BIO
Curt Cloninger is an artist, writer, and Associate Professor of New Media at the University of North Carolina Asheville. His art undermines language as a system of meaning in order to reveal it as an embodied force in the world. His art work has been featured in the New York Times and at festivals and galleries from Korea to Brazil. Exhibition venues include Centre Georges Pompidou (Paris), Granoff Center for The Creative Arts (Brown University), Digital Art Museum [DAM] (Berlin), Ukrainian Institute of Modern Art (Chicago), Black Mountain College Museum + Arts Center, and the internet. He is the recipient of several grants and awards, including commissions for the creation of new artwork from the National Endowment for the Arts (via Turbulence.org) and Austin Peay State University's Terminal Award.
Cloninger has written on a wide range of topics, including new media and internet art, installation and performance art, experimental graphic design, popular music, network culture, and continental philosophy. His articles have appeared in Intelligent Agent, Mute, Paste, Tekka, Rhizome Digest, A List Apart, and on ABC World News. He is also the author of eight books, most recently One Per Year (Link Editions). He maintains lab404.com, playdamage.org , and deepyoung.org in hopes of facilitating a more lively remote dialogue with the Sundry Contagions of Wonder.
Cloninger has written on a wide range of topics, including new media and internet art, installation and performance art, experimental graphic design, popular music, network culture, and continental philosophy. His articles have appeared in Intelligent Agent, Mute, Paste, Tekka, Rhizome Digest, A List Apart, and on ABC World News. He is also the author of eight books, most recently One Per Year (Link Editions). He maintains lab404.com, playdamage.org , and deepyoung.org in hopes of facilitating a more lively remote dialogue with the Sundry Contagions of Wonder.
the scott baio litmus test
Dear friends on the rhizome raw list,
Hi. It's me, curt.
As a competetive American male intuitively seeking a simple and
indisputable method of clearly indentifying "winners" (even in
non-competetive areas of hazy subjectivity such as contemporary art),
I've come up with the Scott Baio Litmus Test.
"Who are the GOOD artists?" "who are the BEST artists?" I know I'm
not allowed to ask these questions, but they continue to arise. I'm
not allowed to answer these questions based on whether an artist's
work is actually good or not; because there are lots of artists whose
work really sucks, but who nevertheless assure me that they are
succeeding as artists. Some of these sucky artists point to their
gallery exhibits as proof of success, others point to their
recognition in festivals, others to their academic degrees and
research, and the more banal point to the amount of money their art
has procured from patrons whom they both ridicule and disdain.
Surely there must be a less subjective way of measuring success?
And there is! Introducing the Scott Baio Litmus Test (hereafter
referred to as the SBLT). Contemporary artists can't really be in it
for the big money (since only about 3 contemporary artists are making
any big money). Too obligatorily cynical to be in it simply for the
joys of creation or the mere "fun of it," I figure most contemporary
artists are in it for the fame. Well, Scott Baio was pretty famous
in his day too. Alas, Scott's day was fleeting and is now 30 years
gone. (The light that burns twice as bright burns half as long. Cf:
http://www.neuralust.com/~curt/scott/baio.jpg )
Scott's medium was not even the internet, whereas most contemporary
artists are all wired and such. So I figure, if in your heyday, and
in your own medium, you're not any more famous than Scott Baio, how
can you call yourself a success? Hence the SBLT --
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
the SBLT:
1. go to http://www.googlefight.com
2. enter "scott baio" in one field (don't forget the quotation marks).
3. enter "your name" in the other field (where "your name" is your
name, and don't forget the quotation marks).
4. submit and observe the results.
5. if scott wins, shrink your head, keep on self-pimpin', and try
again in a couple of years.
6. if you win (and your name is not something generic like "jennifer
smith"), congratulations, you are a successful contemporary artist.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Hopefully, this simple test will put to rest once and for all any
sticky issues of aesthetic value, artistic worth, and ugly
accusations of outright suckiness.
your friend,
curt
_
_
_
Hi. It's me, curt.
As a competetive American male intuitively seeking a simple and
indisputable method of clearly indentifying "winners" (even in
non-competetive areas of hazy subjectivity such as contemporary art),
I've come up with the Scott Baio Litmus Test.
