What "abstract" should mean in art.

[SaulOhio]

The word "abstract" in art has come to mean formless, non-represenational art, basically smears on canvas, and meaningless shapes in sculpture. This isn't what the word means in philosophy, and it isn't what it should mean in art, either.

Watching the Pixar movie "The Incedibles", I was very much struck by the sculpture in the courtyard of the home of the character named Edna (E). I couldn't find a link on the internet to post on this forum, but I am sure most here have seen the movie. It was a much larger than life representation of a superhero. It was very low on detail, just suggesting the shape of a human figure in a heroic pose, with broad shoulders, and if I remember correctly, a fountain flowing over the shoulders representing a cape. It didn't represent any particular superhero, it could have been almost any superhero. It had no facial features, no emblem on the chest, no indication of what superpowers it had. All that it had to suggest the concept of superheroism was its vaguely human shape, its pose, and its context within the home of a superhero admirer (almost worshiper). It abstracted the concept of superheroism from any particular superhero, but it wasn't abstract in the modern artistic sense.

[jenright]

Saul, yes, lots of representational art has abstract meaning, despite showing concrete things.

Non-objective "abstract" art, paradoxically enough, seems to carry less abstract meaning.

John

[Victor Pross]

Saul, yes, lots of representational art has abstract meaning, despite showing concrete things.

Non-objective "abstract" art, paradoxically enough, seems to carry less abstract meaning.

John

John,

I'm so happy to know that a few OL members have it right, you and Saul! How nice is was to come across this thread.

Re: what you and Saul say. This is one reason why so-called "abstract art" is not only non-art - it's not even abstract. It is, as I have said elsewhere, "paint on a canvas". The subject matter is paint, the means are paint, the end result is paint. But there is no abstraction, no function that art serves, no meaning, no subject, no sklll--no art.

Here’s the thing: an art work—in this case, painting, has a specific nature like anything else in the universe (metaphysical or man-made). It is a mistake to simply take the materials--the art supplies of painting, such as canvas and paints, and slap it down where you would be unable to distinguish it from Bessie the ape's work, a seven year old or a critic cuddled abstract ‘artist.’

Presenting such a thing as art and labeling it as art or even shouting it out 'this is art!' …does not make it art…this is subjectivism. And I don’t mean one’s response to the work, but rather—it is the subjectivity of concepts. The definition of art does not lie within the materials of art or the fact that it is hanging against a wall in a gallery.

-Victor

Edited February 4, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

SaulOhio,

That sounds like a very good sculpture, sort of like a sculpted silhouette.

About abstract, this depends on what you include as referents for abstraction. If your referents are reality MINUS processes of consciousnesses, then this view is correct. There is a school of thinking that excludes processes of consciousnesses from being depicted as the major subject of a art work.

If your referents come from ALL of reality, processes of consciousnesses must be included and, of course, they can be abstracted just like anything else in reality.

Michael

[John Dailey]

~ As Saul says, "The word 'abstract' in art has come to mean formless, non-representational art..." Some might disagree, but, a check on Wiki shows the consensus meaning re art. As to what it 'should' or not mean therein, I'm tempted to agree with Saul, but, any argument is moot, since, that IS what it now means.

~ It is unfortunate that the term-usage itself became more abstract in it's art-context meaning (indeed, as the term 'art' itself), thereby leaving no better terms to distinguish any borders 'twixt what I'd call 'suggested representationalism' versus, well, at best, 'pretty color-swirls and pretty paint-by-numbers-lines-and-shapes' (at worst, not-pretty.) But, as above, such is what one has to deal with, and there's no changing that either.

~ I'm tempted to say that any positions taken on these subjects will themselves tend to usually seem...in the art-context sense above...'abstract' in their appearance of being representations of 'arguments.' Hope this thread doesn't go the way some others have.

LLAP

J:D

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

John,

If you are willing to make an experiment, try the following.

Close your eyes and empty your mind. Take your time and breathe deeply. Then open your eyes quickly and try to pay attention to that fraction of a second before everything comes into focus.

Would you call that part you just experienced "reality" or not? I refer both to what you perceived and to the act itself. Do you have memories of that level of perception or not? Of course you do.

If you have memories of that, this is because it is an integration that your mind performed. You will also have emotional connections. (This is a very long subject, so I won't go into that can of worms here.) This is one of the main things good abstract art taps into.

