Friday, March 16, 2007

Pressies for Press

Jen Graves has written an impressively thorough article on the question of where the practical ethical guideline boundaries are in the artist-critic-gifts triangle. Fueled by an earlier blog post in which Jen discussed whether it was appropriate for the regionally powerful, Seattle-based critic Matthew Kangas to write about work without disclosing that he owned it:

Matthew Kangas, a longtime critic for the Seattle Times, wrote the essay in the brochure for the exhibition of paintings and drawings by Mary Henry at the Wright Exhibition Space. [...]

What the brochure doesn’t say is that he owns one of the paintings and one of the drawings in the show, a credible source let slip to me the other day. In the checklist, those are listed simply as the property of an unnamed “Private collection.”
Jen called Kangas' lack of transparency "outrageous" and then dropped this bombshell:

I’ve had several Seattle artists over the years tell me that Kangas has not been above exacting payment of one sort or another for his editorial services. If they are telling the truth, then why does this persist?
which lead to the longer article exploring the issue in depth.

Others have blogged about this already, including discussions at
Off Center, Artworld Salon, and Grammar.police.

The stories' a bit more complicated that it seems (or at least the analysis Jen provides is more multidimensional that one might expect), but the evidence, without the analysis is pretty damning:

Early in his career, the Seattle artist Charlie Krafft...says he got a phone call from Kangas.

Kangas had written a positive review of Krafft's work.

"He just opened the conversation by saying, 'When would it be convenient for you to have me over to select something?'" Krafft said in a phone interview. "I didn't want to give him anything, really, but I did it. It was an extortion. He's a character, and I appreciate him, but I think it's predatory."

Eight other artists also on the record say that—from the 1980s to 2005—Kangas, either by direct request or "cleverly worded implication," as artist Jeffry Mitchell put it, solicited them for gifts of art. Most of the artists say the requests came after a review, and none of the artists say they believe Kangas's opinions were influenced by their gifts or their refusals.

After Kangas's 1995 review of Alice Wheeler's photography show at Vox Populi was published in Art in America, he called her, she said. "It was like, 'Okay, the review's out, when can I come over to pick out some art? We also need to go to lunch and we're going to Palomino and you're buying,'" she said. "I thought it was what I had to do." She gave him two pictures and spent $75 on lunch, she said. "My rent was $285 at the time, so it was a lot of money. I like Matthew; I just think that some of what he does is manipulative and BS."
Jen then provides an incredible service by polling some of the nation's top critics for a mini-consensus on the ethical boundaries here. As he often does, NY critic Jerry Saltz offered a poignant and passionate position on the issue:

"I find it appalling that a critic would ask an artist for a work of art—good review or bad," Saltz wrote in an e-mail. "It's as sick as an artist asking a critic for a review, good or bad. It's more than tacky; it's corrupt and clueless. You might as well advertise good reviews on Craigslist."
Jen is generous, IMO, in pointing out that there's no evidence that Kangas "was biased by his collecting." She even goes so far as to explain that there's a difference between a critic that a community of artists sees as an advocate and one they see as being more objective, with it being somewhat understandable that artists see an "embedded" writer as one of their own first, and perhaps as a journalist second.

Being in New York, where the guidelines are more clear (The New York Times, for example, states clearly that "An arts writer or editor who owns art of exhibition quality [and thus has a financial stake in the reputation of the artist] may inspire questions about the impartiality of his or her critical judgments or editing decisions" and has an injunction against gifts worth more than $25.00), it's difficult for me to understand the empathy in Seattle for Kangas. He clearly made a good number of artists very uncomfortable with his gift receiving, if not right out encouraging, policy. To me, that's his biggest sin. It's tough enough for young artists to feel their way through the quagmire of unwritten rules without authority figures taking advantage of their unwillingness to jeopardize their opportunities in a realm where it's unclear what consequences await for those who stand up for themselves. In other words, it's opportunistic and more than a bit brutish, if true.

I highly recommend the article and the other blog posts discussing it. Here, however, I'm curious if other artists have experienced this...especially in New York.

Labels: ,

44 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yes.

3/16/2007 05:14:00 PM  
Blogger Edward_ said...

willing to share details?

