26 December 2007
And, a close-up. In case you were interested.
19 December 2007
15 December 2007
I'm pretty sure I don't personally know anyone as obsessed with this issue as I am, which is ironic because I actually don't get paid for anything I do creatively. When people take stuff I've posted to the internet and do whatever with it that they're going to do, it actually does NOT represent a concrete financial loss to me. Notice how that last sentence doesn't start with the word "If..."? I actually rather suspect that people like me may be a big part of the problem, but that's a conversation for another day.
However, I can appreciate why this is of vital interest to people who do get paid for what they do. There is a catch-22 at work here: In this time and place, the internet is the primary means of direct marketing. It allows the widest possible audience to see your work, in both a targeted and shotgun sense, and when creative folks pursue employment, there is a clear expectation that they have a website gallery, portfolio, or catalog. Putting images and/or text on the internet, and then actively preventing people finding it accidentally is actually surprisingly difficult.
Copyright law appears to be of only marginal interest to people who take for free, the work that other people have done, because it's difficult to enforce any of the body of existing laws in regard to things found on the internet. The moral of the story, as indeed the photographer in this Wired article has learned, is not to leave your stuff laying around on the internet. She has pulled all her public images into a private setting, and would be foolish to believe that's sufficient protection.
She admits some people react like she's a "crazy cat lady" when she stands up for her right to protect her works, an unpopular stance in certain online circles. The notion that anybody should be able to freely help themselves to her work boggles her mind, she says.
"If I want socialism in America, I want medical insurance first," Hartwell said. "I don't want people just taking my stuff and saying, 'We're going to redistribute this to the masses.'"
Apparently the "certain online circles" referred to above includes Wired readers; the reader comments on this article are predictably scathing. Somehow, it seems the photographer is unbelievably arrogant to believe that her own work is supposed to go on paying her bills, and unbelievably stupid to believe that other people should respect her authorial rights, and possibly even the law. The conception of the internet is the outlaw wild west of civilization is not without merit. One hopes that someday law and order will be brought by the new sheriff, but as with other frontier lands, the folks who live there now like it that way. I know from personal experience that creative folks generally can't not create, but when they can't afford to pay rent and eat, the quality and quantity of the work invariably goes down.
14 December 2007
It's been a while since I posted, for reasons which aren't worth ennummerating. However,
I have made a very cute baby squid, so that pretty much makes up for the stall, right? I was thinking to making a nativity scene involving this guy, but I am not sure I can bear to stare at a nativity scene long enough to get the job done.
In seeking references for this squid, I discovered that a Google image search for "squid" gets me a lot of aquatic glory, while a search for "baby squid" gets me a lot of fried food. No, you can't eat my baby squid. It's much too cute.
02 December 2007
01 December 2007
30 November 2007
- I believe...
- In my opinion...
- If you ask me...
- From my perspective...
There are many variations on this qualifier, I'm sure you get the idea. Sometimes I feel like I need to construct an airtight signature disclaimer, which I can append to every single expressed thought that comes out of my head, so that no matter what, everyone will know that what I've said has its roots in my perspective, not in the externally agreed reality. This is always the case, of course, even with perceived facts (such as the externally agreed reality), but that's a whole other philosophical discussion.
Why do I feel like I need to remind people that when I say something, I'm expressing my point of view? Am I afraid that people will take me too seriously, and accept something I've said as opinion, as a universal fact? (This has happened, and it disturbs me.) Am I afraid that without the qualifier, my opinions are too strong? (Too strong for whom?) Am I concerned that sometimes people cannot distinguish persistent facts from opinions? (this is certainly true, but I'm not sure how much I care.)
More likely, this is my reaction to seeing people express their own opinions as universal facts. I am the type of person who tries to live a corrective life. I try to do right, the things I think other people are doing wrong. This is probably an extension of having a naturally critical/analytical temperament, and in a real sense, it punishes me for the sins of the world. If you do badly this time, I need to do better next time. This trait also leads me toward a profound tendency to begin interactions with some variant on the theme You Are Doing That Wrong. It's endlessly useful, if we're talking about proofreading and critical analysis, troubleshooting, crisis management.
It's less useful if you're talking about something that someone holds very near and dear.
Opinions are a kind of fact, of course. It's the fact of what's true for a given individual at a given time. As such, they can't be disproven or invalidated... they can only be discarded and replaced. But, for the duration of their glory, they are true. Totally and completely true facts. That is probably why people feel so strongly about pushing them into other people's faces. It's Truth! It's Reality! I Believe This, And It Is Therefore True, And Must Now Be True For You Also! Crusading IS irritating, isn't it? No matter how beautiful we look, with the Light of Righteousness beaming out of our heads...
