Thursday, April 10, 2008

Creativity, Dementia and Gallerinas (Again) : Not Necessarily Related

So I wanted to see what I might figure out by comparing two articles on creativity and illness. One from the Washington Post was forwarded to me by George of FutureModern (thanks George!) and deals with how creative expression helps people recover from illness and such:

The approach is based on the assumption that incorporating music, visual art, writing and performance into clinical care can increase feelings of well-being and even improve health -- an assumption that medical researchers are beginning to recognize the need to test with evidence-based studies.

Growing belief in the healing value of the arts was on display last month at a symposium at New York's Museum of Modern Art titled "The Value and Importance of the Arts in Health Care." Participants -- physicians, hospital administrators and artists -- were as upbeat as if they were promoting a miracle drug: Integrating the arts into health care is in vogue, said Leonard Shlain, a laparoscopic surgeon in San Francisco, "because it works."

The other I stumbled across in the Health section of The New York Times and it deals with somewhat the a form of dementia seems to actually increase creative output in its victims:
The disease apparently altered circuits in their brains, changing the connections between the front and back parts and resulting in a torrent of creativity.

“We used to think dementias hit the brain diffusely,” Dr. [Bruce Miller, a neurologist and the director of the Memory and Aging Center at the University of California, San Francisco] said. “Nothing was anatomically specific. That is wrong. We now realize that when specific, dominant circuits are injured or disintegrate, they may release or disinhibit activity in other areas. In other words, if one part of the brain is compromised, another part can remodel and become stronger.”

But we're getting ready for the next art fair (by which I mean the NEXT Art Fair) in Chicago, and so I am too pressed for time to do the comparison-contrast myself at the moment ... but, all means, feel free to see if you find any connections.

Besides, a reader calling themselves "Once a Gallerina" left such a great comment on the "Don't Hassle the Gallerinas" thread, I thought it deserved its own post. I agree with virtually everything Once a Gallerina notes here. I might be a bit more sympathetic to the frustration of artists seeking representation (although not at all sympathetic to those who think they should try to muscle their way into one), but otherwise, this made me smile in that painfully knowing way:
It's amazing to read these comments from people who never were in that position. I once worked as a front-desk person at a fairly well-known Chelsea gallery. I did not have trust funds, etc...and I needed that money. I quickly figured out that it wasn't for me. But I learned a lot about the less-gossiped about aspects of the art business.

The most amazing thing to observe is how truly rude visitors can be and how megalomaniacal so many people are. The gallery management was temperamental and contrary to overall perception, reception is where you sit, but the actual job has very little to do with it. I was also not allowed to leave the gallery for lunch, ever. I am not kidding, at least three times I day there would be a person **demanding** a solo show, a meeting with the director, a teenager asking why he couldn't just "get one of these exhibitions" you do, a request to drop off "portfolios"...people would get very angry, really. At a certain point, you are able to spot the people who are coming in with these kinds of requests. A lot of gallery visitors are not as informed about the gallery system as one would think. Others have transparent agendas.

All of the above would be especially angry that a "little" person would get in the way for their dreams of grandeur. I would always alert the staff if the big collectors were in, curators, museum directors, etc...**that** is the audience the galleries cultivate in order to make sure the artist's work can be seen for the long term.

As for Eric's request for catalogues, are you kidding? Galleries are not going to give away catalogues, only if the press person is writing articles on their artists. That makes sense, don't you think? Galleries work to show and contextualize artists part of it means spending their energy and resources in a focused manner. If every visitor got the attention they wanted, there would be very little accomplished at the end of the day.

People seem to think that galleries are awash with endless amounts of money ... that's not necessarily the case. There is really high overhead.
Consider this an open thread on creativity, dementia and gallerinas--not that I'm implying any connections there, mind you.

Labels: creativity, gallerinas, illness


OpenID ericgelber said...

"As for Eric's request for catalogues, are you kidding? Galleries are not going to give away catalogues, only if the press person is writing articles on their artists."

