Alternative Energy doesn't mean Nuclear Energy.

Recently in Australia there has been much debate about the need to find alternative energy sources to fossil fuels like coal, oil and gas. In terms of generating electricity the so called environmentally friendly Nuclear Power is often put forward as the one, clear and sensible alternative energy choice.

However I've always maintained that Nuclear Energy isn't environmentally friendly because no company has found a viable use for the nuclear waste it produces. Nuclear waste is usually stored which, given its radioactive nature and inability to biodegrade safely within a time period of less than before Armageddon, doesn't seem all that friendly to me.

Thrown out any bad art lately?

In contrast to my previous post, Thrown out any good art lately?, this story came to me through a members post on Australian Art Forum about the Museum of Bad Art. I just happened to read the backstory behind the museums cornerstone artwork and the similarities with my previous post demonstrate that even bad art placed in the trash may be more valuable than you thought.

I'm not going to retell the story of Lucy In the Field With Flowers (pictured) because you can read the details by Susan Lawlor, a family member of the painting's former owner for yourself. Suffice to say that this particular painting was recovered from the kerbside trash on a Boston street by the Museum of Bad Arts founder, Scott Wilson, who was promptly inspired to create the aforementioned museum.

The Museum of Bad Art now exists in both online and bricks and mortar form - with the bricks and mortar coming first. Interestingly enough the actual museum is, perhaps appropriately, located just outside the men’s room in a 1927, Boston, New England movie theatre known as The Dedham Community Theatre.

What interests me about all this is who are these people that put art in their kerbside waste collection? It's probably a question that can't really be answered but thanks to them you just never know if your next discarded artwork find will be worth a mint or a inspire a cultural business venture.

It's almost worth going for a walk on bin collection day.

Thrown out any good art lately?


"Tres Personajes" by Rufino Tamayo, a 1970 oil and sand on canvas painting, in an undated image released to the media on Oct. 22, 2007. Source: Sotheby's via Bloomberg News
We've all heard stories of people finding extremely valuable items in kerbside rubbish collections but this one might get you taking a closer look at a few discarded paintings.

New York City woman, Elizabeth Gibson, was walking past a collection of garbage bags put out for collection one Saturday morning in 2003 when her eye caught a painting sticking out the top. Initially she walked right on by but a short time later she returned for a second look with a hunch that this painting may just be the goods for her apartments living room wall.

There must have been something about the painting that suggested there was more to it than would at first appear because Elizabeth began, what would turn out to be, a rather lengthy and difficult journey to find out the artworks history.

Fast forward four years later and Elizabeth learnt that the painting its self was by an extremely important and valuable Mexican artist, Rufino Tamayo and was titled, `Tres Personajes.' Painted in 1970 the title translates to 'Three People' in English.
Clearly a dilemma for Elizabeth who initially hid the painting behind a false wall once she began to uncover just how valuable it was.

If that wasn't enough, it was unnerving to find out that the painting had been stolen almost twenty years earlier from art collectors, a couple living in Houston who bought the painting from Sothebey's in 1977 for US$50,000. A fact she uncovered in 2005 whilst watching a PBS Television program about missing artworks.

Up to this point I'm really just retelling a story that you can read about in several articles including Bloomberg's Stolen Tamayo Found in Manhattan Trash May Sell for $1 Million by Lindsay Pollock.

Now did you catch that last headline? The conclusion to this story is that Elizabeth returned the painting and received a tidy $15,000 dollar reward from the owner as well as an undisclosed fee from Sothebey's for the sale of the painting which is expected to fetch between $750,000 to 1 million when it is auctioned on November 20, 2007.

Given that there are many valuable artworks that have been stolen and never recovered over the years you may want to consider taking a closer look at what people are placing out for garbage collection.

Radiohead - is this the future for commercial creativity?


The music world and the online world in general is abuzz with Radiohead's decision to let fans decide how much they pay for the bands new album In Rainbows before being allowed to download it via their web site.