29 November 2007
28 November 2007
The stone cherub pictured here, for instance, was probably carved in the 16th or 17th century, and may have been sitting in that spot for most of the intervening time (although I doubt that, since the castle courtyard around it has plainly been renovated at least twice in that interval.) I think... ok, four or five centuries isn't too shabby. The person who carved it probably didn't expect it to last that long. This all assumes it's not a cast replica of an original piece. I didn't actually poke at it long enough to even make an educated guess about that.
How long should art last? Does it lose relevance, with time? Does it gain worth over time? There is a certain mindset that holds endurance to be a desirable trait, but clearly a cherub doesn't mean the same thing now, as it might have at the time when this figure was carved or cast. Should a thing last until someone decides to smash it? Should it last until the artist can come up with something better? What if art were always ephemeral, like so much else in the universe? In a sense, it is, but I'm not trying to have that kind of philosophical inquiry right now.
Andy Goldsworthy seems to want his to last exactly as long as it takes to make good photos, unless of course he's having it mortared in place by professional stone masons. Harvey Fite, on the other hand, actually sculpted an abandoned stone quarry, turning it into a permanent, unmovable work of art entitled "Opus 40", which is now the name of the NPO that maintains it. Theoretically, performance art is the ultimate in ephemeral art, as it cannot exists beyond the memory of the last living person who saw it. Buster Keaton died a long time ago, but his art continues to exist, because we have film of it. When that's gone, Buster Keaton's art is gone.
Where is it all going? I don't know. I mostly just wanted to test the ability to post to this blog from my flickr account. The obvious age and sturdiness of this carved piece stands out as a stark contrast to some pieces I saw yesterday, from Kris Kuksi, which struck me as brilliant in many ways, with the Achilles heel of being made from materials that are notorious for lack of durability.
27 November 2007
His short commentary Why Chairs? is pretty interesting, and also details where the actual chairs are/were on display.
For those who think the time of ebay buyers is more valuable than that of persons waiting in line, they should reconsider their definition of value. Because poorer people don't live as long as wealthier people, the life expectancy of those waiting in line behind flippers is shorter than the life expectancy of those served by flippers; therefore, time is actually more precious for those waiting in line behind the flippers. When time is evaluated in this way, flippers actually do more damage in this market than good. In other words, they are a drain on value.
26 November 2007
The cure for death.
Media inputs direct to the human brain.
Living in space.
Submersion of most current coastal areas, and all of Florida.
The extinction of Sol.
The eventual extinction of the human race.
My own death.
Fully integrated cybernetic prosthesis.
Ex utero gestation.
Abandonment of paper and books printed on paper.
Network systems that connect the thoughts of one person directly to the thoughts of another person.
Mandatory identification implants.
The cooling of the Earth's core.
Synthetic blood replacement.
Nano-bot medical procedures.
Nano-bot environmental clean up.
A la carte offspring trait selection.
A new model for government.
A true global economy.
At least two global pandemics.
Out of brain memory transfer & storage, and perhaps dream recording & playback.
Persuasive evidence that there is sentient life off this planet.
Discovery of the previously unknown disadvantages of genetic modification.
Medical cures for: obesity, addiction, diabetes, HIV, cancer, Alzheimer's
NO medical cure for: the common cold (this is a cheat, I don't think the common cold is *a* disease any more than AIDs is *a* disease).
An enormous asteroid striking the Earth and killing most of what's here now.
All the current major religions lapse into obscurity.
A means of genetically provoking humans to grow hair in vibrant colors, usually associated with birds and insects (blue, orange, true yellow and red, green...).
23 November 2007
My obsession with what's on the other side of a sturdy wall or door continues unabated. This sturdy wall or door belongs to Burg Lockenhaus, on the Austrian side of the border with Hungary. Knights Templar nested there, as did Elizabeth Bathory. Those odd birds laid all kind of crazy-eggs in their nest.
Sitting outside the castle, I had a moment of perspective vortex, where I could see the rolling hills and valleys of the region as the ocean, which I was in, and the sky was the surface of the water, which I was looking up into and through. It was a strangely secure feeling.
