i was born this way. at an early age i can see i liked men. i was raised by my mother with my sister. i once got a boner on my uncles shoulder. but the closest man in my family was my grandfather. still, i never played the games the other boys did. i liked barbies. i liked talking and dancing and singing and laughing. i didn't like sports and i was uncomfortable with most boys because i was different than them. it was plainly obvious, but only threatening to a few, and mainly during middle school. the objects of my desire were men, a man had always been the goal in my dreams. i do love men. i love how they feel, and how i feel. i adopted, without design, the characteristics of the females around me and the females i saw on tv. rachel, ally, sarah these were my role models. they and my girlfriends were who i related to, who i admired, and aspired to be. and my relationships with men are perhaps uncanny, but in romantic relationships there is a dynamic i love. a balance - ebbing - tension and release - freedom and limitation. it is a state of creativity ::gender.relationships
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
What am I doing? Why?
The world is lost. There is not more meaning in one gesture than the gesture in and of itself. There is not much time. You see, there is no future, and we are not headed anywhere. All the people you’re fighting against are just wasting your time. And that’s how they’re winning. And you’re fighting and you’re fighting and you don’t understand they’ve already won. It was all a big lie. One big 90s music video. The pretty girl with blonde highlights sold it to us and it looked like she was having so much fun. You dig? People hold guns for cameras. Is a gun anything other than a tool to kill people? In and of itself. The gesture
Tears.
I live in an apartment with people I don’t know or enjoy. I’m surprised every month I make rent at the last minute, and then I have a month to do nothing. Powerless. Stripped of any significance. I don’t mean to victimize myself. But we must be realistic now. The gesture. The end of days. Am I just doing this to make my art better? Going through the motions of all the tortured souls before me? Capturing every thought along an anguished path, trying to find the magic cure. Write the brilliant fix. Quick money with no effort at all. Every capitalists dream
Or?
Get everything, up, get everything out there. It’s so much and you don’t have much time and what should happen if you fail? And what do you stand to achieve?
Thank God for acting
I will have given up
I will have lost
I will have nothing to show
I might make something that can support me, expose me, lead me somewhere, that somebody might value
Do I have any choice?
Nobody is to blame
Monday, January 3, 2011
I AM KIRKDIFY
My name is Kirkdify. I have existed for nine months which is exactly how long I was with, and how long I've been broken up with, my ex boyfriend. I make autobiographical performance art. I’ve made over 300 videos. YouTube is the hub for, or main depository of, my video work. My photography is installed mostly on facebook. I’ve also constructed accounts on vimeo, buzzfeed, ilikemystyle, blogspot, tumblr, hypem, twitter, and others. I invented the name and persona kirkdify after being denied my requested screename for a gmail account. Kirkdify is my name as a verb. It is the persona I’ve constructed for myself as an artist, for when I am in action, for when I am making things. Kirkdify reflects a public identity similar to my personal and social identity. My emergence into the public arena was marked by the taking of a name, a new construction, partly in the spirit of Elizabeth Gilbert’s TED Talk on creativity. That and Eve Ensler’s talk on Embracing Your Inner Girl, were the two most temporally tangential video influences on Kirkdify.
My work is also informed by the four years I’ve spent in New York City attending NYU for theater. I studied theater as well as practiced. The continual coupling of theory and practice was one of the most rewarding parts of my education. I was able to extensively study the histories of theater and performance as well as continually do the thing. As my studies came to a close I experienced tremendous anxiety about my future. Also, I had just concluded my first romantic relationship – a dream highly valued by me as a gay man from rural Idaho.
My first youtube recording was born in a moment of desperation. Despairing with my roommate, friend, and associate Molly Vila, about our future, our lives and our selves I casually mentioned I had set up a Youtube account. She was immediately excited and from there we followed our impulses, or the impulses of the universe, and a current of energy carried us into costumes, to a piano, through a webpage tutorial, and within an hour we had pressed record on our first Youtube video. It was posted directly. That day we made as many videos as we could, with whatever clothing we had in our apartment, with whatever material we could think to present. Molly had written several songs already; I had written several as well. They were all performed. Other actions were fully improvised. This went on for several weeks: escaping, no using, our anxiety and our existence for hours at a time, coming up with ideas, playing together, off, on, and for the camera. Our initial collaborations are a joy for me to watch and ignited a project that continues to this day.
I intend to document my life on youtube as I see fit. I employ a combination of direct to camera addresses, live performances of original music and covers, music videos, art videos, readings, conversations, and performance art/theater pieces. My work is autobiographical. I use my body, personality, history, dreams, and point of view to generate visual and aural products.
