Do we have a contemporary art thread?

'Cause I've been postin' and laughin' so long
That even my momma thinks that my mind is gone

Postby naturemorte » Wed Apr 13, 2016 5:28 am

whitman's post is pretty spot-on. thinking about the political economy of the work should not just be an easy excuse to dismiss work out of hand. rather, i think an awareness of the relationship between an object and its commodity function or its mode of production can just as easily contribute to a positive appreciation of the work. i don't have a particular criterion in mind here but i generally think that work that simply takes the situation of the art market or division of labor among assistants as a given is pretty dire (and, i think, is something you can intuitively see in the work). but i think that work that addresses itself to ways in which those systems of patronage and production are changing, or seeks to bring about a new and more satisfactory relation to the object and its production can be really incredible. and while i think that's true going back at least as far as the 16th century--i think of Mannerism (not a fan, by and large) as being primarily about preserving an older model of production and patronage threatened by the Reformation by recycling motifs and techniques of earlier masters, and i get a lot more out of Northern Renaissance stuff generally, in part because it addresses itself to a newly-created bourgeois market and creates new forms, genres and systems of production in relation to that market.

but Warhol is as good an example as any--the difference between his process and most work made in that mode today is that he renegotiated the terms of the atelier, the portrait, the edition, etc. in response to a rapidly changing market and media landscape; he capitalized on that shift, but he also brought it about. eventually, new work made in that mode that doesn't similarly push to change the language of production and consumption as strenuously and persuasively as it asserts its formal language will inevitably look dated and enervated. maybe it's enough for a person of color to occupy the role of the artist as manager to change that dynamic, but only for as long as that change is a radical one. since running a studio like a factory is by definition going to inhibit innovation and change--a factory requires a stable workflow and a produces a reliable product--i imagine that work made in that mode by an artist of any background is only going to be interesting for a fairly brief window.

a good deal of contemporary painting that i've seen--including some of the things attacked by fatrick--really do seem complacent when looked at in these terms. plenty of work exhibits some technical, formal, iconographic or social innovation, but then again, such level of novelty is necessary just to pass muster as a desirable commodity object in the first place, let alone to justify becoming a series of works produced in factory-like conditions. but the expectations of who will want that object, who will go to see it, how the object can into being and what it can be, remain depressingly stable.

to give a counter-example of something that i thought was actually pretty savvy in terms of creating a relationship between emerging modes of production and definite changes in the world of art-buying, the tauba auerbach "projective instrument"show at paula cooper a few months back worked for me for a couple reasons. one, it was full of beguiling objects that were decidedly more involving to see in person than to look at in a photograph (painting "conceived to photograph better than it looks in person" is and will forever be a non-starter for me), works which both invited the viewer to reflect on their process of making but were also confounding for that very reason. they seemed to blur the line between machine fabrication and gesture without feeling mindless--in fact, they establish the kind of interesting, open relay between conceptual structures, the technicity of production and the physical encounter with line and color which i hope to experience when looking at work of just about any period, but which are especially relevant to contemporary questions of disembodiment, prosthesis, and the technical image.

but the show also seemed pitched to a different spectator/buyer than the other shows of gestural semi-abstraction and naive-ironic painting at the nearby galleries. in its emphasis on process over precedent, the works demands a viewer grounded less in art history than in reverse engineering operations; in her translation of natural forms to 3d-printed objects, recursive and repetitive structures and architectures, auerbach invokes the generative principle of the algorithm; in the very "open-source" positioning of her source texts in a library in the gallery (a bookshelf stacked with mostly obscure texts on naturalism, mathematics, puzzles, and architecture, as opposed to, say, negri or bruno latour or mackenzie wark), there's a clear positioning going on, addressing a set of concerns as much, if not more the province of technologists and engineers than touchy-feely art types. i came away with the distinct notion that the work would be perfectly suited for the burgeoning collections of newly-minted tech sector millionaires, were that particular market not so concerned with ostentation and self-gratification. but that's precisely my point--the show seemed both calculated in terms of speaking to the knowledge base and philosophical interests of the tech world (from the press release: "while practical concerns must guide architectural design, its ornamentation provides a critical opportunity for meaningful expression, the erasure of societal divisions and, ultimately, divine transcendence"--not too far from "making the world a better place through constructing elegant hierarchies for maximum code reuse and extensibility"), and sort of idealistic in its assumption that decorative and abstract art could create the fertile space for intellectual dialogue with a class of potential buyers who, to my limited knowledge, have been distinctly disinterested in the traditional forms of artistic patronage. the title "projective instrument" could in this sense refer to the use of images to "project" an audience, to conjure a relation with a market that hasn't really come into being. it's neither a critical operation, nor one which hypocritically disavows the function of the work of art as, at least in part, a luxury item and status symbol. but it does suggest that aesthetic objects do not only have to reflect the magnificence of its buyer, but can also articulate and encapsulate those elements of the patron's specific world-view whose philosophical and spiritual ramifications extend beyond the pure self-interest of the ruling class (which, i would argue, is as applicable to velazquez' "las meninas" as it would be to auerbach today).
chad wrote:"How can I make this about me and also congratulate myself in some way" - basically every hipinion bro
User avatar