This simple act has allowed the band to bypass the need for a record company. It's estimated, on average the band will still make about the same amount of money from downloads as they would have going the usual CD release route after the record companies have taken their cut. On average, I've read people are paying about US$8.00 for an album which you can, if you choose, download for free. It's up to you.

If you would like to read a deeper article on the repercussions then Maki from www.doshdosh.com has written a great article about Radiohead and Anti-marketing in the music industy.

What's clever about their decision is that it completely legalizes the free sharing of music. Something that is very web 2.0 where the new words for sharing on a grand scale is going viral. People love getting stuff for free. If the music is good people will share it and pay to see it performed live. By all accounts this is where the real money is for bands and musicians.

What interests me is, could this approach work for other forms of creativity or does this model only work if the sharing by optional donation approach leads to a pay per unit style revenue stream down the line?

For example, could a painter give away, by optional donation, print quality, digital scans of artworks to raise awareness and generate buzz that could lead to people wanting to own the real, original works?

My own business model of uploading free videos of me creating my art in order to raise awareness of my web site, through which I sell merchandise and original art via ebay is a similar idea.

Giving the people what they want so that they may be interested to purchase something later that they perceive as having real value, worth paying for. Which is not to say the free stuff doesn't have value but we all know, at least with digital files, it costs virtually nothing to make a copy.

I don't know. In a sense the idea of people choosing to pay what they want is like busking. It's kind of honorable but at the same time kind of sad. It's like saying I'll take whatever you can give. I don't put a value on my creativity. I'm leaving that up to you.

In theory, if I do a really good job, the next time I release something and ask for people to donate what they like, they may just pay more second time around because their first experience was much better value than they originally thought. I guess that's called creating demand.

Perhaps it's just me but the donation model doesn't sit well with my psyche. I don't mind giving something for free but taking a donation feels like accepting charity or begging.

Radiohead's business model is a good one for a modern world where everyone seems connected. It's a fantastic way to interact directly with your audience (known as your market in business terms). However it's going to take a little more time to see if it really is the future for commercial creativity.

Is there really money to be made by giving your creativity away?

Sucking the moisture out of the air...Island Sky.

In my recent post A Tax on Rainwater I made the following statement:

"A tax on rainwater might be valid if we were literally sucking the moisture out of the air. Farming clouds."

Watching my local evening news broadcast tonight I was interested in a story about Australian owned company Island Sky who manufacture machines capable of extracting the moisture from the air and turning it into drinking water.

Island Sky's technology can be scaled depending on intended usage. From a 'water cooler' style model for the home or office through to being able to adapt the technology for commercial and industrial uses.

As much as the concept of Island Sky's technology is fantastic it does make me wonder if this kind of machine could affect weather patterns if implemented on a large and concentrated scale? For example could we see coastal cities sucking a larger proportion of moisture from the air to the detriment of inland towns?

The reason why I wonder leads back to my original quote above. Sucking the moisture out of the air. That's a much different proposition to collecting water as it flies. It's no longer random, it's calculated. It may have repercussions for the natural movement of water vapor through the air. If that happens then we surely may see a tax on rainwater.

At this point its all a little unknown but the whole Island Sky concept is one that seems well worth backing. Especially if it can bring clean water to developing countries that really need it.

How do you paint in inches?

I recently received a message from an admirer of my art who suggested that I should also include the size of my paintings in inches to assist international collectors not familiar with the metric system of measurement.

My mind, being the way it is, winked at me and thought, but I only know how to paint in metric? How do you convert a painting to inches anyway? Is there a conversion chart?

I found a pretty good conversion tool online but when I typed in the title of my painting it didn't seem to understand and looked at me like I was some kind of fool.

Maybe I'll just buy my canvases pre-converted to inches to save me the worry.

I'm an Adult Now. I can do anything I want!

