Artist's truly strange love of Kubrick film
mgenevi...@yahoo.com
Genevieve
Copyright 2005 Toronto Star Newspapers, Ltd.
The Toronto Star
January 15, 2005 Saturday
Artist's truly strange love of Kubrick film
Peter Goddard, Toronto Star
"Dr. Strangelove Dr. Strangelove" (2004) by Kristan Horton
In summer 1963, director Stanley Kubrick, while editing Dr.
Strangelove, found that "the perfect tone to adopt for the film would
be what I now call nightmare comedy, because it most truly represents
the picture."
For Kristan Horton, Kubrick's nightmare became a sedative. He had to
see the film nightly so that he could get some rest. Now it's becoming
part of his career.
"I didn't have a TV," says the 32-year-old Toronto artist. "TV wasn't
giving me anything back, so I got rid of it. But I did have a VCR and a
monitor, and had been given a copy of Dr. Strangelove. I got into the
habit of watching it every night, like brushing my teeth. I couldn't go
to sleep without it.
"After all, people have a habit of listening to the same CD over and
over again. This happens with movies now. You can watch a movie over
and over again. And Dr. Strangelove seems to be one of those films that
can be watched repeatedly.
"Seeing it this often, you really start to understand the film deeply,"
he continues. "For one month I'd look at the camera angles, another
month it would be the processing of the film, and on another I'd watch
how the actors portrayed the characters."
Some 700 Strangelove viewings later - a good two years worth of
watching Peter Sellers in his multiple roles wring ever crazy note out
of Terry Southern's cheerfully apocalyptic script - Horton is
responding by showing a suite of 28 Strangelove-induced panels at
Wynick/Tuck Gallery.
In each, a still from the original black-and-white film is paired with
a black-and-white image of identical size, where Horton has reiterated
Kubrick's specific scene but using the most mundane of household items.
In short, he's taking a film that's already gone far out on the limb
and pushing it even farther. And this is only the beginning. The
gallery show represents only a portion of the 300 parallel Dr.
Strangelove scenes photographed by Horton on his Canon ELF camera.
Intending originally to create a serious drama based on Red Alert, a
doomsday novel by a former RAF lieutenant Peter George, Kubrick "came
to the conclusion that the situation was beyond anything that could be
treated seriously," says Horton. "For me the question was, what was I
going to do when the absurdity of the film is locked into the
characters?
"What I did discover is that I could activate this absurdity on another
level, to present it with all the detritus of consumer products where
the absurdity is even more chilling. What's great about B movies is
that we simultaneously recognize the pie plate as something quite
mundane, yet we can think of it as a flying saucer."
Once he committed himself to the project five months ago, the process
went "like a locomotive," says the artist. "I discovered that the film
had 673 cut shots in it - that's whenever the camera angle would change
- so I went through each of them to find which would be best. In fact,
the film itself has only three main locations, (the Kubrick-named)
Burpelson Air Force Base, the war room and the cockpit of the plane. So
I could break the film down structurally.
"I wanted to match 10 shots a day but I found I was less of a machine
than I thought I was."
1 Matching images: "The poster in (Kubrick's shot) is actually a
playing card in my photo, with a sort of upside-down dog image in it.
There's also a small coin from Japan just above the dog. To do these
shots I had two (monitor) screens side by side on a four
(foot)-by-eight tabletop. And I had a lot of loose objects lying around
on the floor. So I could match the (Kubrick) object on the screen with
the object I had. I went to a screening of the film recently at the
Revue. I had a hell of a time watching it because I'm so used to
watching (the images) side by side. For me, the mundane is now a part
of it. It's hard to keep apart the original and the not-real version."
2 Sellers vanishes: "People were tricky to do. I'd already done about
50 (made-up images to match actors) when I realized that what I was
doing was starting to be like the Muppets. There was a lack of
seriousness in the project when characters were handled the same way
(as inanimate objects). It was turning into a farce. There are a few
instances (in the Wynick/Tuck exhibition) when I reference people but
that's only when they are structurally interesting, like soldiers
standing around a jeep."
3 Black and white: One image, Horton says, "rested on a bed of coffee
grinds. The colour was gorgeous, a vibrant rich brown."
But he had to stick with black and white. "That (image) was kind of
hard to let go. But what was important to me was the continuity of the
images."
Kristan Horton's "Dr. Strangelove Dr. Strangelove" is at the
Wynick/Tuck Gallery, 401 Richmond St. W., Suite 128, until Jan.26.