naturemorte
 
Posts: 7008
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 8:57 pm
Location: maxine's parlour

Postby all day breakfast » Wed Apr 13, 2016 6:05 am

i think a transition has been happening in the last 10 years increasingly toward those kinds of models auerbach or artists like camille henrot present — systems of representation based in "theory rich" and arcane information from those kinds of fields: maths; architecture; botany; engineering; sound.

i still can't really tell how much it represents 21st century notions of information networks, and how much its just the market speculating on calls for art to be something than art itself on a cynical and surface level
User avatar

all day breakfast
 
Posts: 9837
Joined: Fri May 11, 2012 10:03 am
Location: vegetable patch

Postby all day breakfast » Wed Apr 13, 2016 6:06 am

if i walked between a h&m jewellery section and that auerbach show with the shit arranged on the tables id feel some kind of way though
User avatar

all day breakfast
 
Posts: 9837
Joined: Fri May 11, 2012 10:03 am
Location: vegetable patch

Postby Phil » Wed Apr 13, 2016 9:52 am

naturemorte wrote:and sort of idealistic in its assumption that decorative and abstract art could create the fertile space for intellectual dialogue with a class of potential buyers who, to my limited knowledge, have been distinctly disinterested in the traditional forms of artistic patronage.


From an interview with the guy who runs Team Gallery:

That’s amazing, because it’s been a big challenge for dealers to make inroads into that tech collector base.

Well, the tech thing for us is very exciting, and Tabor Robak is one of the single hottest commodities we have in this gallery now. We sell absolutely everything he makes. We have a waiting list that includes really major museums and major foundations, but we have no work to offer because he’s slow in producing. Cory [Arcangel] brings these tech people to the gallery, and then they’re not afraid to buy work by Tabor Robak that’s really quite strange—like handmade computers that are generative, so the artwork is actually being written by the computer as it sits in a collector’s home.


Image
Image
Image

It's not hard for me to imagine the argument that this work might 'articulate and encapsulate those elements of the patron's specific world-view whose philosophical and spiritual ramifications extend beyond the pure self-interest of the ruling class' in its own post-Warhol way, and as plays toward the new money go, I'd take this over the Lucien Smiths or Joe Bradleys of the world, because it offers at least the lightest implication of something to think about, but it doesn't seem particularly surefooted to me in terms of its ironic relationship to the market (at least not compared to the best pop or conceptual work, which this stuff seems sorta blandly torn between).
User avatar

Phil
 
Posts: 5111
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 5:28 pm

Postby Phil » Fri Apr 15, 2016 10:59 am

famnexdo wrote:the malik sidibe photo show up concurrently at the other shainman location is a barn burner and i think both shows work really well together in a weird way.


RIP

Image
Image
Image
User avatar

Phil
 
Posts: 5111
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 5:28 pm

Postby viachicago » Fri Apr 15, 2016 11:08 am

i saw the newish Matthew Barney over the course of 3 days this week...what a complete god damn mess

(NSFW)


im not really in a position to critique it other than to say there was about 1 hour total of mind blowing scenes, and about 5 hours of babbling incomprehensible nonsense. and poop. so much poop....

maybe im just not cut out to inhabit the world of ArtDudes™
User avatar

viachicago
 
Posts: 14209
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 10:19 pm

Postby scurrydog » Fri Apr 15, 2016 3:46 pm

Dang, I feel like I missed out on some good convo here.