A common myth that teenage adults have as they start to get closer to that arbitrary line of being an 'adult' is that adults can do anything they want. I'm sure millions of parents have heard from their teen, at one time or another, "I'm an adult now so I can do what I want." A statement that clearly is a childish justification for poor decision making.

Why? Because usually your teen will come out with this statement if you won't let them do something that they really want. To be fair, sometimes it's just the parents being overly protective but, for whatever reason, being an 'adult now' is a childish way to say I don't care for your concern I'm going to do what I want. (Though in that last sentence you can exchange the word 'concern' for 'unreasonable attitude' or more likely yet just insert the word 'sh_t').

Apart from the obvious physical differences the key difference between children and adults is that adults make all their own decisions. Children do make some of their own decisions and are given more and more decisions as they get closer to adulthood but making all your own decisions isn't the same as 'being able to do anything you want'.

Whilst adults do make a lot of their own decisions they can still be held accountable for poor decision making. Just ask Britney Spears who lost custody of her children due to her poor choices. All adults are answerable to the standards of behaviour that we, as a society, have agreed upon expressed in something called 'The Law'.

Of course few people know the fine details of the Law but most of us know simple stuff like treating each other with respect. Most of us also have a fair idea when we do something that breaks the law too.

Leading to the point of this article is the idea that the decisions any one of us get to make is largely affected by decisions made by other people. Decisions that are beyond our control. Things like the Law is one such example of decisions made by others that can affect our choices but I'm referring to decisions on a more local and personal level.

For example. Lets say your lawnmower is broken but you need to cut your lawn before the landlord comes over for a routine inspection of your house. You could either; 1) Not worry about cutting the lawn and wear the consequences. 2) Hire a lawnmower or, 3) Borrow the neighbours lawnmower.

Decision one, don't cut the lawn. Entirely under your control 100% your choice.

Decision two, hire a lawnmower. If you have the money and you can find somewhere that has a lawnmower available for hire then good. Another decision under your control. There's a few variables that you can't control though. If they can't be met then this decision may not be open to you.

Decision three, borrow the neighbours lawnmower. This one could be straight forward if you're on good terms with your neighbour however this decision is only open to you if your neighbour is the kind of person who would like to help you out.

You see, some decisions we have are made available to us through the decisions of others. Lets say, the last time you borrowed your neighbours lawnmower, they had to ask you for it back and you returned it with no fuel at all even though, when you borrowed it, it had a full tank.

Maybe this time you won't be able to borrow it. Your poor choices the last time you borrowed the lawnmower have lead to a situation where you no longer can make a decision to borrow it again. It's not an option, unless you have an extremely forgiving neighbour.

Being an adult who can seemingly do anything they want is not about passing some arbitrary age where society says you're an adult. Being an adult is about understanding how the world works and how you can give yourself the widest possible number of choices when it comes to decision making.

In general, if you do the right thing by other people, they'll be more open and receptive to the decisions you want to make. Not only that, they may just throw in a few more options that could help you out. Doing the wrong thing will almost certainly mean fewer choices.

It's not a hard lesson to learn but it's one that so called 'teen adults' fail to grasp. They'll spend a lot of time trying to do the right thing by their friends yet fail to apply the same concept to the rest of the people in their lives.

I think I'll close this article the same way I closed the article about Britany...

"The truth is that you can get away with doing so much more of what you want simply by doing the right thing by the people around you."

Jack Nicholson, Anger Management and The Joker

I was watching the Jack Nicholson, Adam Sandler movie, Anger Management on DVD and I got to thinking just how good an actor Jack Nicholson is. That's no big revelation really. I'm fairly certain Jack's won a number of awards for his work over the years. However I'll continue on.

On the special features of the Anger Management DVD someone comments that almost everyone has a Jack Nicholson impression, because Jack's voice is unmistakably his. Team Jack's voice with the man himself and you have a living icon that few people in the western world would fail to recognise.