20 November 2007
I started to wonder about book reviews. It is unwise for me to read a book, and then just tell people what's in it? Sure, it could pique someone's interest, but more likely (given the statistics) they'll just breathe a sigh of relief, realizing that it's one less tedious pile of irritating words they might avoid wading through. (Both the book, and the review.) Here's why:
When I worked at the bookstore, it was a regular occurrence to encounter folks who came rushing in, breathless, moments before the store closed, demanding the Cliff's Notes or... ah. That other thing, that isn't Cliff's Notes. Well, it doesn't matter now, because there are probably a dozen or so version of that idea, of clarifying and examining a text. The idea, I think, was to help folks who were having trouble getting on top of what they'd read. The Illiad is deeply mired in reference, fer cryin' out loud. To Kill A Mockingbird is complex shit, yo. The Sun Also Rises is... well. Nevermind what adjective I'd put on that one. Point is, sometimes when you read a thing, maybe you didn't quit apprehend the full significance. Enter the Cliff's Notes, or the Complete Idiot's Guide, or whatever. Maybe you're going to have to expound on Catcher In The Rye for your AP exam, and you want to rock it, and maybe your English class sucks.
But that's not how these guides are used. Instead, they're used to help the folks who haven't read the original text fake it satisfactorily in class, in the paper, in the exam. And now, the folks who discover that the library or bookstore doesn't have the study guide, who learned that some other jerk checked out the video store's only copy of the classic movie adapted from the book, are frantically rummaging the internet for synopsis and analysis. They're thoroughly boned, they're risking their A- average by getting called out on their complete and total failure to know anything at all about the title at hand.
Now we come around to the reason that I'm hesitant to write book reviews. I don't want any part of that. I admit, it's unlikely that I'm reading something that someone was supposed to have read but did not. I admit, it's unlikely that, in the random case that I have read and reviewed something that someone was supposed to have read, and did not. Hell, it's exceptionally unlikely that I have read and reviewed something that someone didn't read, and they somehow end up in my almost-totally-unread blog and read my review of it, and think they've learned something about the thing they didn't read. That's a lottery win long shot, right there. But I feel pretty certain that more non-readers who are searching the internet the night before their paper is due will read my book reviews, than other readers.
As a confirmed bibliophile, it's hard for me NOT to talk about things I'm reading. But it's often seemed to me that the people I'd like to talk with (other adults who have read the thing) are either non-existent or unavailable to me, or I'm too neurotic to connect with them. The other bibliophiles I do know well enough to talk intelligently with... don't read the same books I do, for the most part. Unless I force a book on one of them, or they on me.
Am I contributing to the problem, by not sharing my enthusiasm? Am I just being a bitter old wingnut, by believing that it's better to enjoy it by myself, than to have my experience corrupted and perverted? (In fact, it's unlikely that I would ever know if my book reviews were used in this way. The folks who skim the internet for clues in life are not going to be the ones giving authorial credit where it's due...)
I did join a few reading-group websites (like Shelfari, which displays my current reads at the bottom of this page, as well as GoodReads, and LibraryThing), to see about finding people to talk to about my books. I've been consistently disappointed with the discussions going on. The book I finished most recently has one, two-word review, which somehow manages to incorporate consonance, a pun, and two clichés. Argh! Another one has a few more words, but those words are "A nice sequel to the previous book." That's the entirety of the review. It's depressing, to be blunt. That's the best the bookworms can come up with?
So. Here's my book review policy. If I'm reading something, and someone asks me about it--anyone at all, in real life, one of my imaginary internet friends, the bookstore clerk, anyone--I'll review it. Otherwise, I'm probably not going to bother, unless it strikes a profound chord in me, and I just can't not write about it. Sometimes the spirit really is moved.
19 November 2007
Scratchfile is my word for "the stuff I do when I'm not trying to get something particular accomplished." I don't know if there is a proper, commonly known and used word for this? It means that I'm painting, or drawing, or writing, but not with a predetermined destination in mind. Here are more, it turns out Blogger only allows 5 images in a post.
In other creativity news, I've been writing every day this month on a novel. Well... it's the kernel of a novel. When I meet the goal of 50,000 words, I estimate I'll have about 2/3 of the plot structure for a good novel, 1/2 of the necessary number of characters (I'm really good with main characters, not great with supporting characters), and about 1/5 of the total number of words that would be necessary to eventually massage, edit, and cajole a thing into an actual novel. The plot isn't clear even to me, the characters are still trying to figure themselves out, and overall, I'll be doing the literary world a favor if I kill it at the end of the month. But I committed myself to this task for the Month of November, because of National Novel Writing Month, and because of my tendency to heap scorn on the bad writing that gets published as "literature."