Boaz
gave him the money for it.
Boaz
-------------------------------------------------------------
ichorwhip
gave him the money for it.
I know that's right! They'd prolly fund my latest used toilet paper
mosaic before you can say "bio-degradeable"...
Got curious what this Kristan Horton's mock-ups looked like and found
these links:
http://www.eye.net/eye/issue/issue_01.13.05/arts/eyecandy.html
http://wynicktuckgallery.ca/current.html
I looked at them and puzzled over this quote from Globe and Mail.com's
"Sarah Milroy":
"Kristan Horton is a newcomer to the Toronto commercial gallery scene,
but he'll soon be better known thanks to his new exhibition at
Wynick/Tuck Gallery. In his most recent works, Horton couples
black-and-white film stills from 1964 classic Dr. Stangelove with
photographs documenting homemade mini replicas that he has fashioned
from bits and pieces found around the house. The results are
surprisingly convincing until you move in for a closer look, when the
surprise of discovery is tinged with a homely sweetness."
"surprisingly convincing"??? I was expecting something a little more
from someone who has studied the film in such detail. The symmetry is
just plain off on many of them(at least the ones you can see on these
pages), and I don't understand the point of removing the characters who
appear in the shots. Couldn't he render likewise characters from stuff
lying around at his house? Modern art...what's the point? Could be a
slogan, but don't you dare misinterpret it as art. It's never Art
until the artist says it's Art.
"You sold me a crumby watch."
ichorwhip
"peace is our profession"
darinb
http://wynicktuckgallery.ca/current.htm
I thought these were kinda funny. I don't buy the deeper implications
that they hint at (yet more dead postmodern "pose-think")--but they are
sort of cool.
--Darin
ichorwhip
i
"piop"
Boaz
The line in FMJ, where Sgt. Hartman says to Pyle, "You're so ugly, you
could be a modern art masterpiece!" is very appropriate here. THIS is
what the guy has on display? I thought the people of Toronto had better
taste. On the other hand, there is the St. Charles Tavern. Perhaps our
intrepid artist can just go there with his still camera sometime and do
a side-by-side re-creation of the orgy scene from EWS.
I did like the one photo that was supposed to be where Mandrake works.
The "post" in the actual DS frame is recreated to look like a huge tube
of toothpaste. A foreshadowing of Mandrake's line, "Going for a wash
and a brushup?" Made me feel marvelous.
Boaz ("Don't touch it! It's a very important work of art.")
Boaz
person who
> > gave him the money for it.
> I know that's right! They'd prolly fund my latest used toilet paper
> mosaic before you can say "bio-degradeable"...
I'm waiting for someone to make a lifesized bust of Bush from their own
feces. Of course, I'd pay to see that! More than likely none of the
artists who have works on exhibit (including Horton) would do such a
thing. They are too much living inside their heads, from what I can
tell of the works sampled. I've met such "artists" out here, but after
a while I got sick of going to these pretentious exhibitions for fear
I'd say something (like the truth) that would piss them off. I found
more meaning from watching my piece of cheese sitting at the bottom of
my wine glass than I did with anything at any of the exhibits.
> Got curious what this Kristan Horton's mock-ups looked like and found
> these links:
>
> http://www.eye.net/eye/issue/issue_01.13.05/arts/eyecandy.html
>
> http://wynicktuckgallery.ca/current.html
Good Bog! Do the people who provide the galleries lack taste THAT much?
Do these patrons suffer from the Charlie the Tuna Syndrome? Or are they
hoping some cute, naive art student is going to show up, looking hot in
her tight black dress?
> I looked at them and puzzled over this quote from Globe and >
Mail.com's
> "Sarah Milroy":
>
> "Kristan Horton is a newcomer to the Toronto commercial gallery
scene,
Recipient of this year's "Flash-in-the-pan grant," no doubt.
> but he'll soon be better known thanks to his new exhibition at
> Wynick/Tuck Gallery. In his most recent works, Horton couples
> black-and-white film stills from 1964 classic Dr. Stangelove with
> photographs documenting homemade mini replicas that he has fashioned
> from bits and pieces found around the house.
Not a pretty couple, either. I vote for a legal separation.
> The results are
> surprisingly convincing until you move in for a closer look, when the
> surprise of discovery is tinged with a homely sweetness."
>
> "surprisingly convincing"??? I was expecting something a > little
more
> from someone who has studied the film in such detail.