When people say representational, they do not mean merely visual—otherwise, they would include the unfocused images in the experiment. They mean a visually focused integration of entities that exist outside of their minds.

The opposite end of what I am discussing was recently mentioned in a post by you on another thread. Apparently video games improve vision by focused training of visual integration (albeit, this was an inadvertent byproduct). There exists a whole spectrum of visual integration ability, including memories with emotional connotations. Good art uses all of this, not just the focused end.

The definition-of-art problem resides in recognizing that, in terms of visual integration, the difference between abstract art and representational art is a matter of degree, not kind. (I mean good abstract art, not junk, just like I mean good representational painting, not inept paint-by-the-numbers type junk).

Michael

[Victor Pross]

John,

If you are willing to make an experiment, try the following.

Close your eyes and empty your mind. Take your time and breathe deeply. Then open your eyes quickly and try to pay attention to that fraction of a second before everything comes into focus.

Would you call that part you just experienced "reality" or not? I refer both to what you perceived and to the act itself. Do you have memories of that level of perception or not? Of course you do.

If you have memories of that, this is because it is an integration that your mind performed. You will also have emotional connections. (This is a very long subject, so I won't go into that can of worms here.) This is one of the main things good abstract art taps into.

When people say representational, they do not mean merely visual—otherwise, they would include the unfocused images in the experiment. They mean a visually focused integration of entities that exist outside of their minds.

The opposite end of what I am discussing was recently mentioned in a post by you on another thread. Apparently video games improve vision by focused training of visual integration (albeit, this was an inadvertent byproduct). There exists a whole spectrum of visual integration ability, including memories with emotional connotations. Good art uses all of this, not just the focused end.

The definition-of-art problem resides in recognizing that, in terms of visual integration, the difference between abstract art and representational art is a matter of degree, not kind. (I mean good abstract art, not junk, just like I mean good representational painting, not inept paint-by-the-numbers type junk).

Michael

Michael,

You do make compelling arguments in favor of abstract painting, such as can be read here—and more so than I have ever read before by anyone else. Good work.

On another thread addressed to Kevin, I made a point that warrants repeating here. I said:

‘Abstract and representational painting? I loath art that is all technique and no emotion. So I’m far from being an unbounded defender of representationalism—if nothing is really being represented but masterly technique. And I loathe purported art that is all emotion where nothing is represented to carry the emotion, and that is devoid, arguably, of no real technique (such as can be said of abstract painting).

For sure, paint-by-numbers makes me gasp. They are, and perhaps justifiably so, for the untalented non-artist who is merely looking to distract himself, in the same way anybody would do with a crossword puzzle. That a person may have a certain emotional resonance toward the crossword puzzle (and who is enacting integration ) does not, however, make the activity ‘art.’ Thus something is missing—something in your argument that is key—in the identification (or the ever elusive attempt at a definition) of art. Is this a reasonable observation on my part?

-Victor

Edited February 11, 2007 by Victor Pross

[John Dailey]

Michael:

~ Sorry to be so long in getting back here. In reading your post, wasn't sure if you meant Enright or me...'till you mentioned vid-games :alien: :hyper: :geek: :frantics: --- then I KNEW you meant me. Liked that little news-item on eyesight? My Joey sure would! Needless to say, I never mentioned it to him.

~ Re your 'emotional connections' experiment re whatever one happens to 1st notice upon sensing one's surroundings and your view that 'good abstract art taps into,' I definitely won't argue! We agree on that! The prob is making the distinction between not only the 'good' and 'bad' of such, but as well, between the 'alleged' and the 'actual.' The latter is what I believe Vic is arguing about, not the former. (Interestingly, the emotional connectivity in your experiment seems to jibe with LP's Fact and Value essay AND seems relatable to the famous play EQUUS, but, those are probably for other threads.)

LLAP

J:D

[John Dailey]

Michael:

~ You say "The definition-of-art problem resides...[etc.]" I disagree. The definition-of-art problem resides in 1st-and-foremost in attempting (for those who do so) actually defining it which is a necessity to distinguish between what 'is' and what 'is NOT'...art; a distinction necessary to separating 'junk' from 'actual-though-bad'; a distinction necessary to identify the diff from my Down Syndrome finger-paintings from an alleged surrealistic 'artist'. --- Methinks that many have a real prob with the very idea of such being done, regardless that it is a correct or incorrect definition. Many have a prob with Rand's def (indeed, I think she also did! But, she tried to work with what she...induced...and tried to show others the worth/rationale/justification/useability of her def.) I find most interesting that they haven't clarified any better alternative.