I'm generally opposed to outing folks in a forum as free-form and often anonymously authored as blogs, so, use your discretion in naming names, but within the realm of what you're comfortable sharing, can you tell us more, with an eye toward helping other artists avoid this?

3/16/2007 05:18:00 PM  
Anonymous cnonymous said...

How is this different from gallerists expecting sex from their artists?

Both are exploitation, pure and simple.

3/16/2007 05:46:00 PM  
Blogger Edward_ said...

I don't think it is different. Gallerists doing that are unquestionably acting unethcially.

Why do you bring that up?

3/16/2007 05:49:00 PM  
Blogger burrito brother said...

Kangas sounds pretty lame. I think this is really a bigger issue in smaller art markets where there are only 1 or 2 outlets for art writing (not including blogs)and people are more desperate for press. It's a sticky issue though. If he wasn't given a piece of art, do you think he would really deny that artist a review in the future? Frankly, I doubt it. And it's not like he's wheeling and dealing all the Charlie Krafft's and Jeffry Mitchell's that he made off with, you know, bank-rolling that stuff and putting it in an off-shore account... I think he probably just really likes art and is poor and wants to live with it. I'm not saying he has the right to do what he did, but as far as criminals in the art world go, he's pretty low on the food chain don't you think?

3/16/2007 06:42:00 PM  
Anonymous lisa said...

thank you for the summary of this story, as i have come across it in bits and pieces not knowing the origins. I think the point of whether he received gifts before or after publication is probably a major point, in regards to whether there is any legal wrongdoing.

I've seen plenty of examples of this sort of thing in often more sinister versions, from magazines, dealers, collectors, auction houses AND museums. More sinister as they are a little bit more veiled and somehow outside of the view of legal or public scrutiny

3/16/2007 07:35:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

E:

Are you reading the previous posts?

They don't get it!

...my god!

3/16/2007 09:20:00 PM  
Anonymous martin said...

what do you think about critics, employed by schools, who consistently write about artists from those institutions? or curators hired by schools to do visiting artist gigs, who consistently curate that schools students into shows?

doesn't that type of behavior pretty much guarantee further paid gigs at the promoted institution?

why are schools hiring so many curators and critics as studio visitors? because they can teach artists better than other artists?

this type of buying of critics and curators is a much larger and stealthier problem, i think, than the issue of art lovers/writers collecting art.

i mean, at least charlie finch always seems to state that he owns the work of the artist he is writing about.

3/16/2007 11:18:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Carefull Martin. You are getting close to talking about the real conflicts now.

3/17/2007 12:04:00 AM  
Anonymous Cedric Caspesyan said...

Hey wait a minute...Why would I want to go with a gallerist if I can't fuck them??



Cedric Caspesyan
centiment@hotmail.com

3/17/2007 01:40:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I took a graduate seminar at Hunter on conspiring against Martin

3/17/2007 04:05:00 AM  
Anonymous sally-go-round said...

I think the point of bringing up sex is that it is invisible, but pretty much the root of the evil of the power-play. And I use this siren all the time. I have morals, which I'll employ when I get in a position to deploy them, by which time I'll have the cutest little toy boy saddled by my side. And service will have thus flipped.

And right, Keep it very formal Martin, please, no reality creeping in.

3/17/2007 09:37:00 PM  
Blogger Edward_ said...

Martin wrote:

what do you think about critics, employed by schools, who consistently write about artists from those institutions? or curators hired by schools to do visiting artist gigs, who consistently curate that schools students into shows? [...] this type of buying of critics and curators is a much larger and stealthier problem, i think, than the issue of art lovers/writers collecting art.

This is a serious question, but to be clear, there's a big difference between "collecting" art and extorting it.

About your question though, I agree there's potential for a significant conflict of interest there.

Generally speaking, regarding the invidual gigs, as opposed to constant employment though, having been invited to visit schools and/or lecture, I can tell you the honorarium for such gigs isn't likely to approach the kind of money we're talking about when discussing free paintings or what have you unless said critic does them every day of the year. In other words, I can't imagine it buys someone off. There is the possibility, you realize, that being invited to do crits or whatever does sometimes lead to discovery of artists one is geuninely interested in. Not every artists at those institutions is written about equally (and it's hard to expect critics/curators to write about/work with artists they don't know exist), so I think the suggestion that artists being singled out are otherwise unworthy is a bit of a stretch.