"Who are the GOOD artists?" "who are the BEST artists?" I know I'm
not allowed to ask these questions, but they continue to arise. I'm
not allowed to answer these questions based on whether an artist's
work is actually good or not; because there are lots of artists whose
work really sucks, but who nevertheless assure me that they are
succeeding as artists. Some of these sucky artists point to their
gallery exhibits as proof of success, others point to their
recognition in festivals, others to their academic degrees and
research, and the more banal point to the amount of money their art
has procured from patrons whom they both ridicule and disdain.
Surely there must be a less subjective way of measuring success?
And there is! Introducing the Scott Baio Litmus Test (hereafter
referred to as the SBLT). Contemporary artists can't really be in it
for the big money (since only about 3 contemporary artists are making
any big money). Too obligatorily cynical to be in it simply for the
joys of creation or the mere "fun of it," I figure most contemporary
artists are in it for the fame. Well, Scott Baio was pretty famous
in his day too. Alas, Scott's day was fleeting and is now 30 years
gone. (The light that burns twice as bright burns half as long. Cf:
http://www.neuralust.com/~curt/scott/baio.jpg )
Scott's medium was not even the internet, whereas most contemporary
artists are all wired and such. So I figure, if in your heyday, and
in your own medium, you're not any more famous than Scott Baio, how
can you call yourself a success? Hence the SBLT --
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
the SBLT:
1. go to http://www.googlefight.com
2. enter "scott baio" in one field (don't forget the quotation marks).
3. enter "your name" in the other field (where "your name" is your
name, and don't forget the quotation marks).
4. submit and observe the results.
5. if scott wins, shrink your head, keep on self-pimpin', and try
again in a couple of years.
6. if you win (and your name is not something generic like "jennifer
smith"), congratulations, you are a successful contemporary artist.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Hopefully, this simple test will put to rest once and for all any
sticky issues of aesthetic value, artistic worth, and ugly
accusations of outright suckiness.
your friend,
curt
_
_
_
Re: the scott baio litmus test
try it again using the quotation marks. It's inaccurate if you don't
use the quotation marks!
mark garrett = 142,000 [inaccurate]
"mark garrett" = 513 [accurate]
http://www.googlefight.com/cgi-bin/compare.pl?q1=%22marc+garrett%22&q2
=%22david+bowie%22&B1=Make+a+fight%21&compare=1&langue=us
At 1:57 AM +0000 11/14/02, furtherfield wrote:
>Wow, internet polling... is fun - erm, I suippose you better find out who
>one and lost...
>
>Marc Garrett vs David Bowie...
>http://www.googlefight.com/cgi-bin/compare.pl?q1=marc+garrett&q2Uvid+bowie
>&B1=Make+a+fight%21&compare=1&langue=us
>
>
>Valery Grancher vs Mark Tribe
>http://www.googlefight.com/cgi-bin/compare.pl?q1=valery+grancher&q2=mark+tri
>be&B1=Make+a+fight%21&compare=1&langue=us
>
>
>
>marc
>
>
> > Dear friends on the rhizome raw list,
> >
> > Hi. It's me, curt.
> >
> > As a competetive American male intuitively seeking a simple and
> > indisputable method of clearly indentifying "winners" (even in
> > non-competetive areas of hazy subjectivity such as contemporary art),
> > I've come up with the Scott Baio Litmus Test.
> >
> > "Who are the GOOD artists?" "who are the BEST artists?" I know I'm
> > not allowed to ask these questions, but they continue to arise. I'm
> > not allowed to answer these questions based on whether an artist's
> > work is actually good or not; because there are lots of artists whose
> > work really sucks, but who nevertheless assure me that they are
> > succeeding as artists. Some of these sucky artists point to their
> > gallery exhibits as proof of success, others point to their
> > recognition in festivals, others to their academic degrees and
> > research, and the more banal point to the amount of money their art
> > has procured from patrons whom they both ridicule and disdain.
> > Surely there must be a less subjective way of measuring success?