Yes, and notice the writer used the word "surprise" twice in one
sentence? She writes like a journalism major on her first assignment. A
clueless writer writing about a clueless artist.
> The symmetry is
> just plain off on many of them(at least the ones you can see on these
> pages), and I don't understand the point of removing the characters
who
> appear in the shots. Couldn't he render likewise characters from
stuff lying around at his house?
I think it's more that he couldn't find any models or actors to
cooperate with him in posing for his bullshit project.
> Modern art...what's the point?
Hey, it's a "modern art masterpiece." ;-)
> Could be a
> slogan, but don't you dare misinterpret it as art. It's never Art
> until the artist says it's Art.
While giving you a look that you aren't worthy to even smell their
shit.
> "You sold me a crumby watch."
> ichorwhip
> "peace is our profession"
And what is this bullshit with these so-called "artists" railing
against "consumerism" anyway? Like that is news? Jesus H. W. Christ, if
I had a dollar for every "artist" who said their work is a protest to
consumerism in our society I'd be financially secure for life. (Or else
I'd buy their collective works and donate them to grade schools so kids
learning art will know what not to do if they wish to seriously pursue
a career as an artist.)
I once got talked into going to an art festival out here about five
years ago. Among the dancers who danced without music, the musicians
who played (allegedly) music that would make Ligeti run out of the room
with his hands over his ears (maybe that's why the dancers preferred to
not use music), I also saw a handful of "experimental videos" of
"anti-consumerism," such as kitchen utensils being tossed into a trash
compactor. Wow! The evil bottle brush and that wicked ol' cheese grater
just got what they deserved! Hey, now I can sleep, safe and assured
that consumerism has been nipped in the bud by such intrepid,
visionaries! ;-)
Oh, well, enough hostility for the morning. But the day's not over yet!
;-)
Better yet, I'll just check out Christiane Kubrick's site and enjoy her
paintings, and those of Katharina's too. (Ahhh, I feel mellow already!)
mgenevi...@yahoo.com
Thanks for the link. The artist's remarks about consumerism
notwithstanding, I also think his photographs are amusing and display a
visual talent. I like the idea of presenting such ordinary and mundane
objects and connecting them to something so unconnected as Dr.
Strangelove. There need not be a purpose or reason.
Cheers, Genevieve
darinb
should at the least be visually interesting. If there is more then so
much the better. Strangely, an awful lot of art fails that test.
This one certainly passes, however.
--Darin
Boaz
darinb wrote:
> I always start with the seemingly commonsense idea that visual art
> should at the least be visually interesting.
That's a no-brainer.
> If there is more then so
> much the better. Strangely, an awful lot of art fails that test.
> This one certainly passes, however.
How does it pass for you? I see nothing interesting about his work. His
efforts remind me a lot of filmmakers who say they are "paying homage"
to a certain director by simply copying shots from their films, with no
asthetic logic in having it apply to their own works, except that they
either lack the courage or, more likely, the talent or vision to do
something more original.
As Ichorwhip pointed out, as often as this guy ran his copy of the
movie, one would have thought he would have come up with a facsimilie
far more iteresting (and maybe even original) than what his end result
is. And there is nothing to "explain" the lack of humans in his stills
to replicate those of the original DS actors in representing whatever
pretentious bullshit theme he has only half baked in that oven he calls
a head, or railing against whatever windmill in his mind he is tipping.
It suggests to me, if anything, an unfinished project, but hardly a
work of art.
Boaz ("I love the use of the color blue by the artist.")
Boaz
mgenevieve2...@yahoo.com wrote:
> darinb wrote:
> > There's a typo in the link above...here it is:
> >
> > http://wynicktuckgallery.ca/current.htm
> >
> > I thought these were kinda funny. I don't buy the deeper
implications
> > that they hint at (yet more dead postmodern "pose-think")--but they
> are
> > sort of cool.
> >
> > --Darin
> >
> > www.darinboville.com
>
> Thanks for the link. The artist's remarks about consumerism
> notwithstanding, I also think his photographs are amusing and display
a
> visual talent.
Considering where he got his ideas from, that isn't surprising.
> I like the idea of presenting such ordinary and mundane
> objects and connecting them to something so unconnected as Dr.
> Strangelove. There need not be a purpose or reason.