LLAP

J:D

[John Dailey]

Michael:

~ Re your ref to 'the difference between abstract art and representational art is a matter of degree, not kind. (I mean good abstract art, not junk...) I totally agree, believe it or not! Ummm..depending on just what (and more relevently why) we are regarding painting 'X' as 'good abstract art, not junk'); aye, there's the rub! The 'why' hinges on (if any) definition of art (or 'abstract') we're agreeing on. Without agreed upon defs, we can talk all day using the same words with different (to each of us) personal meanings...and waste time getting nowhere.

~ To me, anything I find worth calling 'abstract' in visual-art WILL have some coherency as though it was 'representational.' To use the Ancient Greeks praise: "Harmony" b-u-t. not merely in colors, shapes, and composition of such primary aspects, but also in subject-referencing via the 'abstract's presented.

--- NO identifiable 'subject-referencing'=no meaning, ergo no coherency, ergo no 'harmony,' ergo pretty blobs and lines.

LLAP

J:D

[John Dailey]

Victor:

~ You say "...I loath art that is all technique and no emotion..." and argue against non-'representational' art. As I (think that I) clarified in my prev post to Mike, I do see a distinction within 'abstract' art re some of which does have...'abstractedly'...some identifiable 'representationalism' therein, and, that which has none.

~ Your quote, ironically, is what I believe that many in the '70-80's castigated against 'representationalism' (oh, say, of some nature picture like surf-waves on a beach at sunset, or mountains foregrounded by a grass meadow, or, just a portrait). They saw superb 'photographic technique' but, to them, no 'emotion' conveyed.

~ Just thought that that was...interesting. --- Re 'modern art' over-all (barring distinctions I specified above), I see absolutely NO 'technique' whatsoever; merely purposeful warping (Picasso) or non-purposefully intended...splashings...or, at best, nice designs for rugs or wallpaper in a home game-room.

LLAP

J:D

[Chris Grieb]

In 1966 I moved for a brief time to New York City. Two of the people I visited were the late Joan Kennedy Taylor and her husband David Dawson who is also deceased. Mr Dawson designed fountains which match some the descriptions in the first post. Mr Dawson told me that Ayn Rand liked his work. I wish that there were some pictures of Mr Dawson's work so people could judge for themselves.

[John Dailey]

~ Damn, Chris!

~ You gotta say that...with NO pics?

~ I was just about to post another rile and...you aestheticus-interruptus'd me.

LLAP

J:D

[Victor Pross]

John,

I have been assumed as an Ortho-Objectivist because of my distain for abstract painting and modernism. Fact is, I do not follow a party line—and that includes Objectivism. I don’t care what Rand said or didn’t say about abstract art. (Although I am an Objectivist and I largely agree with Rand, this fact nevertheless is very distinct from my views on modernism and postmodernism). The reason why I say this to you is so that we can actually communicate-- with no presumptions undermining the other’s standpoint.

Regarding MSK’s claim that abstract and representational painting is a matter of degree, not kind---strikes me as absurd on its face—especially if one accepts Roger Bissell’s “art as a microcosm thesis”—of which representational painting clearly qualifies. How does abstract painting qualifie? How?? Look, let's bottom line this: if one accepts Mr. Bissell’s thesis (and I do) I am still waiting for someone to explain to me how this thesis would apply to abstract painting---especially of the Jackson Pollack sort and his ilk. If one does not accept his thesis—that’s well and good. But why do they not subject his article to the same critiques and flames that I have been subjected to? Still, I do believe that there is an overall agreement with Mr. Bissell’s thesis, except I also believe that a lapse occurred as to how this could apply to abstract painting. So it's better to avoid the subject.

John, you wrote:

Re your 'emotional connections' experiment re whatever one happens to 1st notice upon sensing one's surroundings and your view that 'good abstract art taps into,' I definitely won't argue! We agree on that! The prob is making the distinction between not only the 'good' and 'bad' of such, but as well, between the 'alleged' and the 'actual.' The latter is what I believe Vic is arguing about, not the former. (Interestingly, the emotional connectivity in your experiment seems to jibe with LP's Fact and Value essay AND seems relatable to the famous play EQUUS, but, those are probably for other threads.)