But there's an implication of favoritism in you comment that I suspect is tied to a real, versus an abstract, example. Care to share?

3/18/2007 10:49:00 AM  
Anonymous oriane said...

Yes, there have been many references here to other unethical events, but nobody seems to want to get specific (except for Martin, and I agree with Ed that that is a potential area for conflict of interest, but on a much smaller scale than what Kangas is doing, and could have its own thread).

The art world is not regulated in the way that other fields are, so there is a lot of questionable activity that falls into a sort of gray area (not "illegal", but perhaps immoral or unethical). I find the Kangas story shocking in its blatant exploitation. I don't see a lot of gray area here, but I agree that Jen was more than generous to Kangas with regard to his possible motives (or lack thereof) and his position in the community.

I also found it interesting that when some artists expressed reservations, he told them that this was common practice in NY. Of course, his model was Clement Greenberg, not exactly a paragon of (impartial) virtue. Also, that was a good half-century ago. Does anyone have any recent experience with this in NY or other large markets? Disguise your voice, don't give names if you don't want to, but some one of you anons, tell! Enquiring minds want to know!

3/18/2007 11:59:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

My gallery made an agreement with me to take a cut of any painting that will be shown and subsequently sold by any other galleries. Wether in or out of the U.S.

I have been dropped by my galleries outside of the states and the West coast because no other gallery wants to have a cut taken from their 50%. This applies to even older work too. My entire inventory.

Now this gallery is my sole representation. And new places that approach me don't want to touch me with that provision attached.

My main gallery insinuated that they would only back me in direct relation as much as I put back into them.

I don't want to lose this gallery but I don't want to have other galleries walk away from me as untouchable and lose new venues that would expose me to a wider audience.

Any advice would be appreciated.

3/18/2007 04:07:00 PM  
Anonymous Cedric Caspesyan said...

Can you end, destroy that contract?


My previous comment meant that I put any artist responsible for the situations they put themselves in.

I can't cry for an artist who gives their work to Kangas. It's their problem. I would have shown a big FU. Stop all this whining-victimism.


Instead of coming like a hidden rabbit hre, dear anonymous, find the nerve to tell your gallerist that you don't like the deal anymore. Go elsewhere.

If you fear that you will loose everything, than why are you an artist? You don't believe in your art.

Cheers,

Cedric Caspesyan
centiment@hotmail.com

3/18/2007 06:59:00 PM  
Anonymous dannielynn's daddy said...

Cedric, you're a little hard on someone who is asking for help. I agree that we artists should not be victims, should stand up for ourselves, but the "tough love" approach isn't always the best. Maybe we could give this anon artist some ideas, some strategies for how to talk with the dealer about the problem.

But, yes, asking about the duration of the agreement, or contract, is a good starting point.

3/18/2007 07:04:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

cedric is out of line

3/18/2007 07:11:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think that first of all a gallery that wants that kind of control and thinks they deserve it should be hooking you up with out of town galleries themseves.

The gallery that reped me in NY, pretty much played that role for me, in that they pretty much hooked me up with dealers in other cities that they felt work well for me.

this percentage issue did come up.

3/18/2007 07:30:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Cedric, I don't think walking away or completely breaking contract is necessary , nor does that mean I don't believe in my art.

At the time I agreed I did not understand the long term implications. Thanks for responding, but constructive help would be more appreciated than your anger and name calling. Sorry we can't all be as knowlegeable as you.

-DLD- it was just a hand shake agreement, the duration being as long as it worked for the both of us.

My problem is that if I re-negotiate at this late date, I may be treated more as a consignment fly by night artist by that gallery.

3/18/2007 07:34:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Thanks DLD and anon 7:30, and 7:11
-original anon

3/18/2007 07:36:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon 7:30 -

Yes that is exactly true-I appreciate your input.
In that case I think that makes perfect sense and would not question the percentage sharing, in fact it is well deserved.

I am worried about the grey areas: what about if a gallery contacted you directly for incusion in a group show, and it had nothing to do with the NY gallery hooking you up with them :

Would you still have to tell them about your NY gallery's percentage or would that be scot free? As in you would just deal directly with them?

Or did the percentage cover all dealings, period?