I do not foresee actually having A Novel on my hands by 30th November, as in the thing you see on the cover of actual novels in bookstores: Some Kind of Pretentious or Obscurely Referential Title: A Novel by Me... kind of thing. But I am learning a lot about the novel writing process. If I don't delete it all on December 1st, but instead keep scratching at it in a persistent manner for another 6 months to 2 years, it could conceivably turn into a rough draft of a coherent novel.
I have always wondered why I can write, at length, about whatever comes into my head, but the idea of deliberately writing a novel intimidated me. Short stories aren't a real problem, but for some reason I've always felt that novels would be better, somehow. More complete? More... encompassing? I have always wondered what famous authors mean when they say that they discover what's going on as they write--I'd always imagined it to be a premeditated thing, mostly a matter of copying down a story that was in the head already. Definitely, my appreciation of authors who can work out enormous, long-range plots and worlds has grown immensely. The respect is quadrupled if it turns out that they have worked out a self-consistent imaginary universe in their subconscious and are, in fact, only writing down bits of it at a time, without serious planning.
Surely some writing has that premeditated, start from the end and work your way back to the beginning flavor about it, and I think I expected it to be that way for me because that's how visual art works for me. I see some materials, and realize that if I do this, and this, and that, by the time it's finished, if I've done it all well, I'll have .... the thing that was in my head. With this month's practice of sitting and writing every single morning for at least a little while, I'm beginning to see how the threads of ideas can come and go. I can see how the story changes as it flows. I can see how characters come and go, seemingly of their own volition, and it's just a matter of trying to keep up with their motivations and maneuvers. Also, I can see how authors often end up as depressed cranks, living alone, grumbling at the world to shut the hell up so they can concentrate, already. It might be a chicken and egg issue, but the path has become progressively plainer to me.
And, I can see that if I sat down and wrote every single day for the rest of my life, I *might* come up with a story worth publishing. It has been kind of horrifying to see how much of what I've written is a synthesis or correction-to-my-view of things others have written, and how much what I'm writing reveals about my own inclinations and prejudices. This is not to say that any of what's being revealed is particularly unexpected or news-worthy, because generally I'm pretty wide open about things. But it's so, so clear what my issues, ticks, and obsessions are. So, so transparent. This is probably why it's so popular for authors to work under pseudonyms. Your friends might be happy that you're a published author, but they might not really want to know what your fantasies actually are.
03 November 2007
The author says the series is on permanent temporary hiatus, because it just takes too damn long to produce each image. I can believe that, but it's also a bit sad. It definitely has an epic quality about it, the unmistakable sense of having just spotted the tip of the iceberg.
Green Evening Stories
01 November 2007
The other book I finished last night is Daniel Gilbert's Stumbling on Happiness. It's kind of the non-fiction version of the Murakami's thesis: a point by point rebuttal of the idea that happiness is attainable. Gilbert has assembled an astonishingly well-referenced theory about why it's so hard for people to plan themselves into a future they are satisfied with. He talks about the odd behaviors people consistently have, that always seem like a good idea at the time, but ultimately lead to dissatisfaction. Some of these are very interesting, such as the inability people apparently have, to correctly gauge their own reactions to events, and some intriguing examples of the long term effects of the notoriously inaccurate human memory.
This isn't a self-help book; it's not about How To Be Happy. This is simply an analysis of why it sometimes seems so freaking hard to be happy, no matter how much time you spend on it. The conclusion I have come to is that this undermining behavior is probably for the best. Dissatisfaction keeps us going, it gives us something to do after the thing we're doing now. And, besides that, actually being happy seems to be more a matter of actually noticing when that's going on, than it is about planning or execution of plans.
I do recommend this book if you're the kind of person who has wondered what the hell everyone's problem is, and why it's SO hard to just be content. This isn't necessarily the whole story, but it certainly is an interesting and fairly well-written part of it. My only complaint is that there were more than a few moments where I read a sentence or two, and thought, "My god, you ARE a smarmy bastard, aren't you?" I have nothing against smarmy bastards, of course, but when I'm reading a book, I'd rather be engaged with the book than the author, if you see what I mean.
