Previous: that mountaintop must have a nice view (49)
abstract perception: three views
Post #603 • August 16, 2005, 3:36 PM • 80 Comments
Opening last week at our humble little gallery at AI, Abstract Perception: Three Views presented the work of John Germain, Kathleen Staples, and Daniel Weihnacht. Staples is painting her strongest work yet in the decade or so I've known her. Clearly inspired by the recent Olitski show at the Goldman warehouse, she's using heavy applications of gloss medium, irridescent gels, and acrylic's abilities to create Frankensteinian paint textures. Sometimes the special effects cause the work to disappear into a storm of glare, but at the right angles, they appear as vistas of nacreous clouds, right up there with any ab-ex nacreous clouds that I've seen yet.
Kathleen Staples.
Kathleen Staples.
Kathleen Staples.
John Germain showed playful, even zippy efforts that situated oblongs and rounded rectangles into fields of color. The higher-key ones worked best; some of the palettes in the darker ones defeated his figure-ground strategy and generally looked a bit sour. Where his work succeeded he managed a lighthearted interaction of shapes that distantly recalled Robert Natkin.
John Germain.
John Germain.
Dan Weihnacht, for whom I only have the poor reproduction below, drew geometric bands in colored pencil with rectalinear exactitude. He also arrayed geometry-oriented photographs into some of his pieces, but those works languished, unable to summon the minimalist flair in his drawings. Just a little too odd to qualify as stoic, their handsomeness might increase if he composed them more bravely.
Dan Weihnacht.
2.
August 16, 2005, 5:14 PM
Franklin, is the 2nd painting by John Germain, this one on his website? Just curious since they look so different.
3.
August 16, 2005, 5:33 PM
very nice. in fact i love the 2nd K.Staples. thanks so much for the review - i hope you do this each week if possible.
4.
August 16, 2005, 5:39 PM
i have a painting materials quandry. i still have my raw pigments shipped from a little shop in the east village in nyc. my friend also sends me my gels & varnish from pearl on canal st. The Pearl art supply store here is bunk. I would like to cut down on expenses by finding quality supplies locally. i like to mix my own paints by using raw ground pigment. can anyone advise? thanks very much..
5.
August 16, 2005, 5:47 PM
Thanks for the photos, Franklin; they're reasonably good as reproductions go. The least faithful is the first Staples image, which looks dried out and overexposed relative to the real thing (one of my favorites). The middle Staples piece, another favorite, reproduced better. I already wrote about her work in this show on the "Announcements" thread (4 days ago, comment #1), and, like you, I feel this is the best work I've seen by her so far.
This is an example of a more than respectable show which will most likely be ignored by the official entities. We all know what happened with the Olitski show at the Goldman warehouse. Of course, if this same AI show (or any show) were held at MAC or the Rubell place, coverage would be automatic. Gee, imagine that.
6.
August 16, 2005, 5:50 PM
MEK: Do you live in Miami?
Apart from a few extremely helpful people who have found things for me Pearl sucks, and it ain't cheap. Buy acrylic mediums direct from Golden or Utrecht or get them from the Italian Art store (on the web).
Is the small shop in the E Village Guerra Paint? I think he may be in Florida now. He has all kinds of pigments and crazy stuff to mix in paint. You can probably find him on the web.
7.
August 16, 2005, 5:56 PM
Mek,
Try these guys, they used to be in my neighborhood but they moved to Brooklyn. Nice people and the prices are decent.
http://www.guerrapaint.com/
The other place is Kremer Pigments on Elizabeth street, this is the US branch of a German company, there stuff is good but expensive. Generally grouchy service.
http://www.kremer-pigmente.de/
8.
August 16, 2005, 6:04 PM
yes that's the store but i am tired of ordering stuff. i would like to walk into a shop and look at what i want to buy. plus i need to cut corners, cost-wise. where is he locally? i am in broward btw. oh yeah i miss the utrecht store as well, sigh, and pearl on canal is 7 stories. i am saddened by the store here. so anyway, is there any place else locally you recommend? by locally i mean miami as well. thank you.
