July 12, 2008
Eh, beets.
——————-
There is a nother artist meeting, on Thursday, at the same place as last time, and once again from 5 to 7 pm. I only have one picture there, though (everybody only has one), and if you’ve read this website with your eyes for any length of time you’ve surely seen it before. Additionally, if you actually are a resident of the new haven area you’d be better off coming to my own house to see… my junk, at least, because all my pictures from the previous showing are currently imprisoned within an oblong box on my porch.
————–
Page 22, it seems, of this. You may be surprised to learn that I do not own a ruler.
Cookie Crook sez:
I’m a bit occupied/strapped for cash at the moment, so I may have to forego this one. In any case, you should probably request a better exhibition space in the future. One that is actually an exhibition space, for eksempel.
Concerning the comic, the implicit message of this page is clearly that dopes ought to be illegal; however, the implication of this implication is that dopes are, at present, legal. This is not a comforting thought.
Slengof sez:
I may have to forego the silly exhibition. Although I admit I’m a bit interested to see what other types of works will be represented (last time I had seen most of it in advance), I fear that I cannot maintain the interest for long unless I can focus the attention somehow onto me. Although there should be a greater number of artists to experiment on and an overall better chance of finding ones who are willing to talk to me plus not be boring, I will have less material and… well that joint was quite crowded enough with just six persons’ acquaintances.
There are plans for a plan to appear someplace else, unaffiliated with the New Havenoids, but my would-be accomplice unfortunately has been residing in Maryland since around this time in 2007, and now seems unlikely to return on anything but more of the infrequent brief visits the past year has seen.
It is possible that at this point in the “story” dopes have not yet been recognized for the menaces they are. Or maybe they have been but people forgot. Should I interpret your use of “implicit” to mean you understood that the illegal comment was directed at the door and not said with knowledge of the dope? I still struggle with clarity. And everything.
Crooked Cook sez:
‘Twas perfectly clear that the door was the intended target, and that by good fortune the statement also happened to aply to the dope who appeared just as it was being uttered. Such multiple levels of interpetation add richness and depth to a work.