To be honest, I can't tell if (e:Robin) is being facetious. There isn't enough drugs out there that I could put in my body to convince me that somehow this woman from Georgia is a victim in this debacle. Sheer lunacy.

Did she break laws? Technically, yes actually. She literally wasted millions of dollars of PUBLIC TAX MONEY because she got cold feet. Just on that alone she can be brought up on charges and any rational person will come to the conclusion that she should. Feminazis and NOW have no defense for this woman.

That really isn't the worst of it though. Like (e:Ajay) very astutely pointed out, she did the one thing that a white Southern chick from the priveliged class would stereotypically do - blame it on a minority when it was her fault the whole time. There is absolutely no question that an apology from her is in order. Anybody who knows their American history knows that in the mid-1800's South a lot of white girls who had sex with black boys got away scott-free while the black boys went ahead and got murdered. Fast forward to 2005 - nobody is getting killed but its plainly obvious that there must be some Southern gene that this lady has that instinctively makes her blame other people for things she herself perpetrated.

I feel bad for the guy that she was going to marry, but then again he should be thanking whatever Lord he believes in that he doesn't have to be caught up with this woman ever again if he so chooses. Actually he should feel lucky - maybe he wasn't astute enough to realize what kind of woman this lady is... and who knows why really? Maybe she has money, maybe the sex was really good. Either way, now he is free to find another girl who is more mentally stable and isn't racist.

(e:ajay) - Does art need explanation? I would like to go further and ask, "Does art need meaning to be considered art?"

If art is art, then it doesn't matter where its staged. My father was up here last Monday and he thought that our downstair neighbors ashtray had the butts arranged in an interesting pattern, so he took a picture of it... for him that was art.

(e:Drchlorine) said something interesting and worth repeating -

:Another loser: the intentional alienation of the audience. You can convey the ideas of alienation or confusion without actually alienating or confusing your audience. Employing metaphors and giving NO CLUE as to their meaning anywhere else in the work is one way that artists may commit this foul. Any art that does this without allowing the concession of "the components are open to interpretation" is a sham. You can find the same sort of Tom-foolery from authors of theoretical or philosophical texts. These egg-heads intentionally make their work incomprehensible, knowing full well that if anyone outside of their academic priesthood knew what the hell they were saying, they'd be out of the job.

Something that is intrinsic in its beauty doesn't need explanation, but if an artist creates something that is intentionally devoid of meaning what is it other than just an odd combination of ingredients and nothing more? As far as I'm concerned, art in the classification that Dr. C outlined is nothing more than a shop project. If people can't find beauty or meaning in a piece of art then it isn't art. The worst kind of "art" is the kind in the italicized quote above... people want to see what YOU have to say as an artist - they don't care about what THEY have to say as viewers of art because they already knew that before they showed up to see your installation.

(e:Southernyankee) Hi. :) I'm actually going to be starting a new training routine soon so I can sympathize - the one used by the U.S. Army Rangers. Maybe thats a little hardcore, but the only thing I can think of offhand is the usual generic advice of starting small and working your way up. I think its very cool that you are doing that bikeride - if you ask me completing something like that is a big accomplishment, and I for one am hella impressed!

e-strippers - I made an abhorration of a smoothie today and I need some advice. I used bananas, plums, some odd cross between a tangerine and an orange, ice and some pre-fab mixed juice. The taste is pleasant, if not a bit too tart for me... but visually the smoothie looks like someone dropped flecks of truffle into my drink. Gross... Any ideas for some different fruit combos for a kick ass smoothie?

(e:Jasonsback) - Fuck off! I'm not evil. I'm Machiavellian, self-confident and monolithic but not evil! :)

Anyhow I'm not particularly concerned with being "accepted" - that is shit that high school kids worry about. I'm just here to chat. If I were gagging for love and acceptance I would get a puppy.

(e:angryshortkid) - I somewhat share in your pain. What I'm interested in is whether or not a certain % decrease in payroll will end up reflecting in an equal % decrease in ticket prices here. In some markets hockey will always be expensive to watch, but I think to an extent hockey has gotten to be an expensive ("expensive" being relative) commodity here. I still have my stub from the '97 playoffs where we sat in the corner, 4 rows from the ice - $45. that same seat 3 years later - us vs. The Pens (Haseks last game as a Sabre!) cost $110 a seat. The bottom line is that families are priced out of regular attendance, yet families are really the NHL's key demographic in small markets.

What stinks even worse about this, IMO, is the infrastructure thats affected by the lack of NHL hockey here. Lots of businesses and various establishments count on that seasonal revenue, and in our case we had an entire sports network disappear simply because their ace in the hole was the Sabres. Loss of money, loss of jobs... not a happy time for us regardless if you are a sports fan or not.

(e:Hodown) - insofar as there is a measured number of New Yorkers who hated it, I think their estimation was correct. :) People who happen to appreciate the manhours and can somehow derive some sort of artistic merit are also more than welcome to their opinion and I certainly respect it. However lets not pretend that there aren't a measured number of New Yorkers who aren't EXACTLY as I described. I know that the funding was entirely the artists, but for me "patronizing" means more than just paying for things, so I suppose I should have been more clear. If you go to Albright-Knox on Sundays for free, or any other gallery, you are patronizing the arts by attending. Maybe I generalized but like I said, I was being cynical! :P I think tourists will dig it because it will be something interesting to photograph. Tourists always have been and always will be ubiquitous in New York, don't rough them up too bad! Haha. :)

Personally, the work of art that Manhattan has coming to it that will dwarf this particular installation in beauty and importance is the replacement complex for the WTC.

(e:Matthew) - my twin and I never really did any of the cool things twins do, like swap out on dates. Its a shame! However, I do usually do all kinds of dirty work for him so I suppose it evens out. I assure you that my twin is no designer imposter, he is very real.