When you go to see a movie with Jack Nicholson, as soon as he appears you instantly recognise him as Jack, yet, in every single movie I've ever seen him in, he immediately becomes the character. You're no longer watching Jack Nicholson.

I particularly like his character, the unorthodox anger management therapist, Dr Buddy Rydell, in Anger Management. Nobody plays a Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde character quite like Jack. Sane and credible one minute, unhinged and possibly dangerous the next. Very cool.

Not unlike Jack's famous interpretation of The Joker in Tim Burton's big screen adaption of Batman. Whilst I am looking forward to Heath Ledger's version of The Joker in Chris Nolan's upcoming Batman sequel, The Dark Knight, I think Jack's Joker was just right for the world Tim created.

I'm possibly just rambling with no real point to this, other than it will be interesting to see how Heath and Jack's Jokers compare. I certainly couldn't imagine Jack's version in the new Batman movies but I would love to see how Jack would've interpreted the role under Chris' direction.

I've no doubt he would've done an exceptional job.


Official The Dark Knight Teaser Trailer posted by t3knoman00

Cy Twombly. Art you can love...or not?

The lawyer for the plaintiffs, Agnes Tricoire, presents to the court a reproduction of the kiss mark on a painting by artist American Cy Twombly.
Photo: MSNBC


In researching this post I'm happy to say that American artist, Cy Twombly's all white artwork, 'Untitled', is an exception to his art rather than the norm. Perhaps that is why the artwork is valued at just over 2.8 million dollars and lays some credibility on my rationale in pricing my own blank canvas in my video guide to Pricing your artwork for sale.

Regular readers will know my distaste for blank canvas artworks so I could not pass up this opportunity to comment on Rindy Sam, a 30 year old, female French artist, who loved Twombly's blank artwork enough to kiss it with fully, lipstick loaded, lips.

The incident happened on July 19, 2007, where the painting was part of a traveling exhibition on display at the Museum of Contemporary Art in the southern French city of Avignon. The kiss was described as an 'act of love' by Rindy who was promptly taken into custody by French Police.

Not amused, the owner of the painting, Yvon Lambert, wants $2,878,000 in damages, which includes the value of the painting and the $47,000 restoration cost. To date, 30 cleaning products have been used on the canvas with little success in restoring it to its pristine, bone whiteness.

You can read the full story in this article, French court tries woman for kissing painting, appearing on MSNBC's web site.

In this article, "Passionate" kiss lands art lover in court, on Yahoo News, Rindy is reported as having said that she 'thought her lipstick had improved the white, untitled painting'. I'm inclined to agree.

Where once there was simply a painting waiting to be started, there is now a collaborative effort that is made all the more interesting for the controversy surrounding it. Value adding I say. Should add another million at least to the price tag now that it will forever be known as the painting that was kissed by an 'art lover'.

Britney Spears, Going Down the Hard Road


Photo: Sun-Sentinal.com

I'm not one to follow the trials of drugged out celebrities but when someone like Britney Spears is getting so much media attention it's hard not to notice. So, here's a post with a lesson.

It seems that not even Britney can get away with doing whatever the hell she likes. According tho this article on E! News, Britney Comes Clean on Drug Test, Britney is finally complying with a court ruling in order to regain access to her children after the courts gave temporary, primary custody to their father Kevin Federline.

The lesson here kids is that no matter how much money and fame you have you still can't get away with doing exactly as you please if your actions are illegal or potentially dangerous to those around you. Sooner or later the law will catch up with you and bite you on the... well, if you're Britney it'll take away your children.

Because that is one of the reasons why we have laws. They're there to protect you from yourself and, if you won't listen, they're there to protect others from your stupidity.

Don't take the hard road like Britney. The truth is that you can get away with doing so much more of what you want simply by doing the right thing by the people around you.

The World Wide Pluto Conspiracy.