31 October 2007
In theory, when you're playing dress-up, there's no point in dressing as who and what you are, unless you have an extremely overactive irony gland. Dressing as who you are is like any other day. Costumes are about being something you're not. So what does it say that so many women want to be Sexy Something for Halloween? And, perhaps more importantly, how did sexy get moved off the body, and become simply another element of costume? Just like there are costume pieces that say "rich" or "poor" or "violent" or "infantile"... certain costume pieces say "sexy". So, it's no longer about the woman's body--it got transferred to her closet.
Is intrinsic sexiness no longer a commodity women possess? Consider all the cultures in the world that do or have required women to stay covered, stay hidden, stay away from stranger's eyes. The theory is that women are inherently desirable, and the sight of the smallest part of her corporeal self will incite riot. Not the body, only. Women have, in different times and places, been obliged to bind their hair, cover their gaze, and live entirely apart from others in their community. That sort of attitude speaks of a dangerous kind of appeal, the sort of uncontrollable power that must be mastered at all costs.
Has that power, at least in the western world of power suits and superwomen, been expended? Have women relinquished so much of their magic, in the drive for so-called* equality? Has the feminine mystique become so dilute that we need to pretend to be sexual creatures once a year, because it would be fun to pretend, but not to actually be sexual creatures for real?
To be perfectly plain, I believe what is referred to as "sexiness" in the sense of the sexy costume is a license to command attention. It is a pass on all the things women so often apologize for, a long list often including such transgressions as: having sexual desires, having ANY desires, having skills and abilities men don't have, wanting power, position, and compensation, having opinions, having goals, not always being able to fulfill the supportive role but sometimes needing support instead, and of course the inevitable crime of having expelled the boys from the womb in the first place. (This is a crime of which all boy's mothers are guilty, and can never be forgiven.) In some regards, women live their apologies for these issues. So, on Halloween, when a female type person decides that, just for this one night, it's OK to play the role of the temptress at whose patent-leather, spike-heel clad feet the men must inevitable crawl... she's reclaiming just the tiniest taste of her power.
I support that, actually. Some people will say it's perpetuating sexism. Disagree! I say, those other 364 days, when women are suppressing their interest in being sexy, in owning that power... those days perpetuate repression of women and their power. Please observe: it's incredibly rare that men choose Halloween to give free rein to their inner gigolo. Quite the contrary, Halloween is the time that men are playing dress up and exploring their cross-dressing side, their 80s look, their love of togas, their secret fascination with serial killers. Things men are not addressing the rest of the year. Why? Because men already own up to their sexual nature. It's not necessary to pretend to have it once a year, they don't have to unbutton the top 3 buttons of their shirts and flex their muscles for an audience on just one night of the year, they can do that all the time. (Not saying that's how all men express their sexual nature, but that's more or less the equivalent of the Sexy Cheerleader costume.) Aside from, perhaps, "dead," I can't think of a single theme that unifies mens' costume choices, the way "sexy" unifies womens'.
Anyway, for the one person who is still reading this, I offer you a fun little video about where to go to get your very own Sexy Something costume. Or, frog.
* Equal rights, yes, but we are biologically a sexually dimorphic species, actual male-female parity is gonna be a long, long row to hoe...
30 October 2007
It amazes me sometimes, how I can descend into inky madness. I remember sitting down with the pots of ink, and the new brush, and the clean sheet of paper. I neatly made a border around the page, and I set to work. I made one mark, and then another, and then more and more and more. Some time later, I was knocking my chair over backwards in my haste to get away from the desk. What had I done? What kind of monster had I created?
I'd be hard-pressed to tell you what this supposed to have been, and I'd be lying if I told you this is how it was supposed to look. But I am strangely pleased with this photograph of the drawing that didn't go well. I don't know if it's ironic, or fitting, or just tedious, but I often like pictures of works that didn't work, and I generally do not like pictures of those that have gone well.
29 October 2007
If you ponder the thought, no one ever closes a thoroughfare due to the death of an individual. You can still drive over the spot on which James Dean died, or Jayne Mansfield, or Jackson Pollock. You can drive over the spot where a bus drove over Margaret Mitchell. Grace Kelly. Ernie Kovacs. Death is a tragic event, but stopping the flow of traffic always seen as the greater crime.So, on the surface, this seems deep. "Yeah, wait a minute! Those were serious things. I mean, you can still drive down the the street where Kennedy was assassinated, and sure that has about about great an influence on the future of America as any street-death since Archduke Franz Ferdinand." And, hell, also, every time you get on the road, you're probably going to pass at least ONE spot where someone died. If you multiply that out by how much driving most people do, that actually a little foul.