>
> Cheers, Genevieve
I disagree with you. If one is going to replicate from one medium to
another a serious work of art that *does* have a purpose and reason for
its existence, then some greater effort should be exercised other than
simply because this guy can't deal with the viscissitudes of the real
world around him, or thinks of his TV as some cerebral vacuum cleaner
-- a Twonky incarnate, realized from the vortex of his mental
labyrinth. (Hey, I may as well throw out some pretentious bullshit
while I'm at it too!) And so, taking the time to come out from under
either his couch or bed, he tries to make sense of the world by
photographing consumer products in ways that resemble the shots from DS
-- though without any humans present. Does that lack of human element
show a purpose, such as the dehumanizing of society through
consumerism, or just a lack of funds? (God, I'd better stop, otherwise
I may just legitimize this guy's work.)
If one is creating art that has no purpose or reason, what is the point
of its existence? What is the purpose of art if there is no reason for
creating something? The creative mind is impossible to fathom, but even
when something is created that is considered "arbitrary," therein may
be the seed planted for art that does serve a purpose. The artist may
not know yet what they are doing, or where they are going when they
make that first step, but if they see a pattern, a theme, something
that connects with their thinking or view of the world (their "vision,"
if you will), then it makes perfect sense to continue pursuing that
creation until something emerges that does make sense and serves a
purpose. Otherwise the artist would simply (and smartly) abandon what
they are doing and move on to something else -- at least until they can
see a purpose or reason to return to it.
I still don't see the corelation between consumer products substituting
for objects that could send us to oblivion. Critic Robert Brustein once
hailed Kubrick for "flushing a monster from its psychic lair," in his
review of DS. But the monsters that lurk in Horton's bedroom closet
still seem to be locked in there.
Boaz ("Don't touch it. It's a very important work of art.")
darinb
>> I always start with the seemingly commonsense idea that visual art
>> should at the least be visually interesting.
>That's a no-brainer.
Isn't that what i just said?????
>> If there is more then so
>> much the better. Strangely, an awful lot of art fails that test.
>> This one certainly passes, however.
>How does it pass for you? I see nothing interesting about his work.
His
>efforts remind me a lot of filmmakers who...[snip]
Oh, come on. Step down from the preacher's pulpit and have a look at
his work. I don't see greatness here but to say that you see *nothing*
interesting (visually) about the work? You need to look again, my
friend!
--Darin
Boaz
darinb wrote:
> >darinb wrote:
>
> >> I always start with the seemingly commonsense idea that visual art
> >> should at the least be visually interesting.
>
> >That's a no-brainer.
>
> Isn't that what i just said?????
>
> >> If there is more then so
> >> much the better. Strangely, an awful lot of art fails that test.
> >> This one certainly passes, however.
>
> >How does it pass for you? I see nothing interesting about his work.
> His
> >efforts remind me a lot of filmmakers who...[snip]
>
> Oh, come on. Step down from the preacher's pulpit and have a look at
> his work.
I did. That's why I commented on it the way I did.
> I don't see greatness here but to say that you see *nothing*
> interesting (visually) about the work? You need to look again, my
> friend!
I did, and I stand by my statement.
And I'm not your friend.
Boaz ("Don't touch it! It's a very important work of art.")
mgenevi...@yahoo.com
I agree. And I appreciate the humor in his work, which is a necessary
component of creativity. It is not like this kind of art is new or
radical.
Have you seen some of Man Ray's photographic/installation portraits
from the 1920s?
Perhaps you are already familar with his official website at:
http://www.manraytrust.com/Pages/imagearchive.html
Look under "Objects"
Best,
Genevieve
ichorwhip
>If one is going to replicate from one medium to
>another a serious work of art that *does* have a purpose and reason
for
>its existence, then some greater effort should be exercised other than
>simply because this guy can't deal with the viscissitudes of the real
>world around him, or thinks of his TV as some cerebral vacuum cleaner
>-- a Twonky incarnate, realized from the vortex of his mental
>labyrinth. (Hey, I may as well throw out some pretentious bullshit
>while I'm at it too!) And so, taking the time to come out from under
>either his couch or bed, he tries to make sense of the world by
>photographing consumer products in ways that resemble the shots from
DS
>-- though without any humans present. Does that lack of human element
>show a purpose, such as the dehumanizing of society through
>consumerism, or just a lack of funds? (God, I'd better stop, otherwise
>I may just legitimize this guy's work.)
Going back to the original post may help to clarify what I think is a
lack of clarity in Horton's artistic thought process:
"2. Sellers vanishes: "People were tricky to do. I'd already done about
50 (made-up images to match actors) when I realized that what I was
doing was starting to be like the Muppets."
