depressing belief. Sadly, it's also a very common one. This is really not borne out by the large number of artists whom I personally know, most of whom work very hard on their art and who are desperate for any kind of audience at all. You might think that what artists are doing is rubbish or a waste of time but believe me, most do genuinely work at it. Do you think that it's easy making work which very few people will see and which most people don't give a shit about? I just slogged my guts out for the last couple of months for an exhibition that only about 500 people saw. Yet I was thrilled to get that many. It's not in my best interest to insult my audience but at the same time, I don't believe that I should modify my ideas to fit current audience tastes. I make my work, not someone else's, if it shocks or offends or irritates people then that's unfortunate, but it's never my intention. I don't despise my audience, I think that if I really did despise my audience then I'd make easy, nice, sweet & accessible art instead of what I'm actually drawn to making. In a word, I would lie to both myself and my audience.
    Rather than thinking that the artist is trying to pull the wool over your eyes, maybe it's better to think that you are being allowed a glimpse into their world. You might not like it in their world, you might find it a dull, scary, boring, cold, tedious, abject or cliched place, but IMHO, the only real insult is if the person is just churning out stuff (even good stuff) because they know it sells instead of pushing the work forward and risking failure. Maybe Jeff Wall is just churning it out but it's hard to know for sure. The only way you could know would be to talk to him and see if he's buzzing with passion about his work and even that's not a failsafe test since many artists find talking about their art absolutely impossible. So I prefer to give other artists the benefit of the doubt and to allow that they might be passionately involved with their own art, even if I am not personally moved by what they're doing.
    I think that part of this belief that artists are con artists reflects the idea that people think that artists are coining it in. Believe me, nothing could be further from the truth – most artists are poor and have to do other work to fund their practice. Yes, there is a certain amount of 'emperor's new clothes' in what you see in galleries and like everywhere else, the art world responds to fashions and the cult of personalities. But for every one Jeff Koons, there are thousands of artists like me, struggling along day after day just trying to make our work as honestly as we can and get it out there.

  19. Anonymous Says:
    May 23rd, 2004 at 11:00 pm

    > you may not be drawn to art at all (again fine, not everyone is visual, after all).
    not all art is visual.

  20. fragiletender Says:
    May 23rd, 2004 at 11:06 pm

    LOL, a most excellent point. I personally don't like art that isn't visual – show me screeds of writing on a wall, computer diagrams with lots of text or suchlike things and 9 times out of 10 I'm bored out of my mind.

  21. FunkyPlaid Says:
    May 24th, 2004 at 12:33 am

    Never be sorry about having excellent relevant discussion. Take all the space you need – the Internet is pretty big. 🙂
    1) I usually greatly appreciate most elements of art – visual and otherwise – regardless of its temporal context or period. When it becomes a medium for a moral lesson or significant commentary, it becomes much more than that. I also appreciate that. Imagery is powerful, and sometimes subtlety and minimalism can convey so much. But this whole modern movement of taking regular, mundane objects and placing them in an artistic context DOES NOT make them art. It does not make them valuable, and it does not elevate the creator to the honoured status of Artist. And if it does, I honestly don't believe it should. But that's me – I'm a bastard like that.
    2) If the artist hasn't interested you enough to make you look more closely, make you think, make you go off and read up about it, then they've failed.
    I couldn't disagree with this more. An artist's job is to express himself, for himself. It doesn't matter worth a damn what anyone else thinks, unless she's creating to appeal and sell, in which case she's a career artist, and the passion that fuels the talent very well might threaten to be eclipsed by routine. The only failing that an artist can do is by failing to respond to his inner sense of expression, and release, and composition. The only failing that a non-artist can do is to masquerade as an artist for economic or distinctive purposes.
    3) I have nothing but appreciation and reverence (and empathy) for the plight of the artist. I can understand how difficult it is to get known, be accepted, and to gain exposure. And for some, how difficult it is to simply create. These things are not lost on me. There's no begrudging the artist's intention.
    Rather than thinking that the artist is trying to pull the wool over your eyes, maybe it's better to think that you are being allowed a glimpse into their world.
    I don't want to have to enter the artist's world every time I look at a piece, hear a song, or read a novel. Sometimes I want to simply enjoy what is in front of me for what it is, and how it's presented. I want to revel in the texture, the depth, and the nuance. And almost always, yes – I do ponder what the artist was feeling at the time. What fueled the work, and a connection with the humanity that we all share, regardless of era. We shouldn't be reliant on that. We should let the art speak for itself. And really, do I have ANY desire at all to look inside this guy's world:
    <center><img src="; alt="jeffwall">
    I mean, really. Look at this man. Is there any joy, passion, depth, or buzzing spark coming from this 'artist'?</center>
    Would you want to meet with him and talk about what inspires his work? The greater commentary behind his soulless stills? Do you think he really gives a shit what we think?
    As for you, I applaud your work, though I have never seen it. I implore you to continue on, regardless of public opinion. If you say you're honest, I believe you. If you say you're being true to your passion and your emotion, then I believe you. But I will not give the benefit of the doubt to people like Ol' Jeff, unless he gives me something to chew on that demands that respect.