My reasons for this continued production are varied. I enjoy it. I believe what I’m doing is important. I value the documentation of a subject by the subject himself as an historical as well as culturally relevant artifact. I wish to encourage people to follow similar desires. Make things. I think a society of subjects, perhaps a culture of artists, is a necessary requirement for a new economic system. A dream I hope to see manifest in reality.
I believe our economic system is the single largest killing force in human history. I would like to push the reset button and start over. That is a likely impossible. It is possible to push for progress through the quagmire of corruption, alongside everyone else who is doing the same, with everything you can think of.
Capitalism is a failed system. Participation in capitalism is coercive and mandatory for many. Often, there is a failure to see and identify the machinations of this system. How it consolidates and reconsolidates power in its own self-interest. How it controls the dissemination of information, art, power, freedom and ultimately consciousness. Direct and subversive resistance, not acceptance, complacence, compliance, rationalization, or subservience is the only option for me. This is true not just on a macro scale, but in the most intimate micro scale as well. My direct interpersonal relationships to power are informed by the same being that reacts against this patriarchal power establishment. The political is personal. I make personal art that is directly, intentionally, and overtly political.
For political and personal reasons I choose to not participate, or attempt to participate, in the American work force. I choose to follow my own professional goals regardless of monetary benefit. However, in order to pay rent and eat I solicit my body for sex. This is the least participatory way I can survive in our economic system. Obviously how I spend my money is very important to me. Though I wish it were not so. How I make my money occurs in the most excruciatingly perfect metaphor for the economic system of capitalism.
The most important consideration for me in assessing my own work, as well as the work of others, is the intention behind the work. Then we may consider the success the artist finds in meeting his intentions as well as any secondary results that have arisen from his labor. I value work where individuals can interpret their own meaning. I value work that is conceptual, while still requiring other skills, talents or labor. I trust in the universe and in the creative spirit that arises from within and shapes from without, or vice versa. I value work that is brave, personal, and inspirational. I consider the term art to be deployed deceptively by agents of the status quo and I’m suspicious of its canonization.
Kirkdify is intended to be both for myself and for an audience. It is catharsis. It is invention. Creation. Imagination. Reclamation of agency, of the future, of collective consciousness, of possibility. It plays off, and is informed/inspired by, traditions of Andy Warhol, Duchamp, Lady Gaga, Glee, Hegel, Levinas, Arendt, Chesterton, Wojnarowicz, Duse, Emerson, Tim Miller, Cindy Sherman, Lynda Benglis, Barbara Kruger, Laurie Anderson, Leigh Bowery, the futurists, positivism, constructivism, astrology, myth, the subconscious, Jung, diy, Reality TV, pop culture, queer culture, internet and Youtube culture, musical theater, performance art, activism, Williamsburg, Brooklyn, nyu and the wandering traveler fresh off the boat in New York City. It is - as am I - a pastiche of influences and inspirations, some filtered some not, some conscious some not.
Through my subjective channeling of these influences coupled with my own dreams, fantasies, visions, thoughts and intuition the work becomes and is original. I am acutely aware of and interested in my historical moment, especially in terms of gender, technology, power, politics, and identity. Kirkdify is intended to be an amalgamation of the most convenient subconscious portals, or reference points, in order to act and exist as a reflection of the current state of mind of a person of my age and background and historical moment.
This concept relates to something I recently read of Hegel’s about a new aesthetic culture in which all formal divisions are ignored and the artist is free to cull whatever movements, histories, techniques or references she/he is interested in. It is often the most recent things on my mind that make it into my work. Psychic tension is next alleviated. And hopefully a connection to a universal subconscious is made and transmitted through the work. I trust the universe to tell me when to create, which invariably leads to what I create. I think it is the responsibility of the artist to set the bar for what he/she considers art. We have a responsibility as citizens not to clutter the dialogue, but to enhance it.
My work isn’t intended to be good or bad. It is not intended to be a commodity. It is intended to be seen as a whole work, a body as singular thing, as well as compartmentalized and separate. The body is a metaphor as well as the thing in and of itself. Experiencer and experienced; mediator of internal and external. My work is intended to be a call for help and a claiming of my own agency. It is intended to be viewed in different contexts, to be displayed in exhibits, to be interactive, to combine genres. The content is intended to be extensive. That’s part of it. It is intended to be a representation of a time and a place. It is intended to be stream of consciousness. Either/both or neither/nor. It is intended to be new, to grant permission to myself and to the audience, as well as instructional, a learning experience, a new comparison, establishment, side of a coin, end of a pole. To explore subjective coincidences, to implant coincidences for the viewers to follow. It is intended to be given up to the universe and born from the universe.