Popular YouTuber Nalts recently posted this video rant about the planet pluto being downgraded to 'dwarf' planet status. Nalts video opposes the announcement on August 24th, 2006, by the The International Astronomical Union (IAU), that Pluto would no longer retain full planetary status due its size being considerably smaller than other 'planet like' objects found in the same region of space.

You can read about the announcement in this article from Science Daily which includes an illustration of other objects, amongst them a larger object called 'Xena', that some astronomers were hoping would achieve 'planet' status.

The Nalts video jogged my memory of an article that I wrote way back in 1996 that positioned my beliefs on the question of alien life forms and whether they do or don't exist. What is remarkable about the article is that it puts forward the idea that the planet Pluto may not actually exist. Here is an extract:

Just because you haven’t seen a UFO or an Alien life form doesn’t mean they don’t exist. Most people have never seen the planet Pluto either yet we accept that it exists because we’ve all seen pictures and enough independent astronomers have actually seen it through a telescope to confirm that for us. If that was all the evidence we need then UFOs and Aliens would be fact. We’ve all seen pictures of them and there are enough independent witnesses to confirm their existence for us.

In both cases how do you know that what your looking at is truth. Just because an astronomer focuses your telescope for you doesn’t automatically mean that you’re looking at Pluto. Yes - welcome to the world wide Pluto conspiracy.

Possibility and the need for an open mind is vitally important to reaching your own conclusions on what is truth. One day in the distant future one of your ancestors could be standing on Pluto thinking “Yes, at last I have concrete proof that Pluto exists.”

Then one of my ancestors walks over and says “Pluto? no mate you ever heard of the World wide Pluto conspiracy that was uncovered in the early part of the 21st century?”

- TET, 26 August 1996.



Did I know something back in 1996 - almost exactly ten years before Pluto was down graded in August 2006? Technically, while the big rock in space called 'Pluto' does exist, it no longer exists as a planet. According to the IAU it should never have been classified as a planet in the first place based on the size of other objects found recently with more modern telescopes.

Is this just the tip of the ice berg in the World Wide Pluto Conspiracy? Is Xena working to replace Pluto as the furthest planet from our sun? Could Mercury be under threat in its newly acquired status as the smallest planet in our system? Who are these people at the IAU and why do they get to decide if Pluto can be a planet or not?

You've gotta love a good conspiracy theory no matter how spaced out!


Footnote: The above article isn't intended to be a serious contribution to the discussion. If you would like to know more about the IAU's discussions about defining just what constitutes a 'planet' then a good place to start is this article on their web site.

Mr. McGroovy's Box Creations like no other.

I'm not one to write sponsored blog posts so let me assure you this post is simply because I was very impressed with Mr. McGroovy's Box Rivets™ web site and more specifically the cardboard creations within it.

Mr. McGroovy sells special kind of Box Rivets™ (pictured) that allow your imagination to run wild on large scale box creations such as the pictured space ship. That thing is big enough to send your child into orbit (well if it had an engine maybe).

What I thought was really cool is that Mr. McGroovy provides all the plans you need to make the creations appearing on his site including Pirate ships, castles, fire engines and more. Even a Santa's Sleigh! Check out the gallery of things people have built using the rivets here.

I have a big refrigerator box sitting in my studio. I'm almost tempted to buy some rivets to see what I can turn it into. Better put my creativity hat on!

Photography and Semaphore Beach.


Semaphore Beach, Port Adelaide, South Australia is a favorite place for Enigma and I to visit. Especially around sunset (you know the walk on the beach, kind of romantic type thing that people like). Ever since Enigma bought a professional standard digital camera (of the kind that you can attach all manner of specialized lenses to) we've used our trips to Semaphore as an opportunity to improve our photography.

I've had some training throughout my three years at art school on the technical side of working a manual SLR photography camera. Hence I know about apertures, shutter speeds, depth of field and other such technical things but I'm very rusty in applying that knowledge. I never really embraced the idea of me being a photographer even though my teacher said I had a great eye for photos.

