Wednesday, April 21, 2010



Gustave Morin (Windsor, ON)

Gus thinks you should read more Roald Dahl:

ROALD DAHL

11 comments:

Reed Altemus said...

Ross,
ask me if I care what Gus thinks...

WEE-HOO said...

I agree with Gus. They cussed and cursed and other bad words that can't be printed.

Reed Altemus said...

Roald Dahl is great but Gus is a shit head.

drosspriddle said...

um, Reed Altemus, i hope you won't take it too personally if i say: FUCK OFF

Reed Altemus said...

Ahh, what's a little fuck off between friends anyway. Gus neglected to choose any of my work for the vispo show at Common Ground. If you see him tell him Reed thinks it would have been nice to be included, regardless of the limited availability of spaces. If he has something against my work, I have something against him.

drosspriddle said...

Reed! That doesn't sound very mature!

geez, how many times have you "included" me?

and how many times have i "included" you?

drosspriddle said...

FUCK INCLUSION!

Reed Altemus said...

It's NOT very mature, but then I'm NOT very mature and I still don't like being left out of a show I should have been in. Ask me if I care what you think...

Reed Altemus said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Reed Altemus said...

My tiny ego was bruised by the curatorial genius jerkoffsky.

Anonymous said...

my o my, wot a can o worms...

reed, my original intention was to hang the entire book, all 263 pieces. when discussing this, crag and nico both seemed to think a tidier selection was a better route to take. in the end, when it came to the actual work involved with hanging, the 69 pieces -- one from 69 folk -- was a much better arrangement. i've pictures from the show which i yet must upload, but basically the 69 works made a nice walk through the gallery. in other words, the show hung elegantly. whereas more would've made the show look crowded and taken away from the overall effect of a responsible selection.

i struggled a bit within the selection, and in the end i opted for those works which seemed to me to most fit the bill of "writing". and, it needs to be pointed out that although 69 writer/artists were represented in the show, a further 46 were entirely left out. you were among those left out. and yes, the rational was entirely arbitrary, but that's the way of the selection process: one making such a selection identifies most with those things that look back when held in regard...

let me here say that i'm sorry this process has gone and hurt your feelings. that wasn't ever my intention. gathering a selection of works that best represented the overall scope of the project, and making this available to the limited gallery-going public in my shithole of a city was the only intention, if it could even be said that i had "intentions". (i was really only trying to give the project a boost!)

generally speaking, i have no problem with your work per se. i like big bunches of it. i also like the work you do as a publisher, and will always fondly recall the experience i had working with you to realize my nein typos. the portfolio template was perfect for that project, and i to this day regard it as one of my strongest stand alone pieces.

of the two works of yours selected for this book it must be said i did not enjoy as greatly as i have other things of yours. for my selection (under rubric volker nix, not gustave m. -- in the interest of anonymity, or wishing to take a back seat within the "authority" of the selection) i included only those pieces i liked. i'm sorry you were left out. in particular, with you, i did have the nagging thought that somehow i ought to include you as one of the tertiary editors, but in the end, my reasons against this decision had everything to do with my belief in meritocracy. (note that other tertiary editors were also left out). i may like you, and i may like a lot of your work, but for the last vispo, i wasn't overly taken by your two pieces. which is my opinion of two of your works, not of you or of your work in general. this is implicit and explicit.

i understand where you're coming from though, and that's why i'm not here giving you both barrels. you can dislike me, but by the sounds of it, we're on the same page when it comes to an estimation of the worth of our inherited curatorial apparatus. fortunately for me i am not a curator. are you?

and lastly, ross, i specifically mentioned the adult fiction of dahl, not his ecrits for babies. your hyperlink seems to go straight to the heart of his baby writing. read parson's pleasure. its one of the most disturbing works of fiction ever published by the new yorker, et al.

fondly, then,

mr, gustave morin