  22. fragiletender Says:
    May 24th, 2004 at 2:51 am

    But this whole modern movement of taking regular, mundane objects and placing them in an artistic context DOES NOT make them art.
    So, not a Duchamp fan then!
    I said: If the artist hasn't interested you enough to make you look more closely, make you think, make you go off and read up about it, then they've failed.
    OK, I phrased that really, really badly. What I meant was merely that they've failed to engage with you as an individual: I didn't mean that they had failed themselves or that the work was a failure. You are absolutely right that the artist must first and foremost please themselves – you cannot secondguess your audience because that way lies soulless art and I think we are both agreed that more soulless art is not what the world needs.
    I mean, really. Look at this man. Is there any joy, passion, depth, or buzzing spark coming from this 'artist'?
    Oh dear, not the world's most flattering picture. I agree that he looks like the sort of guy who pins you into a corner at a party and talks about his new lawnmower for three hours!
    Having had a chance to look at some of his work now, I would agree with you that he's not an artist. I would describe him as a documentary photographer because I don't think that there's anything more in his work other than straight observational photography.
    I don't want to have to enter the artist's world every time I look at a piece, hear a song, or read a novel. Sometimes I want to simply enjoy what is in front of me for what it is, and how it's presented.
    But even if you simply enjoy what's in front of you and don't think about the creator at all, you are still privy to their worldview. You can't escape that, although it might not always be obvious. I don't mean that you have to rush out and discover everything you can about an artist in order to enjoy their work, art should definitely be able to stand on it's own two feet, I just mean that the work exists because a person or people made it happen. By looking at a piece of art or listening to a piece of music you are being affected (or being annoyed that you're unaffected!) by the person who made it. It's a relationship of sorts.
    As for you, I applaud your work, though I have never seen it. I implore you to continue on, regardless of public opinion.
    I always do!
    But I will not give the benefit of the doubt to people like Ol' Jeff, unless he gives me something to chew on that demands that respect.
    Although I see nothing in Wall's photographs to make me respect him either, I guess that I must be a Pollyanna because I'm still hoping that he gets fulfillment from it, at least.

  23. FunkyPlaid Says:
    May 27th, 2004 at 2:18 am

    Y'know, in reality, I completely accept the artistic inclinations of anyone who attempts it. I'm not that obstinate, and who the hell am I to question anyone's passion or how they express it? Who am I to attempt to configure my own definition of the craft, and what goes into it?
    If I met Mr. Wall, I'd in all probability try to get him to explain where he gets his inspiration from, and how he formulates it and transfers it to the end product, simply so I could understand it more completely.
    But sometimes, I just like being reactionary, and not censoring myself despite other people's feelings and opinions, and this was one of those rare cases.
    To take in the artist's worldview should be ancillary to the work itself. I don't want to be forced to every time, for that takes passive appreciation and active interpretation and turns it into an issue of empathy that diverts from the qualities and nature of the work itself. So as for worldview goes, I would be delighted to be compelled to look into it, but not forced to so that I may understand the work. That just doesn't make sense for a public audience to have to do.
    But you're right – we should all be able to get fulfulment from our process of creating, no matter how others respond to it.

  24. kittynitro Says:
    May 24th, 2004 at 5:34 am

    But this whole modern movement of taking regular, mundane objects and placing them in an artistic context DOES NOT make them art.
    Some rules of thumb that I use to determine whether I think a piece is crap or not:
    1. Was it made in an era when putting mundane objects in an artistic context was still a relatively new idea, like this one from Meret Oppenheim, 1930's:
    <center><img src=></center>

    or was it made yesterday, in an era when it's people seem to be laboring under the mistaken impression that hawking up a loogie on a canvas is Art.
    2. Does it make me laugh? Duchamp's readymades were cleverly titled, and some of his other 3D work was really intelligent and involved. At the least, I'd consider him a great wit, if not a great Artist.
    But that's just by way of describing what I like or not. What do I know?
    So, I'm looking at Jeff Wall's work and I'm not seeing witty and I'm not seeing clever. But I have to admit, I'm not seeing shite, either. I'm just seeing photographs. And some of them, like this one, <center> <img src=> </center> are really nice. Well-composed, well-balanced, great color, etc.
    I'm also taking a bit of umbrage at the idea of judging the artist's passion, soul, or depth by his publicity photo. My old housemate, one of the better painters I've ever met, looks a lot like this guy. Anyway, I'd rather see a million guys that look like this and can actually make something than one entitled art school kid with whatever indy clothes du jour and a portfolio full of nothing calling himself an Artist.
    Finally (whew, finally!), while I'll admit that there's a whole world of modern and contemporary art that I can't stand (Centre Pompidou? Who knew that 75% of a museum's collection could be such utter waste?), I'm ultimately wary of judging who is and who isn't an Artist because I think it's a misguided attempt at making taste into imperative. I don't feel qualified to do that. So if a person wants to call him- or herself an Artist, I'm all for it. And I reserve the right to hate what they make.

  25. FunkyPlaid Says:
    May 27th, 2004 at 2:31 am

    1) An excellent point. Context of context is important to look at.
    2) Yes, there are other, non-artistic elements within art pieces that add to the value of what it is, regardless of the end result. You explained that extremely well.
    As for the rest, I agree with your vote of umbrage, and I direct you to my most recent comment above to make my intentions here a bit clearer. There shouldn't really be any judgment, and of course I respect pretty much anyone, talented or no, and regardless of the way they look.
    Sometimes I just want to express myself, with no censoring, and no reprimands, and no 'better watch what I say so as not to offend'. I spend my life being careful of what I say, and after all – that's what a journal is for: release, explanation, and opinion. Anything goes.
    Jeff Wall would probably agree.

  26. dichroicynosure Says:
    May 24th, 2004 at 5:42 am

    O my, when time permits I want to read all of this discussion!

Leave a Reply