Aren't all the miniature sets he created pretty muppetesque? Using
forks to represent the wings of the B52 seemed pretty hokey to me and
so forth....
"There was a lack of seriousness in the project when characters were
handled the same way(as inanimate objects)."
Puh-leeeez! Lack of seriousness or lack of talent or lack of a good
idea to begin with? 'I just knew something had to be changed when that
"match" I did of George C. Scott looked too much like Kermit.'
"It was turning into a farce."
And I'm not even making this up... The more I look at Horton and the
contradictory, half-poached artist-speak he puts out there, the more I
think HE's the farce.
"There are a few instances (in the Wynick/Tuck exhibition) when I
reference people but that's only when they are structurally
interesting, like soldiers standing around a jeep."
Yeah, General Buck sitting at the war table in the war room with his
head cocked back arrogantly mugging it up is definitely not
"structurally interesting" etc etc.... Sorry Kristan (prolly
pronounces it KREE-stawn for maximum pretentiousness), but you sound
like a moron. You have definitely violated my worldview, and I doubt
my valve will be opening again for at least a fortnight...............
Ignatiuswhip
pizza is our professor
Boaz
Prolly would have been sued by Jim Henson Enterprises, Inc. Miss Piggy
libeled by phony artist.
> Aren't all the miniature sets he created pretty muppetesque? Using
> forks to represent the wings of the B52 seemed pretty hokey to me and
> so forth....
Yes, but consider the aerodynamics. ;-)
> "There was a lack of seriousness in the project when characters were
> handled the same way(as inanimate objects)."
>
> Puh-leeeez! Lack of seriousness or lack of talent or lack of a good
> idea to begin with? 'I just knew something had to be changed when
that
> "match" I did of George C. Scott looked too much like Kermit.'
>
> "It was turning into a farce."
>
> And I'm not even making this up... The more I look at Horton and the
> contradictory, half-poached artist-speak he puts out there, the more
I
> think HE's the farce.
He painted himself into a corner, and this was the only way he could
rationalize his efforts, futile as they appear to be. But I have often
heard such artist-babble from people who manage to get something like
this made. They knock the very things that often are subliminal
influences from popular culture that creep into their work. I mean, Bog
forbid that an ARTIST -- a REAL artist -- would dare to admit they
watched the Muppets on TV! Perhaps he waited too long to get rid of his
TV, if he feels it wasn't "giving anything back" to him. Perhaps he
wasn't finding his inspiration in Saturday morning cartoons and he
kicked in his TV out of frustration and turned into a planter.
> "There are a few instances (in the Wynick/Tuck exhibition) when I
> reference people but that's only when they are structurally
> interesting, like soldiers standing around a jeep."
>
> Yeah, General Buck sitting at the war table in the war room with his
> head cocked back arrogantly mugging it up is definitely not
> "structurally interesting" etc etc....
I guess it called to attention the lack of a focus, or vision, to his
work. Better (in his case) to just show the set.
Of course, if these "recreations" were small, why not take photographs
of people doing things that might relate to his artwork and blend them
in, either doing a matte print or Photoshop it?
> Sorry Kristan (prolly
> pronounces it KREE-stawn for maximum pretentiousness), but you sound
> like a moron.
It just seems he didn't have it properly thought out.
> You have definitely violated my worldview, and I doubt
> my valve will be opening again for at least a
fortnight...............
> Ignatiuswhip
> pizza is our professor
Yes, I agree. But it appears Myrna and Dorian don't seem to share our
worldview. Oh, well, when Fortuna spins you downward, go to a movie and
get more out of life. Maybe even a Kubrick movie. Maybe you'll be
inspired to create art of your own. Oh, wait! Isn't that the problem
here?
Until later,
Boaz, your hard working boy
ichorwhip
"...Twonky incarnate, realized from the vortex of his mental
labyrinth."
That was so nice let's say it twice.
"(Hey, I may as well throw out some pretentious bullshit while I'm
at it too!)"
Never have doan that!
"And so, taking the time to come out from under either his couch or
bed, he tries to make sense of the world by photographing consumer
products in ways that resemble the shots from DS-- though without any
humans present."
Well he did "reference" some guys standing by a jeep, but notice
how it's never a major character? What a fuckweed, I actually want
to see his muppety Jack D. Ripper, I'll bet it's GOOFY!!! I made
him out of a bushel of dingleberries, a lock of belly button lint, a
condom(used), and three tubes of chapstick...cough cough
Mandrake does look like a Muppet! "What do you mean suit?!"