Tackling the workings of a modern SLR digital camera can be quite a challenge. Most of the principles are the same as traditional cameras but finding your way around digital displays, menus and buttons unique to modern equipment is a task both Enigma and I muddle through together. I try to explain what should happen with the settings that we kind of work out together. Enigma does all the composition, framing and actually pushing the button to take a picture.

What makes it even harder is that Enigma's camera is able to use lenses that don't work with the cameras automatic functions. This means that we have to work out apertures and focusing ourselves. It's a bit hit and miss but thank god for the digital camera's ability to take hundreds of photos at virtually no cost (other than wearing down the batteries).

Whilst Enigma takes her photos I also carry around my point and shoot - any idiot could use - digital camera. It's fully automatic but does allow for some manual settings if you really want to get a bit arty. Mostly I leave it entirely on automatic. It doesn't have any kind of optical zoom lense (the digital zoom on it produces awful, pixelated images) so I'm pretty much stuck with having to physically move myself to frame my shots.

However something that we both learnt on our last trip to the beach was that sometimes automatic settings are the best to go with. The photo at the top of this post is one that I took of the Semaphore jetty with my basic camera. I just framed the shot so the brightest part of the sun was blocked out and the camera did the rest. Easy. How it should be. Technology working to assist creativity.

Enigma was trying out a new lense that was really struggling with the light once the sun was really low in the sky. Neither of us being that knowledgeable about lenses, we experimented with it quite a bit, until finally it just became obvious that the light just wasn't enough to get a decent picture. Even with the aperture open wide and the shutter set at a slow enough speed that was still good for hand held photography.

Noticing that my camera was still handling the light fairly well and producing well lit photos, I advised that Enigma should simply reattach the lense that came with her camera - the one that allows all of its automatic functions to work - and try that.

The suggestion worked a treat. Enigma was able to take well lit photos for quite some time after that. Even a few night shots too. Sometimes fully automatic is really the way to go. Especially if you're like us and aren't fully conversant with the settings.

More to the point. Photography is meant to be fun. If you are fighting with your camera, using manual settings, it doesn't hurt to switch back to auto for a while. Just so you can get back to the creative part of framing and composing your pictures.

Another tip I learnt during art school, that applies particularly to taking sunset photos, but is a good rule on any photography excursion. Always look behind, down and above, from your current position when taking a photo. Not all the best photos are right in front of you. Below are two examples of photos that I may not have seen if I hadn't taken a moment to look the other way. Both were taken roughly at the same time as the jetty photo above. (Note: if you weren't aware clicking on any image in my blog will usually show a larger version).

A Tax on Rainwater?

Over the past year there has been much debate in Australia over the idea of a rainwater tax for residential properties. It all seems to have started over a leaked Federal Government email by National Water Commission chief, Ken Matthews, suggesting that "Legally, all water in Australia is vested in governments."

Mr Mathews goes on to say:

"Governments have not yet considered the capture of water from roofs in rainwater tanks to be of sufficient magnitude to warrant the issuing of specific entitlements to use this class of water.

"However, if rainwater tanks were to be adopted on a large scale such that their existence impacts significantly on the integrated water cycle, consideration could be given to setting an entitlement regime for this class of water."


You can read the full article about the email and its subsequent discussion in this report by the Herald Sun dated January 14, 2007.

I can certainly understand the logic of Government ownership of rainwater and how, if residential properties were all to start collecting rainwater in greater quantities, it would affect storm water run off and ground water levels. However the idea to put a tax on rainwater is counter productive.

Many Australian state governments have been encouraging the use of rainwater tanks, even offering rebates to have them installed and plumbed into the water supply of residential properties. To put a tax on the collection of rainwater would be like having to pay back the rebate and then keep on paying for doing the environmentally sound thing of installing a rainwater tank.