9.
August 16, 2005, 6:15 PM
Staple's work seems to reproduce very well here. Germain's looks
washed out and Weihnacht's work cannot be fully appreciated unless their are good detail shots.
10.
August 16, 2005, 6:46 PM
George:
Yes, that's the same painting. Both are off the mark; the one on my site is a bit too dark and saturated, and the one on the blog is too bright and as Kerry says, washed out. (Thanks anyway Franklin for posting the images...)
11.
August 16, 2005, 6:55 PM
John, Are you using a digital camera to make photos?
12.
August 16, 2005, 6:57 PM
Yes, and I'm the world's worst photographer and my photoshop skills are minimal...
13.
August 16, 2005, 7:05 PM
What kind of camera? When you make the photos are you taking them on a white wall with a little of the wall showing that you crop off?
14.
August 16, 2005, 7:28 PM
Mek, there's a Utrecht store in Miami (6250 S. Dixie Hwy; phone 305-740-7077; www.utrecht.com). I'm not an artist, but for some weird reason I like the feel of the place when I've been there to buy stuff. It definitely feels better than Pearl to me, but you'd obviously have to check it out yourself.
15.
August 16, 2005, 7:59 PM
George:
I'm not at home right now, so i don't know what kind of camera it is.
Yes, I take the photos on a white wall and then crop on photoshop.
I have trouble with just about everything: scale, focus, color.
About the only thing I like in this digital age as regards taking shots of my work is that it sure is a hell of a lot easier than the old 35mm slide nightmare.
Regarding the art store topic, I think Miami art supply stores suck big time. Pearl is awful. When I lived in New York, my favorite place was David Davis on Lafayette St. He was a cranky bastard but what a great store! Does anyone know if he's stil around?
16.
August 16, 2005, 8:08 PM
David Davis passed away a few years ago, can't remember exactly when. o
17.
August 16, 2005, 8:25 PM
yeah . . . there's something great about Utrech, even for non-painters.
I think George is right: this and this are supposed to be the same image. No amount of Oldpro's AutoColor is going to save these reproductions. If I was going to try to photograph these paintings without a tripod and serious lights, here's what I would do:
1) photograph the painting at an angle, (like Weihnacht's piece, above) with and without flash. More then likely, the flash version will be better, but it's good to have the other for reference.
2) Open in photoshop, pick the image with more detail, and correct for color (first) and perspective (with free transform, or, actually, the crop tool lets you do it)
3) Convert to output size (ie 400 px)
4) Maybe a little unsharp mask (try amount: 50%, radius .9 px)
18.
August 16, 2005, 8:43 PM
Alesh,
Well maybe. I sent John an email offering advice, If there is enough interest and I can make it work I'll write it up for the rest of you.
A couple of things.
There will usually be glare from overhead lights on a flat painting but it's usually no where as bad as with the flash.
If your digital camera allows you to set the white point, point it at the wall or a sheet of white paper and set it. I routinely use the flourescent lights to shoot my pieces, the colors wacky but the lights even and the white balance gets it really close. Sometimes a bit of white on the surrounding wall will be enough to get the balance right.
I'm not a photographer and I can just barely run my camera but I'm better than average at digital color and Photoshop.
19.
August 16, 2005, 9:19 PM
From the Pollock biography...
"Although Jackson, like many artists, had liberated as much canvas and paint as he could from the WPA store before it closed (wrapping his legs with canvas and striding out with stiff-legged nonchalance)...."
the before of before and after
20.
August 16, 2005, 9:23 PM
absolutely - getting the white-ballance right in-camera is preferable to any subsequent fix. If you have a tripod or equivalent, you're often better off using available light with a long exposure, without such, the downsides of the tripod usually outweigh the motion-blur.