> >
> > And there is! Introducing the Scott Baio Litmus Test (hereafter
> > referred to as the SBLT). Contemporary artists can't really be in it
> > for the big money (since only about 3 contemporary artists are making
> > any big money). Too obligatorily cynical to be in it simply for the
> > joys of creation or the mere "fun of it," I figure most contemporary
> > artists are in it for the fame. Well, Scott Baio was pretty famous
> > in his day too. Alas, Scott's day was fleeting and is now 30 years
> > gone. (The light that burns twice as bright burns half as long. Cf:
> > http://www.neuralust.com/~curt/scott/baio.jpg )
> >
> > Scott's medium was not even the internet, whereas most contemporary
> > artists are all wired and such. So I figure, if in your heyday, and
> > in your own medium, you're not any more famous than Scott Baio, how
> > can you call yourself a success? Hence the SBLT --
> >
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > the SBLT:
> > 1. go to http://www.googlefight.com
> > 2. enter "scott baio" in one field (don't forget the quotation marks).
> > 3. enter "your name" in the other field (where "your name" is your
> > name, and don't forget the quotation marks).
> > 4. submit and observe the results.
> > 5. if scott wins, shrink your head, keep on self-pimpin', and try
> > again in a couple of years.
> > 6. if you win (and your name is not something generic like "jennifer
> > smith"), congratulations, you are a successful contemporary artist.
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >
> >
> > Hopefully, this simple test will put to rest once and for all any
> > sticky issues of aesthetic value, artistic worth, and ugly
> > accusations of outright suckiness.
> >
> > your friend,
> > curt
> >
> > _
> > _
> > _
> > + KNORRRRRRR
> > -> post: list@rhizome.org
> > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> > +
> > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> >
> >
use the quotation marks!
mark garrett = 142,000 [inaccurate]
"mark garrett" = 513 [accurate]
http://www.googlefight.com/cgi-bin/compare.pl?q1=%22marc+garrett%22&q2
=%22david+bowie%22&B1=Make+a+fight%21&compare=1&langue=us
At 1:57 AM +0000 11/14/02, furtherfield wrote:
>Wow, internet polling... is fun - erm, I suippose you better find out who
>one and lost...
>
>Marc Garrett vs David Bowie...
>http://www.googlefight.com/cgi-bin/compare.pl?q1=marc+garrett&q2Uvid+bowie
>&B1=Make+a+fight%21&compare=1&langue=us
>
>
>Valery Grancher vs Mark Tribe
>http://www.googlefight.com/cgi-bin/compare.pl?q1=valery+grancher&q2=mark+tri
>be&B1=Make+a+fight%21&compare=1&langue=us
>
>
>
>marc
>
>
> > Dear friends on the rhizome raw list,
> >
> > Hi. It's me, curt.
> >
> > As a competetive American male intuitively seeking a simple and
> > indisputable method of clearly indentifying "winners" (even in
> > non-competetive areas of hazy subjectivity such as contemporary art),
> > I've come up with the Scott Baio Litmus Test.
> >
> > "Who are the GOOD artists?" "who are the BEST artists?" I know I'm
> > not allowed to ask these questions, but they continue to arise. I'm
> > not allowed to answer these questions based on whether an artist's
> > work is actually good or not; because there are lots of artists whose
> > work really sucks, but who nevertheless assure me that they are
> > succeeding as artists. Some of these sucky artists point to their
> > gallery exhibits as proof of success, others point to their
> > recognition in festivals, others to their academic degrees and
> > research, and the more banal point to the amount of money their art
> > has procured from patrons whom they both ridicule and disdain.
> > Surely there must be a less subjective way of measuring success?
> >
> > And there is! Introducing the Scott Baio Litmus Test (hereafter
> > referred to as the SBLT). Contemporary artists can't really be in it
> > for the big money (since only about 3 contemporary artists are making
> > any big money). Too obligatorily cynical to be in it simply for the
> > joys of creation or the mere "fun of it," I figure most contemporary
> > artists are in it for the fame. Well, Scott Baio was pretty famous
> > in his day too. Alas, Scott's day was fleeting and is now 30 years
> > gone. (The light that burns twice as bright burns half as long. Cf:
> > http://www.neuralust.com/~curt/scott/baio.jpg )
> >
> > Scott's medium was not even the internet, whereas most contemporary
> > artists are all wired and such. So I figure, if in your heyday, and
> > in your own medium, you're not any more famous than Scott Baio, how
> > can you call yourself a success? Hence the SBLT --
> >
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > the SBLT:
> > 1. go to http://www.googlefight.com
> > 2. enter "scott baio" in one field (don't forget the quotation marks).