My Strangelove Muppet? In a word: splooge.
"Does that lack of human element show a purpose, such as the
dehumanizing of society through consumerism, or just a lack of
funds?"
Lack of a worthy idea is what I'm saying. "This guy couldn't
find a couch in a living room."
"(God, I'd better stop,otherwise I may just legitimize this guy's
work.)"
You'd legitimize the whole phony modern art mindset. There are
actually real artists today who do legitimate work, what a revelation!
I think the imagination is just dead in this shameful exhibit as it's
dead in all other exhibits like it. I once saw an exhibit where a
puddingpocket had incased a wet vac in acrylic. People actually buy
this shit! We ran out of ideas so here buy our vomit... Publicly burn
any cash you make off this exhibit Chreestone! Then we'll have art.
".... when I realized that what I was doing was starting to be like
the Muppets."
"Prolly would have been sued by Jim Henson Enterprises, Inc. Miss
Piggy libeled by phony artist."
Fozzie Bear ran a hose from the exhaust pipe of his Plymouth over this
shit!
<snip>
"It was turning into a farce."
"He painted himself into a corner, and this was the only way he could
rationalize his efforts, futile as they appear to be."
What will his next futile project be? A catalog of pubic hair from
ACO?
A Cocklock Splooge?
"They knock the very things that often are subliminal influences from
popular culture that creep into their work. I mean, Bog forbid that an
ARTIST -- a REAL artist -- would dare to admit they watched the Muppets
on TV!"
You make an essential point for determining how honest an artist is.
If Christo was envisioning Muppets, then he prolly should have went
with that and saw it through to its dismal end. This is the creative
process. Go with your inspiration and see it through! If it turns out
dissatisfactory, you think of something else and follow it to the end.
Over and over until you create something worthwhile. All the bad
thoughts purged away and hopefully there's a distillation of
something original left over. Overall I'd say the work DS DS is a
sham. A sham of "art" to join the other unoriginal shams of
"art."
"Sometimes you follow your heart, sometimes your heart cuts a fart,
that's the cosmic shame."
"Perhaps he waited too long to get rid of his TV, if he feels it
wasn't "giving anything back" to him."
I swished he had made Dr. Strangelove into like the
Thunderbirds!!!!!!!!!!
"Perhaps he wasn't finding his inspiration in Saturday morning
cartoons and he
kicked in his TV out of frustration and turned it into a planter."
More like a bong, he should have cleaned it out first, puddy, he's
suffering from heavy metal poisoning.
"There are a few instances (in the Wynick/Tuck exhibition) when I
reference people but that's only when they are structurally
interesting, like soldiers standing around a jeep."
Hooray for Hollywood and everything.
Yeah, General Buck sitting at the war table in the war room with his
head cocked back arrogantly mugging it up is definitely not
"structurally interesting" etc etc....
"I guess it called to attention the lack of a focus, or vision, to his
work."
How very true.
" Better (in his case) to just show the set. Of course, if these
"recreations" were small, why not take photographs of people doing
things that might relate to his artwork and blend them in, either doing
a matte print or Photoshop it?"
We both know it takes skill to do that kind of shit, COUGH COUGH
COUGH!!!!!!!!!!
Sorry Kristan (prolly pronounces it KREE-stawn for maximum
pretentiousness), but you sound like a moron.
"It just seems he didn't have it properly thought out."
I couldn't agree more. He should have kept this shit to himself and
moved on to something else. Being Messier Quirky Photographer Geek is
not good enough.
"Do you see that white line on the floor?!
...well your toes
BELONGONTHEOTHERSIDEOFIT!!!!!!"
You have definitely violated my worldview, and I doubt my valve will
be opening again for at least a fortnight...............
> Ignatiuswhip
> pizza is our professor
"Yes, I agree. But it appears Myrna and Dorian don't seem to share our
worldview."
Well they muss be cawmniss. Ooo-woo!
"Oh, well, when Fortuna spins you downward, go to a movie and get more
out of life."
"This is rather fine."
"Maybe even a Kubrick movie. Maybe you'll be inspired to create art of
your own. Oh, wait! Isn't that the problem here?"
Everyone has to be compared to the great master. There is no shame in
that. If it's worth anything, true art will be apparent. Never sell
out!
"Until later,
Boaz, your hard working boy"
Perhaps later still,
ichorwhip
"Peace is our Profession"