Wow I got a shout-out! The points this ex-gallery employee bring up do not contradict anything I said. I know that the art world has a lot of crazies living on its fringes and I am sure that it is irritating and degrading to have to deal with them all day. When it comes to the issue of giving art critics catalogs, the galleries might want to consider pinching pennies in different areas. I am on a mission to write about artists who have gotten no or very little press and I am also going to start writing about art that was made exclusively for the Internet or in digital format. So getting catalogs will not be an issue because these artists will not have catalogs produced for them by a gallery. Usually artists who have catalogs produced for them by their gallery have generated a lot or at least some press and a fair to large amount of sales prior to that. What else would anyone expect from a gallery?

4/10/2008 08:57:00 AM  
OpenID ericgelber said...

It is good that someone else said what you wanted to say Ed.

4/10/2008 11:17:00 AM  
Blogger julie said...

There's a blog being written over at artreview by a "Gallery Girl".

Interesting read!

4/10/2008 11:19:00 AM  
Blogger Edward_ said...

It is good that someone else said what you wanted to say Ed.

I generally say what I want to say, despite what William Powhida thinks. ;-P

I merely prefer to let people in question speak for themselves rather than project what I think they must deal with too much. In this case, I've never been a gallerinx, per se.

The post on what it's like to a dealer faced with a sometimes-hostile public is coming...believe me.

4/10/2008 11:28:00 AM  
OpenID twhid said...

I'd like to stick up for the gallerinas. I've found that if one walks in, says friendly 'hello' and goes about one's business in viewing some art, the gallerinas generally are pretty nice. (Except for that weird aging Ken doll that used to sit at that little desk at Mary Boone in Soho. He was kinda freaky.)

Some galleries are horribly layed-out and make it hard to figure out where the gallery ends and the admin areas begin, this can lead to awkward visits if you're not familiar with the gallery (Gagosian in Chelsea comes to mind).

Of course, I still have a soft spot for the galleries that don't use gallerinas. Postmasters is keeping it real :-)

4/10/2008 11:35:00 AM  
Blogger Pretty Lady said...

When I had my gallery, I made a rule for myself that was similar to my idealistic college dating rule--that I'd be courteous to every artist who wanted to show me their work. Both rules lasted about three months.

There are a lot of artists who assume that they have been offered a solo show, simply because you took the time to look at their slides. There are many who fail to follow through on basic requests, such as 'please send me an exhibition proposal,' or 'please hang your whole show before the opening.' There are many artists who feel that it is not their responsibility to show up on time or do what they say they're going to do unless you nag them like three-year-olds. There are many who are social, charming, pro-active, and absolutely terrible artists.

The sense of entitlement, particularly among youngsters, is absurd.

I would think, after all this, that the vast majority of dealers would welcome the opportunity to work with artists who were industrious, responsible, reliable and gifted. These are not always the people who are out schmoozing at openings; they're more likely to be in their studios, making the actual work. You're more likely to find them by looking at slide or online registries, going to community group shows, and paying attention to the quiet, polite people who visit your gallery and don't shove their work down your throat at the first opportunity.

So how many dealers are actually finding their artists this way?

4/10/2008 12:31:00 PM  
Blogger zipthwung said...

Ideally a gallery should be covered in stainless steel diamond plate. Much easier to hose down.

4/10/2008 12:58:00 PM  
OpenID ericgelber said...

Let me try to clear my name. When I ask for information at the gallery desk it is because I am writing about an exhibition and I want as much information that I can get to make the review as worthwhile as it can possibly be. Obviously I don't ask the gallery people for stuff that is readily available online. What would be the point? I get absolutely no ego boost by asking for information and getting it. My requests are based on practical concerns. What would my review be worth if I couldn't even describe how the artist put the work of art together accurately? Nothing.

4/10/2008 01:01:00 PM  
Blogger David said...

On the subject of dementia, one time years ago when I had the flu and was taking a lot of cold medication, I thought I heard singing coming from the dishwasher. Sounded pretty good, kind of like the Talking Heads...

4/10/2008 01:14:00 PM  
Blogger Pretty Lady said...

As regards the creativity, healing and dementia issue--you probably don't want to get me started, but start I will.

Certain filters on consciousness are necessary for physical survival. That is why, in many Eastern countries, it is considered highly dangerous to meditate extensively without a guru; one needs some guidance in the opening of one's mind, or one runs the danger of going completely insane. The idea is to open up gradually, tempering and channelling the process as you go.