> > 3. enter "your name" in the other field (where "your name" is your
> > name, and don't forget the quotation marks).
> > 4. submit and observe the results.
> > 5. if scott wins, shrink your head, keep on self-pimpin', and try
> > again in a couple of years.
> > 6. if you win (and your name is not something generic like "jennifer
> > smith"), congratulations, you are a successful contemporary artist.
> > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> >
> >
> > Hopefully, this simple test will put to rest once and for all any
> > sticky issues of aesthetic value, artistic worth, and ugly
> > accusations of outright suckiness.
> >
> > your friend,
> > curt
> >
> > _
> > _
> > _
> > + KNORRRRRRR
> > -> post: list@rhizome.org
> > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> > -> subscribe/unsubscribe: http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> > +
> > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> > Membership Agreement available online at http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> >
> >
Re: the scott baio litmus test
my apologies.
the 513 figure is still accurate, though. you're evil twin "mark
garrett" actually yields 2,360.
At 2:33 AM +0000 11/14/02, furtherfield wrote:
>Hi curb,
>
>it's marc (born with it) not mark.
>
>
>marc
>
>
> > try it again using the quotation marks. It's inaccurate if you don't
> > use the quotation marks!
> >
> > mark garrett = 142,000 [inaccurate]
> > "mark garrett" = 513 [accurate]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > http://www.googlefight.com/cgi-bin/compare.pl?q1=%22marc+garrett%22&q2
> > =%22david+bowie%22&B1=Make+a+fight%21&compare=1&langue=us
> >
> > At 1:57 AM +0000 11/14/02, furtherfield wrote:
> > >Wow, internet polling... is fun - erm, I suippose you better find out who
> > >one and lost...
> > >
> > >Marc Garrett vs David Bowie...
> >
> >http://www.googlefight.com/cgi-bin/compare.pl?q1=marc+garrett&q2Uvid+bowi
>e
> > >&B1=Make+a+fight%21&compare=1&langue=us
> > >
> > >
> > >Valery Grancher vs Mark Tribe
> >
> >http://www.googlefight.com/cgi-bin/compare.pl?q1=valery+grancher&q2=mark+tr
>i
> > >be&B1=Make+a+fight%21&compare=1&langue=us
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >marc
> > >
> > >
> > > > Dear friends on the rhizome raw list,
> > > >
> > > > Hi. It's me, curt.
> > > >
> > > > As a competetive American male intuitively seeking a simple and
> > > > indisputable method of clearly indentifying "winners" (even in
> > > > non-competetive areas of hazy subjectivity such as contemporary art),
> > > > I've come up with the Scott Baio Litmus Test.
> > > >
> > > > "Who are the GOOD artists?" "who are the BEST artists?" I know I'm
> > > > not allowed to ask these questions, but they continue to arise. I'm
> > > > not allowed to answer these questions based on whether an artist's
> > > > work is actually good or not; because there are lots of artists whose
> > > > work really sucks, but who nevertheless assure me that they are
> > > > succeeding as artists. Some of these sucky artists point to their
> > > > gallery exhibits as proof of success, others point to their
> > > > recognition in festivals, others to their academic degrees and
> > > > research, and the more banal point to the amount of money their art
> > > > has procured from patrons whom they both ridicule and disdain.
> > > > Surely there must be a less subjective way of measuring success?
> > > >
> > > > And there is! Introducing the Scott Baio Litmus Test (hereafter
> > > > referred to as the SBLT). Contemporary artists can't really be in it
> > > > for the big money (since only about 3 contemporary artists are making
> > > > any big money). Too obligatorily cynical to be in it simply for the
> > > > joys of creation or the mere "fun of it," I figure most contemporary
> > > > artists are in it for the fame. Well, Scott Baio was pretty famous
> > > > in his day too. Alas, Scott's day was fleeting and is now 30 years
> > > > gone. (The light that burns twice as bright burns half as long. Cf:
> > > > http://www.neuralust.com/~curt/scott/baio.jpg )
> > > >
> > > > Scott's medium was not even the internet, whereas most contemporary
> > > > artists are all wired and such. So I figure, if in your heyday, and
> > > > in your own medium, you're not any more famous than Scott Baio, how
> > > > can you call yourself a success? Hence the SBLT --
> > > >
> > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > the SBLT:
> > > > 1. go to http://www.googlefight.com
> > > > 2. enter "scott baio" in one field (don't forget the quotation marks).