Yes, you represent my standpoint exactly. It is a matter of the alleged and the actual. Bingo, my friend. Now, unlike other Objectivists, I don’t really care to argue over the question of “bad art” versus “good art.” Clearly, I am interested in the question of what is being presented by the Art World as “art”---things that are highly questionable. (And I don’t give a rat’s ass if an entire industry has whirled around these alleged works of art with the displaying, presenting, buying, selling of these products---that does not make these objects ‘art.’ I don’t care what alleged artists, professors of esthetics or art critics pontificate about said objects—it is not art if it fails to meet an objective criterion, such as been outlined by Rand herself and the magnificent Mr. Bissell).

It is damn well time that people take that article of his seriously. But don't hold your breathe for any "rational" conversation there. I get the feeling that too many things would become clear--things that *I* have argued. :turned:

-Victor

Edited March 7, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

John,

Just to be clear (even though you agreed with me), the "emotional connections" experiment was not about emotional connections, but about integration on a sensory to perception level. I mentioned the term "emotional connections" merely to point out that mental events are also events in reality that can be depicted in art. The language for portraying them as stand-alone events is necessarily different than the language for portraying external entities and events. As the old architectural adage goes, form follows function.

The only manner I can conceive of doing this is to go down into more basic levels of integration and cognition. That was the point of the visual integration experiment.

I fully agree with you on the need to define art. That is why I have mentioned the different concepts used with the same name (especially the cognitive/normative distinction, but the concepts are even more varied than that). It is important to clarify which meaning is being used at a determined moment. On one level (the cognitive one), even paint-by-the-numbers is art since it is merely an activity of man. On another, there is so little originality by the painter in paint-by-the-numbers and the forms are mass produced that it obviously is another category altogether from an original painting, say by Dali. I would call paint-by-the-numbers a form of entertainment art.

In addition to my experiment, I gave more instances of low-level visual integration in the Gestalt images in the excerpt below, plus a further discussion on defining art.

Before, I used to think that philosophy played a fundamental role in all art, even when it was not obvious. I thought at the weakest, philosophy was implicit, since it is implicit in a sense of life. Now I am starting to realize that much of psychology (not all, of course) impacts thinking and feeling without involving philosophy at all (or, better, to such a small extent that its impact is not important). Then there is that sticky issue of human nature and what comes already built into the mind.

Some art I see as predominantly psychological. It is an attempt to present a psychological state for the experience of others. This is not a means to any other end. It is a value in itself, just like all aesthetic experience is. On the other end of the spectrum, I see design and I see it arising from the same impulse in man: a desire to impose man-made mental forms on natural objects and nothing more. People derive a pleasure from this that I am hard-put to call anything except aesthetic pleasure. What pleasure do people get from having a dish-towel with squares and lines on it? If no value at all is gained, why do it? I think aesthetic pleasure is gained. In earlier times this was called beauty, but art (including design) goes beyond beauty.

. . .

There certainly is an automatic capacity in the mind for grouping visual images, like those Gestalt pictures where two propellers come in and out of focus and, when you stare at them, you can't stop them from switching back and forth once it starts. Here is a typical picture:

Here is a real cute one of a sax player and a lady:

Here is a site mentioning the Gestalt principles of visual grouping in a very simple form. For the record, the principles are given below (quoted from the link at the start of this paragraph, but I highly suggest going to the linked site and seeing these principles illustrated with figures):

1. Proximity/Contiguity: Visual elements tend to be grouped together according to their nearness.

2. Similarity: Visual items similar in some respect tend to be grouped together. (Examples are given for shape, color and size.)

3. Closure/Good continuation: Visual items are grouped together if they tend to complete some entity.

4. Simplicity: Visual items will be organized into simple figures according to symmetry, regularity, smoothness, ..., easy labeling (unambiguous).

5. Area/smallness: Smaller areas tend to be seen as figures against a larger background.

6. Figure and Ground: Similar elements (figure) are contrasted with dissimilar elements (ground) to give the impression of a whole.

So I think design functions to provide the pleasure man gets from imposing on reality the way he organizes visual percepts in his mind—reality reflecting his mind, so to speak. This, to me is a difference in degree from what we normally call art, not kind. Thus it covers traditional art, design and modern art. Man recreates his inner mental life externally by recreating reality with elements of reality itself according to the forms within his mind.