But having both versions for comparison is often interesting. And when shooting hand-held, the flash version is often better even when it has no right to be. (when shooting people, a big stupid flash bracket and/or bounced flash make more of a difference between amateur and professional results then anything else)
21.
August 16, 2005, 9:36 PM
related to an earlier topic
"…After several more failed relationships, xxxx gave up on men--temporarily least--and turned to art. Although she personally preferred the old masters, collecting them would be unthinkably unconventional. Avant-garde art, on the other hand, "carried with it the power to scandalize"…"
xxxx was Peggy Guggenheim
n
22.
August 16, 2005, 11:08 PM
And, lucky for Peggy, she ran into a funny little guy with a great eye named Putzel, who told her how to do it. Otherwise she would have ended up just another artsy rich dame.
23.
August 17, 2005, 12:00 AM
OP, I'm rolling over chuckling about Putxel.
Please. where is he, that we need him now.
Rolling along in my chapters.
May the force be true.n
24.
August 17, 2005, 12:05 AM
The place to get your supplies is Utrecht, which is bad news for the Broward people, but Pearl is a nightmare. Utrecht carries Sinopia dry pigments, which I find a touch pricy but they're good quality and come in glass jars, unlike Sennelier. Mek, are you making your own oils?
25.
August 17, 2005, 12:24 AM
If I read the tea leaves correctly, it's not the pigments, it's the other stuff, the brushes, the car colors, the flake and the pearl, to see as to taste, to glow with silent luster, or flicker with a butterfly's wings. Sight, way beyond thoughts grayed words, thought grasped as whole.
26.
August 17, 2005, 12:51 AM
Staples's pictures are stunning ... and fresh. Though you need to see them in a larger JPEG to get the full impact. She may be the Gerard Manley Hopkins of our own time.
Franklin, Golden will sell dry pigment by the pound, everything including the weirdos like micafied iron oxide. It is highest quality stuff, the same they use in their paint.
27.
August 17, 2005, 7:59 AM
It's true, George, Putzel was her eye, talked her into Pollock and plenty others. If he were around today he probably would be on the blog kvetching.
28.
August 17, 2005, 9:34 AM
Well, Oldpro, it would appear that Ms. Guggenheim was just another artsy rich dame, however glorified, who was, in fact, using someone else's eye (and presumably paying for it) to project an image to which she was not entitled. Of course, any resemblance to any person(s) currently living is purely coincidental.
29.
August 17, 2005, 9:46 AM
I think Peggy at least had the desire, if not the eye to find great art and the brains to hook up with/ or hire a man who could direct her.......give her some credit. And those artists clearly benefitted from her patronage in many ways , money and further exposure etc etc. There is a place in the world for rich people, dont hate them cause theyre rich, embrace them and their bucks with enthusiasm!
30.
August 17, 2005, 10:08 AM
Jack, why are you so harsh on P. Guggenheim? She was entitled to be known as a champion of certain artists because, one way or another, she championed them. I would just as soon there be someone just like her operating now, wouldn't you? Wouldn't that be better than the Satchis?
31.
August 17, 2005, 10:21 AM
You're very practical, Elizabeth, and you have a point. PG was certainly useful, and rich patrons have always been part of the art equation, probably a necessary part, but I'm more impressed by Putzel than by her. In other words, she was definitely no Duncan Philips (of the Philips Collection in Washington D.C), who was a real connoisseur--that is the kind of rich collector I truly respect. Unfortunately, that's not the norm.
32.
August 17, 2005, 10:22 AM
Peggy also wasnt an anomaly either. All throughout the history of art there have been patrons who facilitated the advancement of art with commissions either public or private. I would hasten to add that maybe quite a few brilliant artists might have fallen through the cracks without them...or to say that we might not have great masterpieces today if it wasnt for their money. The art lives past its source.
Maybe the 1st one was a rich caveman who wanted to fix up his cave and brag about how many bison he killed....so he traded a few furs to a poor artist caveman who was cold in exchange for the cave paintings at
Lascaux and maybe another caveman was hot for a portrait of his big breasted wife, hence the Venus of Willendorf.