Traumas, as well as everyday conformist living (which I consider a trauma :-)) cause blocks in consciousness--an unhealthy, obstructive filter, which eventually creates mental and physical disease. This is why art therapy can be productive--it helps to release those blocks. Whether the 'art' produced in this way has any inherent quality is an open question; my view is that generally, it tends to be, quite literally, shit. It's clearing the passageway for clearer perception to enter. This doesn't mean the person isn't capable of creating high-quality art--clearing the passageway is necessary before the real art can come through.

I consider it a terrible tragedy that the strictures, myths and prejudices of our culture so commonly mistake this kind of shit for art.

Art created in the process of dementia, then, is just an extreme end of this spectrum--it is totally un-tempered creativity. A great deal of it can be powerful, disturbingly so; it gives us a glimpse into the workings of an unfiltered mind. Such a glimpse is as likely to frighten as to inspire, however. Art which creates fear is not the ultimate power to which artists can aspire.

The greatest art, in my view, is produced from a gradual, tempered process of consciousness-expansion. You can see it in the works of artists who have spent their whole lives developing both their craft and their perceptions, and extending both these things into unexplored territory. You get an intimation of the vast mystery of the universe, filtered through a highly individuated mind.

4/10/2008 01:19:00 PM  
Blogger Joanne Mattera said...

Stop picking on the gallerineaux. They're at the bottom of the food chain and terrified that they'll do or say something wrong. They're not cold; they're frozen with fear. As they learn more, they move to the back room where they begin to have some actual power.

So even if ordinary karmic decency doesn't compel you to be civil to them--as in "Hello," or "Thank you"-- keep this thought in mind: They have nowhere to go but up. Some are now the directors of those very galleries whose desks they monitored.

As for the title of this post, it sounds like a gameshow category, doesn't it? I'll take "Creativity, Dementia and Gallerinas" for 800, Alex.

4/10/2008 02:07:00 PM  
Anonymous Ellis said...

On the Creativity and Dementia front, my client TimeSlips out of the University of Wisconsin has been offering interesting workshops with people with dementia for a number of years. The TimeSlips process generates amazing, and often funny, stories that get turned into plays, artwork and dance performances.

4/10/2008 02:50:00 PM  
Blogger Aaron Wexler said...

Hey Ed,
Just as a side note, you might be interested in The National Institute for Play -
I think creativity suffers without "play" (so does health). If artists' involved themselves in more play maybe the arts would benefit in general = people benefit in general. Plus the last thing we need these days is more mental and physical illness.

4/10/2008 04:10:00 PM  
OpenID ericgelber said...

"The post on what it's like to a dealer faced with a sometimes-hostile public is coming...believe me."

A good idea for a post Ed. Maybe I will try to do a similar post on my blog about being an art critic.

I am happy that "Once a Gallerina"..."quickly figured out that it wasn't for me."

4/10/2008 04:15:00 PM  
Blogger Stephen said...

I work with children with Autism in the field of behavior analysis, so I have done a lot of thinking about the intersection of art and behavior. The articles are really saying that art making may have rehabilitative or health-enhancing effects- they make no judgment about the quality of the work. Bahaviorism, like other sciences, deal with observable facts- hence the "need to test with evidence-based studies." Sorry PL but I don't understand your bit about consciousness, maybe I am reading what you are saying wrong. In any event, the work produced by these individuals may not meet your standards for quality, but seen in context it can be very meaningful and, IMO extremely significant on a cultural level.

4/10/2008 04:34:00 PM  
Blogger David Cauchi said...

'Whether the 'art' produced in this way has any inherent quality is an open question; my view is that generally, it tends to be, quite literally, shit.'

Really!? Manzoni has a lot to answer for.

Speaking of language use, may I ask, Ed, why you use the jargon 'your price point' rather than the everyday terms 'your prices' or 'your price range'?

Your writing is otherwise refreshingly free of jargon, which is why it stands out.

4/10/2008 04:35:00 PM  
Blogger Edward_ said...

Speaking of language use, may I ask, Ed, why you use the jargon 'your price point' rather than the everyday terms 'your prices' or 'your price range'?

Laziness mostly...I'll try to be conscious of how it sounds. Thanks.

IMO extremely significant on a cultural level.

Totally agree.

4/10/2008 04:52:00 PM  
Blogger Pretty Lady said...