I would put philosophy-based art in-between design and psychology-based art, running as a sort of scale. Thus, in this conception, all art runs from simple perception (design) to value-based (add philosophy) to subconscious/purely emotional (psychological). All three categories are present at all levels, so this scale is more for what is emphasized, not what is exclusive, i.e., some eliminated. They are all present, always, but to varying degrees.

The implication is that philosophy is present in design and psychological art. I believe it is, but it can be to such a small extent (depending on the work) that its influence is not even important.

There are two other scales I would include that bear on the scale above (but calling it all "art"): (a) entertainment/ contemplation, with light fun on one end and heavy art on another, and (b) competence/originality, with incompetent/unoriginal art on one end and great art on another.

Like I once said about morality, black and white do exist, but also there is a full range of grays, and even more than that, there is a full spectrum of colors.

This is a really long subject, but I think I am on the right track here. Also, there is another issue where a scale could be made about art involving affects, which I illustrated with movie genres. Since you are a movie buff, you might like this approach. It is here, on the Psychology thread dealing with Steve Shmurak's important work.

Michael

[Victor Pross]

John,

"An artwork is a symbol that conveys basic perspectives on the world and man by embodying them in an imaginary world" writes Roger Bissell. Now try to shove a Jackson Pollock painting into THIS microcosmic approach. The whole purpose of painting on a canvas is to present a “universe in miniature” for a viewer to contemplate. That has been the purpose of painting as an art from the days of the cave dwellers on up. But if a painter maintains that instead he merely wants to present some colors, shapes, patterns—or inscrutable blobs and swirls--that mean absolutely nothing and are not part of an “imaginary world”, he is in the same category as someone who cuts into a human body not to perform surgery but to cause a mutilation. The latter are not so bald-faced as to expect to be hired and paid a surgeons wages, but these painters have managed to have their works hung in galleries.

Here, let me put it this way: As a visual artist, I don’t always paint to show what is “important” in the sense Rand meant, but a more accurate reflection of my motive is to present what I—the artist—find interesting. Sometimes, it is true, I have a particular message to convey, but the primary issue is the aspiration to give concrete form to whatever type of expression is involved. For example, my painting of “Family Values” is to communicate the abstraction of “philosophical erosion” and I did so in concrete form, and this could be considered “didactic.” But my painting of, say, Jack Nicholson conveys no “message.” It is merely an exaggerated painting of the quintessential Jack Nicholson—an artifact of pop culture complete with trade mark arched eye brows—and that is all it is. Either way, both paintings present a highly stylized “imaginary universe” that is intelligible. Both paintings are “communicating” and that is the purpose of visual art. That is what makes a painting 'art'--and if it does not do this...it is merely paint on a canvas. See, the nature of visual art does not lie within the materials used to create art -- or in the fact that the materials are hanging against a wall in a gallery! Abstract painting has neither abstractions nor concrete form. Ergo, it is not art. (Yep, I said it again).

The above does not disvalue abstract painting for those who care to indulge in this activity or who derive some form of esthetic pleasure from colors—but they merely cannot, objectively speaking, confer the title ‘art’ upon it, (for reasons stated above) just as they cannot do this to their beloved pets. People value their pets. They do not call them art. And it is okay to call abstract painting non-art, as it is okay to value it. Many people hang these types of paintings on their walls for decoration. What's wrong with that? Nothing.

-Victor

Edited March 7, 2007 by Victor Pross

[John Dailey]

Michael:

~ Your post is too dense (in the best meaning of that!) for me to deal with now. Get back to ya on this.

Vic:

~ Similar, but, a comment on Pollock (rather, your chronic use of him as an 'extreme' in your meaning of 'modern' [aka 'abstract'] art). --- I think that when *you* and/or *I* discuss 'modern' art (as consensually accepted as meant), even when bringing up 'abstract' or 'surrealistic', we must always clarify for the pure sake of keeping distinctions clear. For instance, within 'abstract' art (ahem!) what is, when the term is used, meant by 'surrealistic'...ergo...NOT meant? --- I tried to point this prob out in another post re 'abstract'-vs-meaningless blobs/swirls.