The work is informed by my spiritual point of view. That we exist in a universe of paradox. It is the acceptance, not attempted resolution, of two opposing poles that is the goal for me. Everything is because nothing is. Everything exists because its opposite exists. The poles actually meet at their infinite ends becoming a loop. Moving, locating, identifying yourself and your positions in a universe of polarities is freedom. The clearer and easier I can be about who I am, where I am, and what I’m doing from moment to moment the freer I can be. Awareness is the first step. I believe that we are both agents and victims, subjects and objects. We have utter free will and our every move is pre-determined. Fate and destiny are luck and chance. Specificity breeds universality. There is an after and this is all. The universe doesn’t make mistakes. It makes everything. It transcends the good/bad and/or any other binary/label in existence becoming everything and nothing. Always becoming. I interact with it by following my sense of truth. It is intentionally accidentally unfathomable. We must surpass logic, the mind, senses, bodies and existence to even imagine transcending to a point of understanding. We are a part of it just as everything else. I live in service to the universe, and I live to change the universe.
Tuesday, July 20, 2010
CULTURE
kirkdify (2 months ago) | |
kirkdify (2 months ago) I think culture is the expression of every desire. It's the universe. It's what we have in a form on this earth and it represents that universe or that part of the universe. It's a physicalized force. It's energy. And it's a constant discussion. I make culture to interact with the universe because that's where it's at and that's where i can see it. The tension between our existences is THE MATERIAL i make things out of. It's almost like an equation N = A1 + A2 N: What I Create A1: the force of the universe A2: the force of me | |
kirkdify (2 months ago) Everything I make, Just like everything I do comes out of a necessity. There is an inevitability to it. It is the thing that has to be done. It had to be on mac books, it had to be on youtube, it had to be on drugs or on pokey. The forces of the universe, internal and external required it. There are very small ways we can insert our hand. We can accept the truth or we can alter it. I'm never hiding when I'm inserting my hand. And this is the new art. it's very exciting. the monopoly game has taken enough money, and the jails are full. new popular culture will be created by the popular. |
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
MEGADEATH or Interview with Christ the Lord
If you could tell me one thing what would it be?
I would tell you, you’re right, at the very bottommost absolute of your being you are right, and that’s the part that matters, because yes, as you’ve suspected, that part is eternal.
Well what should I do now?
You’re scared. People with little faith get scared sometimes. So do people with faith… but for different reasons. You’re afraid you might be right; you might be doomed. It’s hard to say, because you haven’t been doomed yet, but also you could be at any second. I doubt anyone is going to step in and save your ass, so I have a question for you: do you have faith in yourself?
Off and on
More and more. That’s how it happens.
Well what should I do now?
Wait.
You’re a shit.
Someday maybe you’ll be where you want. But it isn’t today, and tomorrow doesn’t look good either. And what comes to you. And what come out of you. They’re barely enough to keep you afloat. And that’s not good. You feel like you’re waiting for the other shoe to drop.
What a clichéd sentiment.
That’s all you are right now.
No
No
What is potential?
Well everything happens on a line, and there are lines over lines over lines over lines. A line for everything, and everything intersecting. And to meet your potential is to meet some vague endpoint on whatever line you’re on. But the endpoints are always changing. And so are the lines.
When is the other shoe going to drop?
Depends on the line.
You think you’re cute.
C’mon
Yes. C’mon. Jesus fucking Christ. Give it to me. What! I don’t think what I want has anything to do with it. So what the fuck is going on? I want you to speak! I want you to speak!
And then we’ll speak together.
Yes! And then we’ll speak together.
What if I don’t want you to speak?
I don’t think you can get rid of me
I could say the same thing
It’ll be September soon. That’s my favorite month.
What do you want me to say?
That I’ll be fine by September.
being an actor
At the beginning of his book, Stephen Callow writes a letter to himself upon entrance into drama school. “My main purpose in pursuing this course is therapeutic. Perhaps that’s what all acting is to all actors; and perhaps all acting is almost accidental, a sort of symptom, or cure, of an illness produced, like the pearl, by grit. This could be the beginning – not of a new life – but of life itself.”