Sorry PL but I don't understand your bit about consciousness

We're not all conscious in the same way. Some people perceive much more than others; some people project what's in their minds out into the world, and their perceptions are thus delusional. The vast majority of things which are there to be perceived, we're not perceiving.

Meditation is a process by which we expand and clarify the way in which we perceive the world, thus expanding our consciousness; art is the means by which we communicate those perceptions.

4/10/2008 08:09:00 PM  
Blogger concrete phone said...

Pretty lady is right on.
One point: Some forms of dementia are very gradual. In fact they are not even dementia. Instead this so-called illness is a gradual letting go of things that we had previously found so necessary for survival in a world of 'seeming' right button left button 'control'.

We come into this world without control. Move and develop to coordinate our parts, thought, and actions. We even start trying to control things. Later on as our responsibilities shift we move away for the need to try and control and begin to see things differently, respond differently to circumstances. Looking at this shift we might even think it weird. The wall and dividers of time and subject seem almost not to be there.
This state is very important for the artist and/or any creative activity where the idea has less to do with divisions and control, and more to do with how to get a handle on (coordinate and develop) this thing we know not much about.

Naturally the body sends out its own remedy for illness. Creativity, having your mind and body working in different ways than it had previously experienced, is the whole caboodle.

4/10/2008 08:11:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Let me try to clear my name. When I ask for information at the gallery desk..."

Jeez, Eric, you're not on trial here. People can disagree without turning it into a personal attack. But maybe you can learn from what other people are saying about their experiences. I've never had a problem getting info from gallery people when writing about an artist or a show. It helps to call ahead and ask to talk with a press person. Don't just walk in and ask the person at the front desk for a catalog. If you prepare in advance, talk to the right person (and maybe that means waiting for them to call you back if they're busy) rather than demanding a catalog from the front desk person, you should be able to get them to email you any catalog essays, background info and high quality jpegs. I don't ask for an actual catalog, as I know they are expensive and I can get what I need from them by email. It is in their (the gallery's) best interest to give you all the info you need to write about the work, but it helps to be nice and not go in with the attitude that they're frosty bitches who don't want to help you. That assumption can become a self-fulfilling prophecy.


4/10/2008 09:03:00 PM  
OpenID ericgelber said...

Wow we have clairvoyants and time travelers commenting here now. Even though you say I am not on trial (no shit Sherlock) you sure are presuming a lot about what my behaviour is like in the real world. Sorry if you don't like my online demeanor but please don't assume you have any clue what I am like in person when I go into a gallery. As I said earlier in the previous post on the subject I AM ALWAYS POLITE when I go into galleries. I do not demand anything from anyone when I go into galleries. The one show I wrote about that was at Ed's gallery, the Joe Fig show, I think I asked him nicely if he would plug some sound work in because it wasn't playing and I wanted to hear it so that the review would be complete. I was entirely polite when I interacted with him. I mean, who the fuck am I? I get whatever I can from online resources and the ONLY reason an actual catalog would help out in certain circumstances is because often the stuff on the inside of them IS NOT available online. Simple. If you bother to read my comments about the gallery staff I complain about the low pay they receive and the fact that more often than not they don't advance to a position of prominence within the gallery. I based this on conversations I had with people who actually worked in galleries. The end.

4/10/2008 09:58:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Eric, I bothered to read all your comments. I'm saying (or one thing I'm saying is) if you ask in advance, and direct your requests to the right person, you can get them to email you the CONTENTS of the catalog, including essays, which are not generally available online.


4/10/2008 10:11:00 PM  
OpenID ericgelber said...

"(or one thing I'm saying is)"


If that was the only thing you were saying I wouldn't have written my last comment.

You also said:

"but it helps to be nice and not go in with the attitude that they're frosty bitches who don't want to help you."

I never do this.

"rather than demanding a catalog from the front desk person."

I never do this either.

I read all of the other comments and I understood them. None of them have any bearing whatsoever on my personal life. Some of them provide insight and good advice. My comments are one blip, among many, on Ed's free radar. Sorry if my tone was sharp Oriane.