~ Pollock, however an 'intense' an artist-wannabe he was, made products which fall only into the latter category. Using his noted...presentations...helps NOT in defining necessary distinctions.

LLAP

J:D

Edited March 9, 2007 by John Dailey

[reason.on]

As the old architectural adage goes, form follows function.

As an interesting side note, I want to highlight Sullivan's brief description of the dictum:

All things in nature have a shape, that is to say, a form, an outward semblance, that tells us what they are, that distinguishes them from ourselves and from each other. -- Unfailingly in nature these shapes express the inner life, the native quality, of the animal, tree, bird, fish, that they present to us; they are so characteristic, so recognizable, that we say, simply, it is 'natural' it should be so.

...in addition to the fact that FLW* actually took the lieber-meister's maxim one step further, and modified it to say "form is function" or "form and function are one".

RCR

*Mies van der Rohe also promoted the notion that "form is function", but with much different results.

Edited March 9, 2007 by R. Christian Ross

[John Dailey]

RCR:

~ I'm not up on all re 'in-depth' understanding of historical architects' (or, 'artists', ftm) philosophies/views, yet, regarding your favored (and mine!) quote of Sullivan, truly, methinks we really should try to identify...and agree on...a context here. As soon as I saw the term 'nature', I immediately thought of a contrary-to-intended meaning a la Rand's ref to the lightning-destroyed tree which Dagny saw. Here, mesees a metaphor for too much 'modern art/architecture': 'form' showing no more than a shell of a former function the form rides on the reputation/meaning of.

~ I then thought that Sullivan intendedly meant "function DETERMINES [the 'proper'] form" and that FLW took that and pushed the envelope on.

~ I finally think that architecture debates should, like music (except where 'crossovers' are unavoidable), be in a uniquely separate thread. I mean, 'art' is big enough to keep track of in already 3 threads.

LLAP

J:D

[Victor Pross]

RCR:

~ I'm not up on all re 'in-depth' understanding of historical architects' (or, 'artists', ftm) philosophies/views, yet, regarding your favored (and mine!) quote of Sullivan, truly, methinks we really should try to identify...and agree on...a context here. As soon as I saw the term 'nature', I immediately thought of a contrary-to-intended meaning a la Rand's ref to the lightning-destroyed tree which Dagny saw. Here, mesees a metaphor for too much 'modern art/architecture': 'form' showing no more than a shell of a former function the form rides on the reputation/meaning of.

~ I then thought that Sullivan intendedly meant "function DETERMINES [the 'proper'] form" and that FLW took that and pushed the envelope on.

~ I finally think that architecture debates should, like music (except where 'crossovers' are unavoidable), be in a uniquely separate thread. I mean, 'art' is big enough to keep track of in already 3 threads.

LLAP

J:D

John,

God bless your honest and context-keeping ass. Ever since I have been railing against “modern art,” I thought my intention was clear to speak against things like toilet Installation and anything involving excrement...and the like. Is my objection to this so objectionable?? When did I become Chuck watching the fucking chimp on the pony? What kind of a world is this? Instead, I have had Frank Wright shoved up my ass with a teeth bared challenge “So you saying Wright has no skill!?” Man, I think it’s perfectly clear what is being argued by me, and I’m mystified by the ensuing food-fights.

Victor

edit: I agree that the whole form and function jazz is really stretching it, and it reeks of argumentum desperation.

Edited March 9, 2007 by Victor Pross

[John Dailey]

Vic:

~ Whodaf***is'Chuck'?

~ Da'Rifleman'? (Hey, he's ok, like 'good' [sharp gotta-practice-with rifle!], but: huh?)

LLAP

J:D

[Victor Pross]

Vic:

~ Whodaf***is'Chuck'?

~ Da'Rifleman'? (Hey, he's ok, like 'good' [sharp gotta-practice-with rifle!], but: huh?)

LLAP

J:D

Charlton Heston (born John Charles Carter on October 4, 1924) is an iconic Academy Award-winning American film actor! I had Planet of the Apes in mind when I wrote my above post. I use that example when I wish to communicate my frustration with a world turned up-side down—as I find it to be with the “art world.” (“It’s a maaaaaad house!”)

[John Dailey]

Vic:

~ Oh! Him. Only 'Chuck' I was really aware of was Connors.

"DAMN them! DAMN THEM A-L-L-L-L !!!"

LLAP

J:D