Just saying.

The most sad song ever is quite possibly Dream Scream by Daniel Johnston. It is so incredibly gorgeous.

Rant 1: I've noticed the increasing popularity of applying Deleuze (and often the D & Guattari combo) to pretty much anything. Case in point, the following comment from a BlogTO post about a local clothing designer's over-priced, paint-splattered t-shirts:

"Leave it to the philistine BlogTO commenters to completely fail to understand one of the few exciting, innovative designers that hasn't yet been driven from the city. These pieces are a puissant exploration of the themes of difference and BwO (bodies-without-organs) developed in the work of Deleuze & Guattari -- but don't expect the illiterate, uncultured boors commenting here to pick up on any of those nuances. Obviously that level of engagement with art would be just too much to ask of the typical stewing-in-ressentiment, middle-brow Torontonians. Vive la mediocrite! Maybe we should all just read Harry Potter and blog about how great Crocs and Ugg boots are. Would that make you people happy?" - Helen Winthrop-Brougham, disgruntled snob.

Photos of these "puissant explorations of the themes of difference" can be found at Rowe's website. The shirts sell for 95 bucks a piece. Need I even comment on the digusting tone of this comment? Am I missing something? This epitomizes to me the problem with conceptual art and the indiscrimate throwing-around-of-concepts to justify bad art. Sure, its a t-shirt. If you like how it looks, fine. I wouldn't mind throwing around some paint on shit, too. But "innovative?" No. "Exciting?" God help us if this counts as exciting. And don't jazz it up and criticize others for having (perfectly legit, if you are intelligent and socially-conscious) concerns about it. Conceptual art is not all bad and some if it is great. But in my opinion, there is still a line - even in the realm of conceptual art - between good and bad art. And the commoditization and elitism of intellectualism isn't new, but lets at least minimize it. It's a far stretch to apply concepts of difference and bodies-without-organs to paint-splattered t-shirts, especially when there is no such connections mentioned by the "artist."

Rant 2: This article about cunnilingus from Cuntlove is really great - the writer's "take" on an article from here about the "25 Things Not to Do When Eating Out." It irks me because a lot of people take "guides" such as these completely seriously. (Do they?) I hope not, because I enjoy 14 out of the 25 things on the list, and thank god I'm not a close-mouthed sexual partner. I guess my main rule is: talk to your partner and let them know what you like/what you would like to do to them. More or less simple advice depending on the person, I suppose.


  1. Oh my. I thought you only read this kind of class warfare in novels, that is literally the snobbiest snobbery I've ever read! Has this person seen The Squid and the Whale? - a good indicator that saying philistine is a good way to mark yourself as an asshole.

    We probably don't get it, though :)

  2. How on earth does random splattered paint express D&G's concept of the Body Without Organs?! I'm lost. Their theories are actually far more approachable and practical than pretentious snobs want to admit. As a pretty huge Deleuze fan and someone who has used D&G in an art project before, this totally grosses me out. Not everyone who enjoys theory and conceptual art is this condescending and lame, ha.

  3. Talk, yes. Key.


  4. Michael - I love Squid and the Whale! Yeah.
    Starla/Karen - Agreed. This kind of shit ruins it for the rest of us. Applying Deleuze to the Gulch project actually made sense; the above just confuses me.
    Otto - talk talk.

  5. deleuze is the new mcdonald's.


    frederick is the lollipop, i think.

    guides are for the lost; passion knows no direction. no?