4/10/2008 10:23:00 PM  
Blogger concrete phone said...

hey Eric, with all that SF you say you have read surely a couple would have developed a plot around the idea that the body's time and the mind's really only synchronize for a very small part of the the day. The mind is always time-traveling in terms of body/concept/time. Except the mind doesn't call this time. Time is a constraint on the mind clarified through the body.
I'm pretty sure there would be another SF book out there that models the idea of how the mind actually can help alleviate the pressure of time on the body, so it, the body, is able to live, work, and function much better, much longer. One of the key ingredients to getting the ball rolling to a different sync. has something to do with this issue of 'control' that travels the three thoughts on this thread.

4/10/2008 10:37:00 PM  
Blogger Stephen said...

PL, I feel that your wording was a little blunt. You seemed to refer to artwork created by disabled individuals as "quite literally, shit." Which doesn't actually make sense and is really pretty insensitive. As an Artist and a Behavior Analyst, I come from a kind of unique place.

The thing about Behavior Analysis is that it is concerned primarily with what one can see- which is kind of like drawing. When we are able to observe something, we are able to measure it- to see how it relates to other things. So in order to find the validity of something like art therapy, you need to develop a way to measure its effects. You can't observe "consciousness" so you can't measure it. "Perception" is just as elusive. The two articles discuss specific and definable problems. The solutions to those problems involve a systematic evaluation of treatments, not metaphysics.

4/10/2008 11:06:00 PM  
Blogger concrete phone said...

stephen, perhaps you have read Tim Lefens' story. !t's a good one!

4/10/2008 11:29:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I have decided not to read or use Artnet ever again.

Thank you,

An old Gallerino

(I have a better "art" job now.)

4/10/2008 11:44:00 PM  
Blogger Ethan said...


I think you're misreading PL or perhaps being a little overly sensitive. She didn't refer to disabled individuals, so that's really your inference.

I took her "shit" analogy as an opinion that the results of art therapy are more about purging the system (e.g., shitting) of some trauma rather than about communicating visually (i.e., making visual art).

That seems a reasonable statement to me...The art done in Art Therapy is probably no more about making art than acting out therapeutic psychodramas are about acting.

4/11/2008 12:13:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Anon 11:44:

Is that because of tripe such as
"Slice open that passion and let the fluids drip on the canvas until they form a face. That is Robinson’s secret sauce."? From Charlie Finch's review of the paintings of his buddy & editor Walter Robinson?

I don't think I want to know the recipe for Walter's secret sauce. Some things should remain a mystery.

another anon

4/11/2008 12:15:00 AM  
Blogger Stephen said...

I was responding to this statement;

"This is why art therapy can be productive--it helps to release those blocks. Whether the 'art' produced in this way has any inherent quality is an open question; my view is that generally, it tends to be, quite literally, shit."

Who produces art through art therapy if not cognitively and physically disabled individuals? The question of whether the work has any inherent quality is not a bad one-- you could talk about how the work is contextualized, how the individuals overcome their disabilities and create meaningful work, or the handling of the work by galleries or museums-- Pretty Lady goes on to answer that question(in her view) by referring to the work as "shit." I am not misreading that. It is a very narrow way to see the issue.

4/11/2008 07:59:00 AM  
Blogger Ethan said...

My understanding is not everyone who goes through art therapy is disabled (unless you're using an extremely broad definition). Isn't art therapy used for couples and family counseling, treating depression, and all sorts of applications these days?

4/11/2008 08:21:00 AM  
Blogger George said...

"Dubuffet coined the term Art Brut (outsider art) for art produced by non-professionals working outside aesthetic norms, such as art by mental patients, prisoners, and children. He amassed his own collection of such art, including artists such as Aloïse Corbaz and Adolf Wölfli. The collection is now housed at the Musée de l'Art Brut in Lausanne, Switzerland. " Dubuffet-Wiki
Collection de l"Art Brut artists list.

"Shit" is in the mind of the beholder

4/11/2008 08:47:00 AM  
Blogger Ethan said...

I think outsider art is problematic... the outsider art museums I've been to always have long wall signage that explains exactly what's "wrong" with each artist. It seems exploitative and a situation where the actual art is a secondary consideration.

4/11/2008 08:55:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dearest Diary,
I am in love with a Gallerina who doesn't even know I exist. I've tried everything to get her to notice me. I've asked if I could use the gallery's bathroom, I've repeatedly tried to show her my portfolio, I've said she should give me a one man show because I'm gonna be the next big thing......nothing seems to be working. Oh what shall I do?!