Can we revisit the Dana paintings?

So what I love about Dana's work is actually its roots in the exploration of performance as painting and sculpture as painting.

Those early works were great, because painters thinking about performance wasn't treated like "my (a) body moves paint on a surface" which is a kinda dated dumb painter way of thinking about performance.
The same with her working through sculpture.

These new works sacrifice this mode of thinking, much to her detriment.

They do become a sort of technical game of spot the style that lack the hipness or concern that is found in someone like jamian juliano-villani.

Fatrick says it in a rather clumsy way, but the scale of these paintings are a really huge problem. Partially, because they are designed for the mega rich, but also because they are designed for small to mid level institutions.
Often these institutions have space, but can't afford mega works by big name dead artists, and can't afford great works by contemporary artists, so they are forced to fill their oversized walls with works that, while made by a big name artist, fail to live up to their monumental expectations. They sorta just flounder in small institutions, until common sense remands them to storage units, and eventual auction when the institutions need some liquidity.

These scaled up works just don't do anything worthwhile and have already disappeared from the contemporary art collective landscape.
love you guys!
User avatar

scurrydog
ok
 
Posts: 3078
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 6:58 pm
Location: Texas/Jersey/NYC

Postby galactagogue » Fri Apr 15, 2016 4:31 pm

and i guess i don't have a lot of patience for the art world modus operandi of 'doing a new thing', or i guess the idea of 'aesthetic progress', if that makes sense. often feels kinda forced or shallow.



isn't the doing a new thing feeling just a response to emerging modes of production? do you think it's forced to test these things through art? Part of this conversation that I feel like gets a little lost sometimes is the intention of an artist. I guess I don't consider every work as being preconceived from beginning to end before it's even started. I mean even looking at Auberbach and the way nature morte talks about this blurred sense of mechanistic and gestural production... it just seems like the most captivating thing isn't about novelty, it's about approaching that Thing in material terms that sort of escapes a lot of definition and articulation. I know this is a lot of me waxing poetic right now, but it's interesting how a discussion of art can often approach such deterministic language. It's honestly why I hate most PR releases for exhibitions and just about any language they try to thrust on you for viewing works-- retrospectives are super guilty of this.

I'm a big fan of this thread getting more critical, especially with some examples. I also just appreciate anyone sharing things that make them feel some kind of way whether or not they're so hellbent on defending themselves.
Bob511 wrote:It's important to remember, though, that California has more psychologists than any other state.
User avatar

galactagogue
 
Posts: 15886
Joined: Fri May 02, 2014 12:27 pm

Postby galactagogue » Fri Apr 15, 2016 4:44 pm

scurrydog wrote:Fatrick says it in a rather clumsy way, but the scale of these paintings are a really huge problem. Partially, because they are designed for the mega rich, but also because they are designed for small to mid level institutions.
Often these institutions have space, but can't afford mega works by big name dead artists, and can't afford great works by contemporary artists, so they are forced to fill their oversized walls with works that, while made by a big name artist, fail to live up to their monumental expectations. They sorta just flounder in small institutions, until common sense remands them to storage units, and eventual auction when the institutions need some liquidity.

These scaled up works just don't do anything worthwhile and have already disappeared from the contemporary art collective landscape.



i have some issue with the assumption that scale translate into design for the mega rich.

the implication is that you're just not allowed to operate on this scale unless you're catering? someone at her level (yea aided by a market that put her there) is expected to avoid or ignore the possibility of scale? i'm all for having a conversation about institution and markets and how it distorts what we see and are allowed to see but it's a myopic way of viewing things.
Bob511 wrote:It's important to remember, though, that California has more psychologists than any other state.
User avatar

galactagogue
 
Posts: 15886
Joined: Fri May 02, 2014 12:27 pm

Postby scurrydog » Fri Apr 15, 2016 5:56 pm

galactagogue wrote:
scurrydog wrote:Fatrick says it in a rather clumsy way, but the scale of these paintings are a really huge problem. Partially, because they are designed for the mega rich, but also because they are designed for small to mid level institutions.
Often these institutions have space, but can't afford mega works by big name dead artists, and can't afford great works by contemporary artists, so they are forced to fill their oversized walls with works that, while made by a big name artist, fail to live up to their monumental expectations. They sorta just flounder in small institutions, until common sense remands them to storage units, and eventual auction when the institutions need some liquidity.