> > > > 3. enter "your name" in the other field (where "your name" is your
> > > > name, and don't forget the quotation marks).
> > > > 4. submit and observe the results.
> > > > 5. if scott wins, shrink your head, keep on self-pimpin', and try
> > > > again in a couple of years.
> > > > 6. if you win (and your name is not something generic like "jennifer
> > > > smith"), congratulations, you are a successful contemporary artist.
> > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hopefully, this simple test will put to rest once and for all any
> > > > sticky issues of aesthetic value, artistic worth, and ugly
> > > > accusations of outright suckiness.
> > > >
> > > > your friend,
> > > > curt
> > > >
> > > > _
> > > > _
> > > > _
> > > > + KNORRRRRRR
> > > > -> post: list@rhizome.org
> > > > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> > > > -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
>http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> > > > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> > > > +
> > > > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> > > > Membership Agreement available online at
>http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
the 513 figure is still accurate, though. you're evil twin "mark
garrett" actually yields 2,360.
At 2:33 AM +0000 11/14/02, furtherfield wrote:
>Hi curb,
>
>it's marc (born with it) not mark.
>
>
>marc
>
>
> > try it again using the quotation marks. It's inaccurate if you don't
> > use the quotation marks!
> >
> > mark garrett = 142,000 [inaccurate]
> > "mark garrett" = 513 [accurate]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > http://www.googlefight.com/cgi-bin/compare.pl?q1=%22marc+garrett%22&q2
> > =%22david+bowie%22&B1=Make+a+fight%21&compare=1&langue=us
> >
> > At 1:57 AM +0000 11/14/02, furtherfield wrote:
> > >Wow, internet polling... is fun - erm, I suippose you better find out who
> > >one and lost...
> > >
> > >Marc Garrett vs David Bowie...
> >
> >http://www.googlefight.com/cgi-bin/compare.pl?q1=marc+garrett&q2Uvid+bowi
>e
> > >&B1=Make+a+fight%21&compare=1&langue=us
> > >
> > >
> > >Valery Grancher vs Mark Tribe
> >
> >http://www.googlefight.com/cgi-bin/compare.pl?q1=valery+grancher&q2=mark+tr
>i
> > >be&B1=Make+a+fight%21&compare=1&langue=us
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >marc
> > >
> > >
> > > > Dear friends on the rhizome raw list,
> > > >
> > > > Hi. It's me, curt.
> > > >
> > > > As a competetive American male intuitively seeking a simple and
> > > > indisputable method of clearly indentifying "winners" (even in
> > > > non-competetive areas of hazy subjectivity such as contemporary art),
> > > > I've come up with the Scott Baio Litmus Test.
> > > >
> > > > "Who are the GOOD artists?" "who are the BEST artists?" I know I'm
> > > > not allowed to ask these questions, but they continue to arise. I'm
> > > > not allowed to answer these questions based on whether an artist's
> > > > work is actually good or not; because there are lots of artists whose
> > > > work really sucks, but who nevertheless assure me that they are
> > > > succeeding as artists. Some of these sucky artists point to their
> > > > gallery exhibits as proof of success, others point to their
> > > > recognition in festivals, others to their academic degrees and
> > > > research, and the more banal point to the amount of money their art
> > > > has procured from patrons whom they both ridicule and disdain.
> > > > Surely there must be a less subjective way of measuring success?