33.
August 17, 2005, 10:23 AM
Catfish, what you're really saying is "Wouldn't it be better if Saatchi had a Putzel?"
34.
August 17, 2005, 10:29 AM
I never said to give her the credit of being an educated connoisseur and I agree with you wholeheartedly about how some know squat and others are really educated and have an eye and can back it up with some serious cash. Putzel was her 'seeing -eye-human'....hehe
I know I know..I need to behave better!!
35.
August 17, 2005, 11:37 AM
Do the Goldmans want to hire a curator? I would totally be into that.
36.
August 17, 2005, 12:35 PM
Catfish, perhaps I was too harsh on PG and her kind. Money is obviously part of the equation, at least from a practical standpoint, and I supppose it takes rich people, even if they have no eye, to make certain things happen. Still, they should be seen in the proper perspective, and all too frequently they're not. Far too much credit is given, and taken, inappropriately.
I have serious problems with delusions of grandeur of any sort, as well as with hollow posturing, and delusions and posturing abound. Money and power obviously feed into that and encourage it. I'm just tired of people trying to be taken for what I will never, ever take them. It annoys the hell out of me, but maybe I'm just annoyed by life.
37.
August 17, 2005, 12:54 PM
Jack, your a good and smart man..please cheer up, life is good (smile)!!
and if someone is posturing ...im all for smacking 'em down, hehe, its not fun otherwise...
38.
August 17, 2005, 1:18 PM
Franklin, you would rock as a curator, I'd like to see those shows!
39.
August 17, 2005, 4:37 PM
Jack (#5)~ the MAC has been getting lots of press?
Also, don't the Goldmans have a curator (re #35)? Oh, i must have missed a piece of conversation...
40.
August 17, 2005, 4:47 PM
To rearrange what Hemingway said to Fitzgerald, rich people are like anyone else, only richer. A good many of them let their money make problems for them.
Peggy was not Mrs. Nice Guy, but she did run that Art of this Century gallery which pretty much out of the blue showed the best of the AE group before anyone else did. We wouldn't have the Met & MoMA et al without the rich folks, by the way. If any of them want to make my life easier, I will not stand in their way.
I like your "cave person" scenario, Elizabeth. I bet it was just like that.
41.
August 17, 2005, 4:49 PM
Allesh, as far as i know the Goldmans do not have a curator, as such. Karen Wilkin, who did the Olitski show, is independent.
42.
August 17, 2005, 6:12 PM
Alesh (#39), I'm pretty sure every show MAC has had has been officially reviewed, and usually with a full review, not just a capsule one. I expect that will continue. Triff appears to be especially attentive to whatever goes on there. I understand he went to the opening of the Olitski Goldman show, but no review appeared as a result of his visit.
43.
August 17, 2005, 6:20 PM
Re: #32 & #40, The caveman scenario is cute but way off the mark.
Thinking about it. With the most limited weapons, possibly a burning torch for light, our intrepid shaman-artist enters a dark cave. A cave where the most ferocious beasts, with teeth we don't even see in a zoo, sleeps. Then maybe not, but that is the question our primordial artist must ask himself every time he enters the scared cave. To make his magic, to whatever spirit he calls when he makes his marks. Marks with the power of association, and hope, to gather control over a hostile world. All this talk about "risk taking," painting on a cave wall, in primordial time, was brave art to its core.
Take your soul back then, even if only in reverie, and start from there.
44.
August 17, 2005, 7:06 PM
George, you should do a new ride for Disneyworld: Og and Mog and the Great Neanderthal Dark Cave Big Tooth Beastie Art Adventure
45.
August 17, 2005, 8:56 PM
Elizabeth, I am partial to your story of the caveman. Likely that the caveman had the hots for mrs. caveman, had a portrait commissioned, and used the thing as a 'marital' aid while she was pregnant, and voila a baby was born, and voila voila a fertility fetish was unleashed. "Fix up his cave" is a funny thought, all the more so since ms quoted and I are doing a little painting in our, uh, place.