4/11/2008 10:00:00 AM  
Blogger George said...

It seemed that after so many words spent dealing with the intricacies of the commercial side of art, these articles were a reminder that art and the art making process are more important than all that. That there is something fundamentally deeper which art potentially touches in all of us.

While I’m sensitive to Ethan’s reservation over "what’s wrong" signage, I frequently have a problem with "what’s right" signage in other venues. I took a look at the works of Anne Adams at the site linked in the NY Times article. Her paintings were worth spending a little time with. When I’m looking at works like those in the Art Brut collection, I generally suspend certain judgmental criteria, what I think I "know" about art, because often what is being made visible, is much closer to the bone, raw and unfiltered. It’s interesting for that reasone alone

4/11/2008 10:04:00 AM  
Blogger Carol Diehl said...

I can see that I’m a little late to this thread, but wanted to add my thoughts. As a writer, I find most gallery staff friendly and helpful. (I have, however, been present when collectors a gallery didn’t know were treated rudely by someone who came out of the back room—simply for inquiring about purchasing a work.) But what does surprise me is how little feedback writers get from galleries or artists, not only for reviews, but features and cover stories—in my case, out of a nearly a hundred pieces I’ve written, only a handful have written or called me. Some that stand out: a note from D. C. Moore Gallery thanking me for a negative review, a long, hand-written letter from George Adams, and a note from an artist that resulted in a friendship of many years. I admit that when I started out as an artist, I was clueless about how much it might mean to a writer; I assumed that by writing about my work they were just doing their job. However now that I’ve been on both sides, I see acknowledgement as a common courtesy that would go a long way toward generating good feelings all around.

4/11/2008 10:06:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...


I've always thought it would seem unprofessional, or like kissing up somehow, to write and thank a critic for a review. Good to hear from a writer's point view that I'm wrong. thanks for sharing that.

clueless artist

4/11/2008 10:35:00 AM  
Blogger Pretty Lady said...

What Ethan said. You must remember, Stephen, that I am in the healing profession myself, and I would not refer to anything as 'shit' in the actual presence of a client.

My concern is more with the widely-held and unexamined myth that uncontrolled, explosive expression is somehow more 'true and genuine' and is thus good art because it happens to be sincere. I am in the position of having very strong views about quality in art, at the same time as I have strong opinions about the need for people to heal in safe environments, and the line is a very difficult one to walk.

In other words, when posting on a blog full of articulate artists, gallerists and critics, I like to let down my hair and say what I think. I spend the vast majority of my work time being Sensitive.

4/11/2008 12:07:00 PM  
Blogger Stephen said...

I'm not in the healing profession. I'm in behaviorism. That is not a criticism, just an important distinction. It is still a difficult line to walk, I agree with you.

And although this is a more casual forum, I think you could have made a stronger point if you had phrased yourself in a more descriptive way.

4/11/2008 03:49:00 PM  
Blogger Pretty Lady said...

Well, the way I phrased it got a rise out of you, didn't it? ;-)

4/11/2008 04:16:00 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think PL expressed herself in a very descriptive and appropriate way. By saying "literally shit", she clearly meant that the stuff made in a therapeutic context is a substance produced and excreted by the body (or conciousness) in order to get healthier. A waste product. When you get a deep-tissue massage, your muscles excrete lactic acid (or something like that), when you exercise vigorously, you produce sweat. I don't think she was insulting anyone or calling anyone's work shit. (She was calling into question what is considered "work", but that's another issue, which she also addressed.)


4/11/2008 04:20:00 PM  
OpenID ericgelber said...

carol diel|:

thank you for comment 4/11/2008 10:06:00 AM.

"this made me smile in that painfully knowing way"

concrete phone:

I used the phrase 'time travel' for rhetorical purposes. I wasn't writing a dissertation on William Gibson.

H.G. Wells' "The Time Machine", which uses a very simple and straightforward notion of time travel, is probably still the best time travel story out there.

4/13/2008 07:39:00 AM  
Blogger concrete phone said...

OK I'm on your wavelength.

4/14/2008 05:12:00 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Are late de Koonings shit?

4/17/2008 01:05:00 PM  
OpenID ericgelber said...

Pretty much.

4/17/2008 01:54:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home