But, back up a step. Why in hell would you close a road permanently because someone--even a famous someone--died there? And, more to the point, how is the death of ONE PERSON, even a famous person, actually a tragedy? People die; it's in the charter. The *circumstances* of death can be a tragedy, sure. But seriously, if someone fails to die that is far more interesting to me, than all those other people who are doing what they're supposed to.
I realize that Palahniuk is (to understate a thing) fond of hyperbole. I realize that he's making a comment about a certain mentality, with this line. But what alarms me is the possibility that there are folks out there who will read a thing like that, or hear a thing like that, and be swayed by it. They will actually succumb to the Fauxfoundity of it all, repeat it to their friends. Submit a petition to the highway commission about it. That's really, really depressing.
28 October 2007
Tonight we watched a documentary from 2005, Rize. I've wanted to see this film since I first saw a trailer for it. Like Scratch and Dogtown and Z-Boys, Rize promised a window into a world that simply does not include me, and I find that intriguing. The intriguing aspect is not that it doesn't include me, lots of things don't include me. But that it's a world that so removed from my own that I almost cannot understand the explanations given, in plain English, of what's going on, and why. Director David LaChapelle visits the camera on many people, most of them younger than 30, and a few older relatives (mostly mothers, fathers were conspicuously absent), as they participated in and talked about their passion for dance.
The basic idea is that, in the ghetto neighborhoods of south Los Angeles, there is an alternative to gangs. There is an alternative to living in fear, surrounded by the symptoms and manifestations of disadvantage. There is an alternative to spiritual poverty. That alternative is a dance form that is as rhythm-bound as any tribal ceremony in the world, as formalized as any ballet, as expressive as any Noh performance, and as nakedly driven as any rave in the world. The director repeatedly likens it to African tribal movements, but there was so much more to it. The whole range is there, from the stripper's booty bounce, to the astonishing elegance of an elite martial arts exhibition. Clowning and krumping, it's called, and for reasons that are more obvious and also more inexplicable that you'd guess. More than *I* would have guessed, and I have seen the explanation! It does, in fact, involve clown-style face painting and rainbow wigs.
Perhaps what fascinates me most about the world of clowning and krumping is that this is a physical rebuttal to the harsh realities. No less real, and in many ways, no less harsh. Shouting back at the world. It is pretty clear that the young people involved in the dance want outsiders to understand, but are glad to have their mystique, too. They like the fact that you wouldn't understand, that you can't relate to it; that's OK, it's not for you. They want to be recognized as athletes, as artists, as positive forces in their world, but also, they like their position on the outside of the outside. It's one thing to be marginalized by someone else's mainstream, it's something else to choose to step away from the margin, into an abyss of your own choosing. More powerful yet, to discover there is solid ground to be had there.
Maybe I will never understand, really, what it all means. Hell, I'm technically a part of the mainstream that those dancers are twice removed from. But it's strengthening, to see that there is something beyond the light outside the cave entrance.
26 October 2007
I speak of the Miracle of the Second Post, that is. I haven't seen the weeping virgin burned into my monitor. Yet. This picture is not particularly interesting, but I am trying to learn the ways and means of picture posts here in Blogger, because an art blog is at least 45% of what I want to do here. I want to know things like how it looks, resizing tactics and limitations, and so on. One thing I haven't worked out yet is how to have a picture in thumbnail size, with the option to click on it to see the full size. Also, I want to know how much of a page gets filled up by what amount of text + picture. I am, in the vernacular, a wordy mofo.
Crocuses are, of course, a different kind of miracle. They show up in the spring just when you're thinking that if there is another rainy, cold, shitty, windy day, you're probably going to have to throw yourself off a height. A crocus is the little splash of color that causes you to bend down, closer to the ground, thus preventing suicide by flinging.
25 October 2007
As required by internet law, I'm beginning this blog with a test-post, consisting of no substance whatsoever, and a picture of the cat.
OK, I give, there's going to be a tiny bit of substance: I'm trying to figure out a way to have everything I want from the internet all in one place.
I want a place to write about crap I see, here, think of, create, make photos of, and want other people to think about. I want not to have to go to 4 different web sites to get that done. I want it to look less like crap than when I tried to write my own web site from scratch. And I want it to be less, hmm, canceled, than some of the other venues I've been using for these purposes.
There is a non-zero chance of me never posting here again after this post, but maybe it'll work out. We'll see, won't we?