Me give hot rock you paint wall.
You asked for some photos of my work a little while ago and I got over the aversion. There are a couple dozen on my url now that you can check out. I expect to take a ribbing on the image quality. Maybe I'm a hack with a camera or maybe my sculptures aren't photo-genic, but whaddya want - they're just pictures.
46.
August 17, 2005, 9:07 PM
George; SHEEEEEEEEESH!! re; my cave man story..........did you shoot your sense of humour in the head and bury it????????
of course its not real.......DUH!!!!!!!!
is it just a Canadian thing to laugh (Matty is also a Canuck and very funny.)..OP is an adopted Canuck as he has made me laugh hard quite a few times!!
Now lets get to the fact that I DID very well in art history and know my story isnt real...that said....how the hell do you know what went down in that cave ?? were you there?? NO
Maybe they werent shamans ...maybe they also just were filled with pride that they werent going to starve and to keep a record of the kill to inspire them again.......men do like to brag/ machismo had to have started at some time in history , why not then???
And maybe he saw a cute cavegirl and she wouldnt sleep with him unless he could prove he could feed her ( a dinner date caveman style)!! hehehe
so lighten up George.
ps. Im on a roll with these caveman scenarios......hahaha
47.
August 17, 2005, 9:42 PM
Ahab; wow what a nice treat......the pics are fine, Im just happy to see them! And between you and Matty.....well Im so proud, just some really wonderful work. Hey as for the pic quality, no worries...all that matters is that I can see them and I wish they were and they should be in Toronto!!
I have a list now of my favorites; Roots, Job221, Coolant rainbow, Gruv-Loc, and the Passenger.
Does David Mirvish know your work..if not you should let him see.
Maybe Im overly critical because I really 'LIKE' so very little of what I see.....but I do LIKE your work.......I think Passenger is really terrific, the composition, the texture.
I think Im very picky, as I said, I go with it visually first and let it soak in....then explore it and keep Seeing more....I can easily do that with your work. Bravo.
ps. I adore David Smith....and you and Matty are really taking that extra step....niceeeeeeee.....your monumental pieces are smooth visually...poetic.
48.
August 18, 2005, 12:06 AM
Hey if anyone wants to see how funny canadians are......well just take a look at this gem.....and it came from toronto tooooooooo!!
http://www.birdflu.org
ps.dont forget we had sars here!
49.
August 18, 2005, 12:22 AM
It's not that I fail to see the humor in your cave.
As an artist one must wonder why we do. what we do. Those paintings on the wall of some cave, made over forty thousand years ago, were a giant leap. A leap which marked an evolutionary change which eventually made your joke possible, even funny. These spurious marks on a cave wall, fashioned with a clear vision, are evidence of abstract thought, linking an image with a thing. The stuff jokes are made of. This is evidence, no, this is an example of the pure unfettered connection of an artist-shaman with his work. There is a clarity in those cave paintings that is rarely matched by artists today. I don't mean to be ponderous, but if you don't understand cave paintings, you don't understand art and that is the problem. (general "you", undirected)
50.
August 18, 2005, 12:47 AM
George; I agree totally.........it was all those things and more! It makes me think that there is 'something' deep within us (artists) that will make us go mad if we dont express and explore. Yup, I agree with the clarity that is rarely matched by artists today. I saw something tonight on this topic of past and present.......the Venus of W. and Ahab's 'Job221'. go look George......I think Ahab is a closet caveman hehe.
51.
August 18, 2005, 3:37 AM
matty (or anyone else): i'm waiting for you to respond critically to Elizabeth's cave stories... that is how this blog works after all.
52.
August 18, 2005, 4:42 AM
Matty will laugh I hope, he has a great sense of humour ...fellow canuck and all.
53.
August 18, 2005, 6:54 AM
I think you are being a little ponderouse, George. Elizabeth was making a joke and somehow it get awfully heavy awfully fast.