These scaled up works just don't do anything worthwhile and have already disappeared from the contemporary art collective landscape.



i have some issue with the assumption that scale translate into design for the mega rich.

the implication is that you're just not allowed to operate on this scale unless you're catering? someone at her level (yea aided by a market that put her there) is expected to avoid or ignore the possibility of scale? i'm all for having a conversation about institution and markets and how it distorts what we see and are allowed to see but it's a myopic way of viewing things.


I'm all for large scale works. actually, to be more precise, I'm 100% for ambitious works.

That said, if you're going to work small, I want their to be a good reason to work small, and I want you to knock it out of the park (to keep the baseball references going).
If you're going to work large and make a shit load of money off of it, then the work better earn it.

Otherwise the work is mediocre/bad
or worse the work is mediocre/bad and you're still thought of as good.
love you guys!
User avatar

scurrydog
ok
 
Posts: 3078
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 6:58 pm
Location: Texas/Jersey/NYC

Postby galactagogue » Fri Apr 15, 2016 7:01 pm

size is overvalued, sure. but i don't really come across a lot of oversized bullshit.
tends to cost $$ for most unestablished artist to work that large and for the record I don't think Schultz paintings are an example of overwhelming size dictating value.
Bob511 wrote:It's important to remember, though, that California has more psychologists than any other state.
User avatar

galactagogue
 
Posts: 15886
Joined: Fri May 02, 2014 12:27 pm

Postby galactagogue » Fri Apr 15, 2016 7:01 pm

or additional value iguess
Bob511 wrote:It's important to remember, though, that California has more psychologists than any other state.
User avatar

galactagogue
 
Posts: 15886
Joined: Fri May 02, 2014 12:27 pm

Postby bazooka » Fri Apr 15, 2016 7:14 pm

galactagogue wrote:
and i guess i don't have a lot of patience for the art world modus operandi of 'doing a new thing', or i guess the idea of 'aesthetic progress', if that makes sense. often feels kinda forced or shallow.


isn't the doing a new thing feeling just a response to emerging modes of production? do you think it's forced to test these things through art? Part of this conversation that I feel like gets a little lost sometimes is the intention of an artist. I guess I don't consider every work as being preconceived from beginning to end before it's even started. I mean even looking at Auberbach and the way nature morte talks about this blurred sense of mechanistic and gestural production... it just seems like the most captivating thing isn't about novelty, it's about approaching that Thing in material terms that sort of escapes a lot of definition and articulation. I know this is a lot of me waxing poetic right now, but it's interesting how a discussion of art can often approach such deterministic language. It's honestly why I hate most PR releases for exhibitions and just about any language they try to thrust on you for viewing works-- retrospectives are super guilty of this.


i feel you. to clarify i think i'm talking more about discourse surrounding art than art itself. as in i would answer this question "do you think it's forced to test these things through art?" by saying "no" or "not necessarily"

i thought about responding more point by point but that ceased to seem fruitful pretty quick

i think i'm coming at these thoughts from a fairly specific pov, and again, most of the art itt, the economies from which they emerge, and the communities that engage w them, are completely foreign to me. not that art being posted itt is all coming from some mono mainstream contemp art world culture, but hopef you get my point

yet i make art and engage with artists on a daily basis, and i consider my ideas about art and shit to be of interest just as much as someone who is plugged into ~contemporary art culture~ significantly more than me

which is why i'm interested in knowing more about ppl's relationship to art and to contemporary art

i come at this stuff through poetry too, as i do a lot of writing, and the ezra pound dictum "make it new" still kinda looms large. lots of avant poetry the last 50+ years has been centered on 'discovering' new aesthetic gestures and imbuing poetries that arise from such actions as vital zones of resistance against um, cultural hegemony and shit? it's pretty annoying cuz ya maybe that is cool as fuck but maybe who cares???