That is my main concern here-the peripheral places that I knew before and after. I am just trying to figure out what is normal in the circumstance you described. I am so glad to have this forum to ask questions. Thank you all.

3/18/2007 07:53:00 PM  
Anonymous Cedric Caspesyan said...

Angry is just a facade.

I have absolutely no reasons to be angry. Not for this topic anyway.

I'm not knowledgeable, I was simply trying to shake you a little.

Sorry if "hidden rabbit" was received as an insult.It was not exactly my intention.

Frankly, I think other people here are better suit to advise you. I've functioned a lot with "attitude" but paid the price many times for it. I'm more of the "everything or nothing" category but everyone is different and have its own way.

But yes, you have nothing but shake-hand agreement. That means you are in power to say "no more".
The best would be to advise your gallerist that you are about to say "no more", that you think as an artist you deserve the encouragement of other gallerists.

Also, look out at the way they work when they exhibit works from other gallerists. Are they being fair trade?

In the end, you will meet some day gallerists that will sport "out of line" attitudes like mine, the artworld is simply full of bitches as this thread suggest, so you have to be ready for everything. Prepare a solution in case they drop you out. But for the sake of your dignity I would not suggest hiding your feelings any further.

Thanks

Cedric Caspesyan
centiment@hotmail.com

3/18/2007 08:29:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

One thing that people on the other coast might not realize is how one critic over here in this neck of the woods could have so much power over the years. In the artists' starry-eyed minds, this critic was THE gateway to a national magazine. It's easy to say 'give them the big FU' in hindsight. Of course it is entirely possible that their career would carry on the same - whether they have that review or not, whether they give a work or not, but they don't know that. The what-ifs are in their brain ... and it's not like there was an immense amount of activity to compare it to like you have in NY. It's more isolated, every single circumstance, which took all these years to come to light.

3/18/2007 09:36:00 PM  
Anonymous Cedric Caspesyan said...

Hey, I just had a flash about this issue.

Has any artist here had their gallerist give them their 50 percent rightaway, only to keep the work and sell it later at a much higher price?

Is that ethical?

Also, any artist feels like they have to give a "birthday" gift
each year to their gallerist, presumably an art piece?


As for the problem of showing when there is only one critic, the solution is to move around and show elsewhere. In fact, any artist should move around, even new yorkers, it's healthy.

Cheers,

Cedric Caspesyan
centiment@hotmail.com
(presently curating "Gaol Of Pandore: Donations From The Collection Of Matthew Kangas", coming soon to an ICA near you)

3/19/2007 12:24:00 AM  
Anonymous Lady Lorraine said...

Anonymous said...
"My gallery made an agreement with me to take a cut of any painting that will be shown and subsequently sold by any other galleries. Wether in or out of the U.S.

I have been dropped by my galleries outside of the states and the West coast because no other gallery wants to have a cut taken from their 50%. This applies to even older work too. My entire inventory.

Now this gallery is my sole representation. And new places that approach me don't want to touch me with that provision attached.

My main gallery insinuated that they would only back me in direct relation as much as I put back into them."

What are they proising in return? Are they supporting you with sales? I think if they are then really the only risk is that you have all your eggs in one basket and they could go out of business. If they are just strong arming you into virtual exclusivity because they feel entitled to do so-- then they need to make it worth it to you.
They have to promise to support you--otherwise they are undermining your attempts to support yourself.

My gallery has this same deal with me--but they are making me a decent living! They work their ass off for me! They really played hardball about the contract and exclusivity (BTW--I do not produce very much) and later I found out that other artists in the gallery had different arrangements.

You all busted Cedric for his tough love--but I think he had a valid point. You really have to stand up for yourself.

3/19/2007 06:51:00 AM  
Blogger George said...

Weighing in on Ed’s original topic.

I think the art community has the right to expect ethical behavior from its critical writers. I do not believe this is a concept too difficult for the average third grader to understand and that the individuals involved should police themselves.

Matthew Kangas failed to do so. On the playground his alleged actions would be considered extortion and therefore wrong, bad on him.

In general the question being addressed is, are we receiving ‘unbiased’ criticism? I would suggest the answer is "no". As Martin alluded, everyone is has a bias, relationships and connections with others in the artworld. I think this is normal, it reflects the interests of the participants and provides a point of view.