I agree with you about how good those paintings are, but i prefer to not "understand" them, in the sense of applying our own brand of mythologising, simply because we don't know very much around them. They are very old and very good, and some rock painting is primitive symbols and stick figures and some is great art. This is a mystery until someone really figures it out.
54.
August 18, 2005, 9:54 AM
CF: ok just for that CF no more caveman stories (sticking my tongue out at u).
55.
August 18, 2005, 2:25 PM
Elizabeth. Maybe the "cavemen" had a matriarchal society.
Ahab: I just opened your url, and I love the animated scupture! It's like a cubist robot. I'm going to look at more in a bit . . .
Artblog commenters: I think that all of your discussion of Olitski may have outweighed the impact of a hypothetical non-existent big-media review. Don't sell yourselves short.
On John Germain's paintings: the egg forms are reminding me of my friend Kathryn's work. Take a look at her abstracts: http://www.kathrynstclair.com/index.htm
56.
August 18, 2005, 2:56 PM
I enjoy the caveman scenarios. The peglegged philosopher type in Johnny Hart's B.C. comic was my favourite, along with the rolling stone rider. Fat Broad, also funny.
Were the Lascaux images made before there was verbiage for the things they were intended to represent? Before irony? What came first, the word or the mark? I don't know, but through the coloured lens of my 'here and now', I think that although the word may have been more useful, the mark was more meaningful.
Did the charcoal marks represent the word/sound for the thing, or the thing, or George's "abstract thought" of the thing? Were they rhetorical? Didactic? Are they now? All just philosophical bullshit.
We do them the most honour by looking at them and allowing ourselves an honest (hence: valid) aesthetic reaction.
57.
August 18, 2005, 3:19 PM
Kathleen: my feeling is that all societies are matriarchal, we just let the men think they arent! wink wink.
Ahab; you most talented canadian (caveman at heart)....thanks, thats sweet.
the stone age artist must have had a bugger of a time finding a supply store back then!! now thats dedication when not only do you have to paint the work...but you have to invent your supplies, kewl!!
58.
August 18, 2005, 3:42 PM
Ahab : this last scenario is for you since you like to laugh......the poor artist caveman does a new wall and its all done in brown colours....the local caveman art critic sees the new show and says its great, but its shit !!
(inspired by your "bullshit' comment) Im adding that I havent been sleeping well lately and I get abit silly being sleep deprived.
59.
August 19, 2005, 3:15 PM
I want to apologize to everyone and Ahab for my last silly stupid post...im here and in mourning and I havent slept and my mind is on remote control for "stupid"....so please accept my apology....wont happen again.
60.
August 19, 2005, 4:47 PM
Elizabeth, don't worry about it..
61.
August 19, 2005, 7:57 PM
No skin off my nose, Elizabeth, and it's not out of joint.
62.
August 20, 2005, 2:54 PM
craigfrancis post #51
matty (or anyone else): i'm waiting for you to respond critically to Elizabeth's cave stories... that is how this blog works after all.
Aw, that's sweet... craigfrancis misses me! He must have been working at that post for a long time though, to have somehow missed George, Oldpro, and Ahab's critiques of "Elizabeth's cave stories" which all preceded his post... Come to think of it, I can't figure why he'd be "waiting" for someone to respond critically... why doesn't he just do it himself, if he's so keen on it?... oh well, I'm sure he'll figure out how this blog works eventually.
I like the 'caveman commision' idea but, going along with Kathleen and Elizabeth's idea of a matriarchal society, I think those animals on the cave wall were probably painted by women for use as a kind of pictorial shopping list for their husbands' hunting errands.
63.
August 20, 2005, 3:25 PM
This blog certainly has a mind of its own. Elizabeth makes a casual joke aboiut cave painting and it starts rollong downhill like a snowball, gathering weight as it goes, with George's Spielbergian scenarios and Craig's curious anticipation of a "crtitical response", and the rest.