this all goes back to the question you posed to me, and i think it's pretty awesome when people play around with new materials, modes of production, modes of distrubtion, et al, through their art. but sometimes the discourse around this sorta shit frustrates me. although again my engagement w discourses i'm talking shit on is limited

read this tweet recently that feels kinda relavant to what i'm on about



last thing i'll say is with my post i was just kind of putting stuff out there that i felt varying degrees of strongly about. most thoughts i put out in the public discourse sphere are works in progress that are likely to get modified or disappear from my mind entirely. so i feel yr point about letting going of the desire to stand in a defensive pose
User avatar

bazooka
 
Posts: 1725
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 2:27 pm

Postby Phil » Fri Apr 15, 2016 8:58 pm

Not entirely sure we need to restart the whole Schutz conversation, but to goggles' point, I think the disconnect for me is that I find her larger canvases more successful than her smaller ones on the whole, particularly with the newer pieces that are dealing so much with tensions between public and private. (That probably half the work in the last Petzel show would comfortably fit in the apartment of anyone buying a piece of work in Chelsea is beside the point, I guess). I just don't find her to be someone who seems like a particularly good flash point for this conversation about art aimed at the market; like I'm glad we haven't done the whole zombie formalism thing, and I don't think anything particularly relevant to that conversation has even been posted in here, but that seems to me much more like the point where both discussions of vulgar scale or whatever and bazooka's comments about novelty fetishes come together.
User avatar

Phil
 
Posts: 5111
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 5:28 pm

Postby galactagogue » Sun Apr 17, 2016 1:22 pm

Naturemorte im curious how you feel about sigmar polke, just based on your reaction to tauba
Bob511 wrote:It's important to remember, though, that California has more psychologists than any other state.
User avatar

galactagogue
 
Posts: 15886
Joined: Fri May 02, 2014 12:27 pm

Postby doublethink0 » Sun Apr 17, 2016 11:38 pm

User avatar

doublethink0
 
Posts: 2621
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2015 3:17 pm
Location: CLE

Postby doublethink0 » Sun Apr 17, 2016 11:42 pm

User avatar

doublethink0
 
Posts: 2621
Joined: Sat Sep 05, 2015 3:17 pm
Location: CLE

Postby Fine Wine » Sun Apr 17, 2016 11:42 pm

poop art, eh
User avatar

Fine Wine
 
Posts: 3098
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 2:48 pm

Postby m law » Sun Apr 17, 2016 11:55 pm

Phil wrote:Trailer for my favorite video from last year, which is a very post-Hito piece of work:



Cecile is a friend of mine, awesome artist and person. stayed in her apt in berlin for a month when i moved there and helped her with some vector art!
Last edited by m law on Mon Apr 18, 2016 12:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar

m law
 
Posts: 2203
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 4:16 pm

Postby vivian darko » Mon Apr 18, 2016 12:03 am

User avatar

vivian darko
 
Posts: 10946
Joined: Sun May 03, 2015 8:04 pm

Postby m law » Mon Apr 18, 2016 12:04 am

my good friend has a show in nyc at the jonathon levine gallery. i helped him on a painting. (p. juxtapozey). edit: not this painting

Image

dan witz also has a show there:
Image

not much of a fine artist or a critic but my favorite shows ever:
tim hawkinson at the whitney in 2005
Image
Cai Guo-Qiang at the guggenheim in 2008
Image
User avatar

m law
 
Posts: 2203
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 4:16 pm

Postby wintergreen » Wed Apr 20, 2016 11:23 pm

hayley eichenbaum (these are all photographs):

Image




Image




Image




Image




Image



Image



Image
User avatar

wintergreen
 
Posts: 10512
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 2:57 pm

Postby Fine Wine » Wed Apr 20, 2016 11:25 pm

fuck me
User avatar

Fine Wine
 
Posts: 3098
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 2:48 pm

Postby galactagogue » Thu Apr 21, 2016 1:38 pm

w o w. i havent enjoyed a photograph this much in a long time.
Bob511 wrote:It's important to remember, though, that California has more psychologists than any other state.
User avatar

galactagogue
 
Posts: 15886
Joined: Fri May 02, 2014 12:27 pm

Postby wintergreen » Thu Apr 21, 2016 1:50 pm

her instagram is out of control:












User avatar

wintergreen
 
Posts: 10512
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 2:57 pm

Postby junebug » Wed May 04, 2016 11:55 pm

Phil wrote:Looking forward to Nicole Eisenman's New Museum show.