What we have a right to expect is ethical behavior, no quid pro quo exchange of goods for services. Transparency in reporting for situations where the writer has a vested interest.

Is the ownership of artworks by insiders as big an issue as might be implied? In such cases, the writers should be open about it. Further, I do not think you can enforce ‘ethics’ by policy, either a person is ethical or not, so collecting ‘thrift store’ art over a young artists work, doesn’t say much about anything but taste.

3/19/2007 08:41:00 AM  
Blogger Edward_ said...

Weighing in on Ed’s original topic.

Phew...I was wondering if there was a path back.

I'll do a later post on Primary galleries and their expectations and how to negoiate, or at least recommend they work with other galleries toward what's best for individual artists. For now, though, the question of this thread is whether artists have had critics extort work in return for praise. The lack of folks jumping in to say "yes" seems to imply it's not at all common.

3/19/2007 08:52:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I'm not sure what is being asked? Are gifts forbidden. Or is extortion immoral? I give gifts, and receive them all the time. Friends trade, because that's the currency we deal in. We don't have surplus loads of cash. I'm not sure Edw. are you suggesting that it sucks inner trades and transactions, and that they are poor, even in an artist / writer/ curator / clan base? Or is it only relevant and poor when there is clear leverage?
I would like to mention, in friendship, we are all working towards the one goal: Art and its leverage. So when a writer asks me to pay for their lunch I would consider the balance: how much cash I have, who the writer is, and what the outcome might be! I doubt that is in any way an unethical process of thinking.

Btw My studio is full of trades. I check my colleagues studio's have the piece by me, on show, somewhere]. It's a very important communication, flat and simple, a clear and open professional and business communication.

3/19/2007 10:20:00 AM  
Blogger Edward_ said...

I'm not sure what is being asked? Are gifts forbidden. Or is extortion immoral? I give gifts, and receive them all the time.

Come on Anonymous...the examples above were pretty clear that the artists felt pressured, and that they wouldn't have given the work to the critic without the pressure to do so. Is extortion immoral??? To most people, yes!

So when a writer asks me to pay for their lunch I would consider the balance: how much cash I have, who the writer is, and what the outcome might be! I doubt that is in any way an unethical process of thinking.

I can't believe you're serious. You'd pay for a good review in hopes it would what, fool other people (or yourself) into thinking more of your art than they would if they simply saw it themsleves? I mean I know press has power to change attitudes, but I didn't think the artist in question was one of them.

We truly are in Bush's America now, aren't we?

3/19/2007 10:37:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

You'd pay for a good review in hopes it would what, fool other people (or yourself) into thinking more of your art than they would if they simply saw it themsleves?

Edw. of course, they were not my words.
I consider the situation, which is often quite complex, which sometimes results in a natural process.
I think this is the norm!

3/19/2007 11:02:00 AM  
Blogger Lisa Hunter said...

There's a good discussion of this topic in Sophy Burnham's book The Art Crowd. Apparently, extorting art for reviews used to be quite common.

But as for the New York Times, I can vouch that their critics are on the up and up. I worked with several of them when I was a museum publicist. They wouldn't even let me buy them coffee at the museum cafe. Grace Gleuck fished change out of her purse rather than be indebted to me for a cup of watery caffeine.

3/19/2007 11:19:00 AM  
Blogger Edward_ said...

It is most definitely not the norm for an artist to pay (via art or lunch or whatever) for a favorable review, under any circumstances. The cases noted in the main post were of a critic coming to an artist after a favorable review and implying that payment was due. That is NOT the norm.

I consider the situation, which is often quite complex, which sometimes results in a natural process.


In searching for some comfortable gray area here, you seem to be blending the processes of developing friendship with those of developing professional relationships. It's very important, ethically speaking, to keep them separate.

I have plenty of friends who are critics, and we party, and I sometimes pay and they sometimes pay, and on the odd occassion when there's no conflict of interest one of them might write about an exhibition in our space. I trust them to be objective in doing so, and when I don't like what they write, I keep it to myself. They're doing their job and we'll have more exhibitions later (besides, they might have a point [insert "using a hat to cover it up" joke here] we should consider).

There's nothing complex, ethically speaking, about it. We don't encourage any exchange of any sort for the review, nor would we respond kindly to any insinuation that we should. We respect what we're doing too much for that.