To think that we might have to pay extra could be argument enough for uninstalling the tank and relying entirely on mains water. Next stop - increase the price of mains water usage?

In a country like Australia rain water isn't a reliable service. The whole point of capturing rain water is to take the pressure off our dams and other water supplies when they don't receive enough rain. Is the government likely to tax us on the actual amount of rain water we collect or are they likely to tax us on the size of our rainwater tanks regardless of whether the rain comes or not. The latter could be argument two for uninstalling the tank.

A tax on rainwater might be valid if we were literally sucking the moisture out of the air. Farming clouds. However we're not. We're simply collecting water as it falls from the sky. It's almost as silly as taxing people for using solar power. The more solar panels you have the more tax you pay.

If you're going to tax people for being environmentally responsible in a way that the government has encouraged then ultimately you are taking a step backwards. A tax is not a benefit for doing the right thing. A tax is something that should be applied to people and industries that persist in being environmentally irresponsible.

I did read that the current Federal Government had moved to assure people that tax on rainwater wasn't likely to occur in the foreseeable future but just lately I've heard some politician on the news raise the issue again, warning that it could happen?

I can tell you that any government that thinks this is a good idea had better make a really good case for it because, on the face of it, they would lose my vote entirely.

Wheels Again.

I can't remember the last time I had my own car. I've only ever owned one car, a Mazda 1500ss. I certainly remember buying it for AU$500 (obviously it was second hand at that price) and then spending another AU$500 on it to fix some minor issues and to completely re-detail the interior. I do remember selling it but I don't remember the year. I can safely say it was more than ten years ago.

Since then I've either walked everywhere or borrowed cars of people (mainly my sister) that I've lived with.

Last month, my partner, Enigma, was looking for a car suitable for her son and came across a great buy. A 1971, Chrysler Galant (pictured). It was recommended to her by her Mechanic who used to do all the servicing on it. In the meantime Enigma's son had found an alternative car that a friend was selling so he went with that. However the Gallant, for which the price had been negotiated down to the price of a fairly flash, brand new bicycle, was hard to pass up. So she bought it.

Now the Galant is a manual gear box. In our family only two people have recent experience driving a manual, Enigma's son and myself. Enigma has driven a manual but that was so long ago she's not sure if she really wants to relearn. Since her son now had a car, I'm the lucky one to finally have wheels again.

I've been for a few short drives so far. I love a manual car because it feels like you're actually doing the driving. Not like automatics where you just kind of push a pedal and steer.

This particular car is a year younger than me and comes from an era before cars got complicated with all kinds of technologies that anyone without a degree in rocket science and electrical engineering couldn't understand. The most technologically advanced things in cars back then was the radio. Since the Galant has had the radio removed there's nothing left to be confused by - except maybe the speedometer which is in miles per hour.

Some of you may be thinking what's confusing about miles per hour? Well, in Australia, we switched over to the metric system probably about the same time this car was made. I've never had to read a speedometer in anything other than Kilometers per hour. I've made myself a little conversion chart to refer to that I've stuck on the dash.

Anyhow I won't go on about having a car. It is good to have wheels but really I just wanted to record the occasion somewhere and share it with you. My readers.

The Traveling Painting Project.


The Traveling Painting Project
Posted by Daligoddess2006

If you're a YouTube artist and you have a web cam then I strongly encourage you to get involved in Daligoddess2006's, The Traveling Painting Project. It doesn't matter what your skill level is so long as you're over 18 years of age and don't mind spending a little bit of money on postage of a smallish canvas.

Considering how popular online video is, getting involved in projects such as this can have a bonus side effect of bringing more profile to your own art. The bigger the project gets the more people will be intrigued to find out more about the artists that have left their mark.

So, the traveling painting project is just what it says. A single canvas traveling from artist to artist, with each artist adding something to the painting before passing it along. Watch the video above for more information and visit the Ning network web site set up by YouTube artist Sherri Westfall.
Related Posts with Thumbnails