Image
Image
Image


her paintings are mesmerizing in person, highly recommend going to see this. worth the price of admission alone. goshka macuga's show one flight above was really impressive as well. I thought all of her textiles were photographs at first. I've never seen such detailed, realistic tapestries before. I loved this painting from the eisenman exhibit, though I'm partial to the highlighted institution.

Image
Image
User avatar

junebug
 
Posts: 9114
Joined: Mon Jun 17, 2013 4:51 pm
Location: ∞∞∞∞

Postby Dr. Munir Xochipillicueponi Quetzalkanbalam » Thu May 05, 2016 12:02 am

those hayley eichenbaum photos are like david hockney paintings come to life. :shock:
Writer, Performer, Director, Composer, Entrepreneur, Mayan Expert, World War II Denier
User avatar

Dr. Munir Xochipillicueponi Quetzalkanbalam
ok
 
Posts: 16364
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2012 9:15 am

Postby Dinosauria We » Thu May 05, 2016 6:49 am

man those photographs a couple posts up are really incredible. they speak to me.
User avatar

Dinosauria We
 
Posts: 6529
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2009 3:02 pm

Postby gold and glass » Thu May 05, 2016 9:08 pm

since ppl keep mentioning NYC shows in this thread, what are the good ones up now? back in town for a while
fuck you and your corporation
User avatar

gold and glass
ok
 
Posts: 21824
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 4:14 pm
Location: york, pa

Postby naturemorte » Fri May 27, 2016 9:05 pm

If I were more articulate, and more securely jaded in my condemnation of what big "contemporary art" represents and why it is impossible to suspend questions of the social and market roles it performs, it would probably read a lot like this review of the Broad
Guy Debord said that spectacle is capital accumulated to the point that it becomes an image. Fair enough, except that it is too easy, when thinking or writing about spectacle, to forget what capital is. Capital is dead labor. It is the abstract form of a trillion instances of suffering. Contra Debord, it need not become visible at all, and in fact capital is perhaps most destructive where the social relation that it objectifies is most naturalized and unseen – in the everyday violence of class, race, and gender; in the omnipresence of money and commodities, which are violent forms in themselves because they distribute life and death according to an inhuman logic. Contemporary art is the obverse of this invisibility. This is why The Broad is a shrine to class hatred. As a sponge for surplus capital – its function as a hedge or investment – art absorbs human suffering; contemporary art is therefore class hatred in one of its most concentrated forms. Art takes upon itself the guilt of those who caused that suffering and who think that art will discharge it. But it does not.


Sorry/not sorry to be stirring this pot again
chad wrote:"How can I make this about me and also congratulate myself in some way" - basically every hipinion bro
User avatar

naturemorte
 
Posts: 7008
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 8:57 pm
Location: maxine's parlour

PreviousNext

Return to Poster's Paradise

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 31Geeeeeeee, ahungbunny, Annie May, Architecture, average deceiver, Bad Craziness, Bartatua, bat house, bill, black drum, bluelips, Boog Powell, brittle, budlite supernova, buginabubble, building jumper, chewy, chowder julius, Christmas Ape, Cornwallis, CudNylon, dada, deebster, doublethink0, dylanclub, en svensk tiger, Eyeball Kid, fakename, figar0, Flossed Out, funkfunkfunk, fury, Future, Fyodor Dostoyevsky, gauchebag, Google [Bot], gordie blue eyes, Grumby, Hal Jordan, Heironymus Gugger, hideout, high bias, Hugh, i am rich, Intervalo, jca, jewels, joeylevels, jon, Jouster, katastroika, kentucky, Kodiak, Kuboaa, light rail coyote, loaf angel, Locke, Marza, mego, Merciel, Mesh, MikeyJ, Mr Spaceship, murderhorn, nice pass, oh! it's max!, OKterrific, orenji, pablito, Patchouli Jim, porn.exe, potentialgetawaydriver, powderfinger, ragle gumm, rankoutsider, resum, rich uncle skeleton, Robert, Ron, shark week, shizaam, Slay Da Pink Fleshy Beast, sobieski , swamp angel, tea preacher, tgk, That Demon Life, This Guy, tsargaritaville, uncledoj, unsandpiper, v h g, virile, wakeman, wallet inspector, warmjets, winjer, worrywort, wuk and 158 guests