> > > >
> > > > And there is! Introducing the Scott Baio Litmus Test (hereafter
> > > > referred to as the SBLT). Contemporary artists can't really be in it
> > > > for the big money (since only about 3 contemporary artists are making
> > > > any big money). Too obligatorily cynical to be in it simply for the
> > > > joys of creation or the mere "fun of it," I figure most contemporary
> > > > artists are in it for the fame. Well, Scott Baio was pretty famous
> > > > in his day too. Alas, Scott's day was fleeting and is now 30 years
> > > > gone. (The light that burns twice as bright burns half as long. Cf:
> > > > http://www.neuralust.com/~curt/scott/baio.jpg )
> > > >
> > > > Scott's medium was not even the internet, whereas most contemporary
> > > > artists are all wired and such. So I figure, if in your heyday, and
> > > > in your own medium, you're not any more famous than Scott Baio, how
> > > > can you call yourself a success? Hence the SBLT --
> > > >
> > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > > the SBLT:
> > > > 1. go to http://www.googlefight.com
> > > > 2. enter "scott baio" in one field (don't forget the quotation marks).
> > > > 3. enter "your name" in the other field (where "your name" is your
> > > > name, and don't forget the quotation marks).
> > > > 4. submit and observe the results.
> > > > 5. if scott wins, shrink your head, keep on self-pimpin', and try
> > > > again in a couple of years.
> > > > 6. if you win (and your name is not something generic like "jennifer
> > > > smith"), congratulations, you are a successful contemporary artist.
> > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hopefully, this simple test will put to rest once and for all any
> > > > sticky issues of aesthetic value, artistic worth, and ugly
> > > > accusations of outright suckiness.
> > > >
> > > > your friend,
> > > > curt
> > > >
> > > > _
> > > > _
> > > > _
> > > > + KNORRRRRRR
> > > > -> post: list@rhizome.org
> > > > -> questions: info@rhizome.org
> > > > -> subscribe/unsubscribe:
>http://rhizome.org/preferences/subscribe.rhiz
> > > > -> give: http://rhizome.org/support
> > > > +
> > > > Subscribers to Rhizome are subject to the terms set out in the
> > > > Membership Agreement available online at
>http://rhizome.org/info/29.php
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> >
prnt
http://www.preshaa.com/extra/cremaster/pages/P1010061.htm
http://youworkforthem.com/images/print/P0002_09.jpg
http://www.gingkopress.com/_cata/ima1/img/catstr-3.gif
http://www.1000journals.com/contest2entries/pages/059.htm
http://www.burodestruct.net/bd/narita-uploaded/naritabook/gfx/14.jpg
http://www.fellowdesigners.com/japan20.html
_
_
http://youworkforthem.com/images/print/P0002_09.jpg
http://www.gingkopress.com/_cata/ima1/img/catstr-3.gif
http://www.1000journals.com/contest2entries/pages/059.htm
http://www.burodestruct.net/bd/narita-uploaded/naritabook/gfx/14.jpg
http://www.fellowdesigners.com/japan20.html
_
_
{still}
drink up, baby, stay up all night
the things you could do, you won't but you might
the potential you'll be that you'll never see
the promises you'll only make
drink up with me now and forget all about the pressure of days
do what i say and i'll make you okay and drive them away
the images stuck in your head
people you've been before that you don't want around anymore
that push and shove and won't bend to your will
i'll keep them still
drink up, baby, look at the stars, i'll kiss you again
between the bars where i'm seeing you
there with your hands in the air waiting to finally be caught
drink up one more time and i'll make you mine
keep you apart deep in my heart separate from the rest
where i like you the best
and keep the things you forgot
the people you've been before that you don't want around anymore
that push and shove and won't bend to your will
i'll keep them still
http://www.elliottsmith.net/rvcomin1.ram
_
_
the things you could do, you won't but you might
the potential you'll be that you'll never see
the promises you'll only make
drink up with me now and forget all about the pressure of days
do what i say and i'll make you okay and drive them away
the images stuck in your head
people you've been before that you don't want around anymore
that push and shove and won't bend to your will
i'll keep them still
drink up, baby, look at the stars, i'll kiss you again
between the bars where i'm seeing you
there with your hands in the air waiting to finally be caught
drink up one more time and i'll make you mine
keep you apart deep in my heart separate from the rest
where i like you the best
and keep the things you forgot
the people you've been before that you don't want around anymore
that push and shove and won't bend to your will
i'll keep them still
http://www.elliottsmith.net/rvcomin1.ram
_
_