I believe the same clear standards apply to galleries and artists alike. Complexity is for explaining away incidents of abuse, not for understanding where the boundaries are.

3/19/2007 11:24:00 AM  
Anonymous ml said...

One more scenario, E. How many reviews in magazines are of galleries which don't advertise with the magazine? And I know of several cases where an artist hired an art writer/critic to write a catalog essay in expectation that the catalog essay would become an article in an art magazine where the writer/critic works. Is this unethical or just good business?

3/19/2007 11:39:00 AM  
Blogger Edward_ said...

How many reviews in magazines are of galleries which don't advertise with the magazine?

Not enough to satisfy anyone really. But there are not enough reviews by galleries that do advertise to satisfy them either.

And I know of several cases where an artist hired an art writer/critic to write a catalog essay in expectation that the catalog essay would become an article in an art magazine where the writer/critic works. Is this unethical or just good business?

Artists should hire the best writers they can for their catalogs, not the most stratgic, IMO. It's natural to hope that association with a powerful critic might lead to future press, but basing your choice for your catalog writer on that isn't unethical as much as it's unwise. How many catalogs are you going to publish in your career? You want each one to be stellar, not merely strategic (what happens if that writer leaves that publication or whatever?). Get the best essay for your work you can. It will hold up to the test of time. Critics' power and/or affilations change.

3/19/2007 12:00:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have had many previous professional dealings with Matthew Kangas. He is not the only critic I have dealt with but surely he has always been the exception. I have never been approached with such obvious unethical behavior by any other critic in New York or Seattle.

Having seen Mr. Kangas in action, he is not nice and once while slaughtering a new young curator to her face, serving her entrails with a side of un-professionalism he then proceeded to write her a
favorable review, that is after they had lunch a few days later. (He was actually yelling at her and waving his finger in her face, repeating, "un-professional... immature...", yelling, she was near tears.) That's just one thing in a long list.

It's all true, he is a cruel mooch. He wants free lunches and dinners, and weed, and art. It is ludicrous but it is nice to know that all might be a memory for all parties involved. I've had my share of dealings and am happy he is no longer in the circle of humans I need to deal with.

Dealing with Matthew was always so blatant, in the end he would write whatever he wanted regardless of his attempts at extortion. He is opportunistic.

On another note I knew an Artist who send a Critic a small artwork and the Critic returned it by mail with no note. The Artist was appalled that a gift would be returned. So people need to learn.

3/19/2007 12:25:00 PM  
Anonymous David said...

Artists should hire the best writers they can for their catalogs, not the most strategic...

In that case I'm going to skip art critics altogether and see if Thomas Pynchon is available.

3/19/2007 12:28:00 PM  
Anonymous Damien Hearst (Patty's brother) said...

I can't believe you're serious. You'd pay for a good review in hopes it would what, fool other people (or yourself) into thinking more of your art than they would if they simply saw it themsleves? I mean I know press has power to change attitudes, but I didn't think the artist in question was one of them.

I think the point is to fool other people into actually looking at your work at all, since without a review they may never bother.

Artists, unfortunately, need reviews, in order to get galleries, curators and others who can affect their careers to even pay attention to what they're doing. An artist with great work and no press has no career.

3/19/2007 12:46:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Damien Hearst (Patty's brother)

Ha!

3/19/2007 12:52:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

An artist with great work and no press has no career.
Thanks patty's brother. For a moment all I could see was the pizza guy.
And Edw. thanks for your time. Interesting thoughts.

3/19/2007 07:40:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Pizza guy? I don't get it. Inside joke?

3/19/2007 09:09:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Just the opposite, anon. 09:09:00 PM, it's an outside joke... you pay the pizza guy right! And that's as far as it goes. Unless you start dating. So seeing the pizza guy is like staring at those options, kind of buried in Edw's heartfelt replies leaving me staring at the pizza guy thinking, now is that a realistic way to go?
Long explanation!

BTW I paid for the pizza, the guy is gone;)

3/19/2007 09:44:00 PM  
Anonymous Damien said...

Anon, save me a slice or two would you? I'll pitch in, unless of course you want me to write a review of your work :)

3/20/2007 01:08:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

3/20/2007 07:23:00 AM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home