I think this is how the brain works. Ours, at least.
64.
August 20, 2005, 5:12 PM
Well, after seeing the two versions of Germain's #2 painting (and not being in Miami to see the actual work myself), it seems almost ridiculous to try to comment on the work... but since cf's been pining for some commentary from me, I felt obliged to respond.
I suppose I could comment on my recent trip to San Francisco, but after seeing an R. Mutt replica proudly displayed at SFMOMA, I think not commenting on it would be better.
65.
August 20, 2005, 5:52 PM
Did you take 3 different subjects (Germain, Mutt & CF)and simply shuffe them together just to see what would come out, Matty? Long day in the studio?
66.
August 20, 2005, 6:28 PM
Did I lose you somewhere, OP? Were my comments too far off topic?... Wait, what was the topic again?
67.
August 20, 2005, 8:35 PM
I think it was "Not with a bang but a whimper"
68.
August 21, 2005, 2:38 AM
Uh oh... oldpro's been nipping at the flu medication...
69.
August 21, 2005, 9:59 AM
Your buddy Craig sent me some. Great stuff.
70.
August 21, 2005, 1:16 PM
Get well soon, OP.
71.
August 21, 2005, 7:12 PM
OldPro and Ahab; thankyou for your kind words, ............I miss my father so much my heart is breaking, he was my best friend and my protector , he never failed me ever....I miss him.
thankyou for being kind.
OP; hope ur ok.
72.
August 21, 2005, 7:42 PM
Elizabeth, I am OK, just kidding around with Matty, referring to Craig's mind-affecting, comment-corrupting Flu Medicine a while back.
73.
August 21, 2005, 10:06 PM
Elizabeth, in case it's any comfort, I went through something similar myself this year. (link) In any case, my condolences.
74.
August 22, 2005, 12:03 AM
i'm sorry. i just didn't think matty was fond of casual jokes and silliness.
75.
August 22, 2005, 12:28 AM
Franklin: thankyou, I am taken over by emotions that cant find words, I feel numb and the only feeling I can grasp a hold of is how much I miss him. Everything else seems meaningless. I will find solace in my art, somehow, he always told me it was a great thing to be an artist, so thats where I'll go.
76.
August 22, 2005, 12:33 AM
Elizabeth, I lived 33 years with no loss of life anywhere near to me. One funeral in all that time, and for a man I had only heard of. But my mom died a couple years ago (on my son's 6th birthday, no less). I am truly sorry for your loss.
77.
August 22, 2005, 10:54 AM
Elizabeth the best thing to do is keep thinking that time heals everything and when you get up in the morning just count another day and another increment of getting over it. This gives you a kind of crude structure and accords with reality.
78.
August 22, 2005, 1:59 PM
post #74
i'm sorry. i just didn't think matty was fond of casual jokes and silliness.
whathefuh?
CF, I'm pretty sure the whole reason you hate me so much is because of a casual, silly joke I made about NSCAD! (well, that, and the dig about your wank-video, which, I apologized for, but honestly, its hard to resist). It would seem you've been too blinded by rage, or alumnus pride, or whatever, to actually read any of my posts on this blog... they're quite often made up of casual jokes and silliness (I'm sure Elizabeth, for one, could attest to that fact).
Are you really a Canadian, or did you just go to "school" up here? There is a sense-of-humour citizenship requirement, don't ya know...
79.
August 22, 2005, 2:28 PM
Ahab; hugs to u.
OldPro; Im listening to u...I'll try.
Matty; You have made me laugh so many times, your silliness, sarcasm, wit and all around general canuck humour is a sheer delight, dont ever change...I still love the blue one!
80.
August 22, 2005, 2:37 PM
Elizabeth,
I love that you love the blue one, and I especially love that you love to tell me you love it.
Love,
M.
1.
Elizabeth
August 16, 2005, 4:15 PM
very niceeeeeeeeee....I like that 1st John Germain piece....I could sit in front of that for at least 45 minutes, probably longer!