At this point Callow has basically summarized the entire experience of getting into drama school complete with a perfect description of his body seizing up and his leg shaking uncontrollably during his audition. This passage seems a little psychic to me. At least I probably would have kept the insight that I was attending drama school was for primarily therapeutic reasons to myself. It seems embarrassingly self-centered and egomaniacal. But now we know it is not. We don’t work to service the ego, we work to transcend it. We don’t work to understand ourselves better for purely selfish reasons, we work to understand ourselves better so that we may understand and instruct humanity better. We center in on ourselves to experience others from this core which we all share, and hopefully to guide others to it as well.
We all bear within us the potentiality for every kind of passion, every fate, every way of life. Nothing human is alien to us. But inheritance and upbringing foster individual experiences and develop only a few of our thousands of possibilities. The others gradually sicken and die. Life today is narrowly circumscribed, and poor in feeling. The normal man generally feels once in his life the whole blessedness of love, and once the joy of freedom. Once in his life he hates bitterly. Once with deep grief he buries a loved one, and once, finally he himself dies. That gives all too little scope for our innate capacity to love, hate, enjoy, and suffer. We exercise daily to strengthen our muscles and sinews that they may not grow feeble. But our spiritual organs, which were made to act for an entire lifetime, remain unused, underdeveloped, and so, with the passing years, they lose their vitality. – Max Reinhardt
I’ve found to that when we can do the work for ourselves improves it enormously. Besides being more satisfying, the results are better when I can weld my own ideas, feelings, experiences, and fancies to the technique that is being given or the method being taught. It’s a constant battle - hard to fight, but necessary – to bring as much of yourself into the work as you can, to make it your own, and to own it.
Callow describes our scholastic experience even more when he talks about the students’ sense of being involved in a uniquely important and secretly special work. He compares it to working in intelligence during the war. He describes the insecurity of being surrounded by a group he sees as superior at everything dramatic. He describes how easy it is to work tremendously hard, but not be doing well due to a miscomprehension of the work. He stayed up late to “think of droller and droller quips to use in improvisation.” It was like losing my virginity, he says. Only it wasn’t Simon Callow (his ego) who had to lose his virginity, it was something deeper. “My devotion of Outer Man – putting him through his paces, making him do this funny voice or that, or indicate this emotion or that – was total”
What his school was first asking for was simplicity based on action because everything in a play is done in order to achieve a want of some kind. This resolves to the formula of objective, action, obstacle, activity, and super objective that we are dealing with now. They had the same problems in his class that we are having in ours: confusion, lack of specificity, absence of meaning. I though this was profound: “For me, the biggest problem was to show myself wanting something. To want something is to put oneself into a position of frightening vulnerability and then to pursue a course of action to achieve that want is to show oneself at one’s most naked. It can be very ugly.”
“Follow your impulse,” his teacher would say, “as if you may never have another.” The teacher was Doreen Cannon, a student of Uta Hagen. “Emotional truth, she demanded. Oh, did she ever.” Later on I love when he explains how, “suddenly, for the first time, I was acting. Not performing, or posturing, or puppeteering. I was being in another way.” Giving in was the essential experience for him, and I agree. “Leave yourself alone” they’d been telling him since he got there. “It was here, if anywhere, that any talent for acting that I might possess had resided: the knack of throwing off self-consciousness and finding, however briefly, a pool of liberated energy which was nothing to do with how I presented myself in life.”
He talks about his movement work, with the purpose of exploring sensations, as the heart of acting. The sensory work we do with Nate never ceases to amaze me. I never would have imagined such depth was available, and now that I know I want it all the time. The beautiful work that we’re doing now as we move into the DRUNK project is so exciting. To explore the basis, the foundation of our humanity, to think that everything else about us was built on top of this, and how unexplored it is. How unfamiliar to be sensual, to crave touch so desperately, to be overwhelmed by the simplest of sounds, movements, or sights. How utterly everything can affect us when we drop the guards we didn’t even realize inscrutably surround us for lengths a universe could fit into. That’s what it often feels like when I’ve dropped those defenses. It feels like there is a universe between my mind and anywhere else on my body. I love that feeling.
A genius quote from Ruth Gordon, “it’s not enough to have talent – one has to have a talent for having a talent.”
PRINCE Oƒ PARADOX
Kirk Duval
G.K. Chesterton was born a Gemini on May 29th 1874. He was a contemporary of fellow Gemini George Bernard Shaw and Libra Oscar Wilde, and along with these artists and many other artists of that time, he represents a turning point. The century, the aesthetic, the science, the technology, and the art were all in flux and the artists that emerged from this period are forever remembered for shaping what is now contemporary thought.[1] We are currently experiencing a similar paradigm shift in our society. I’d like to explore the ways in which G.K. Chesterton contributed to his culture, in order that I may better understand how to contribute to mine.
Chesterton is considered a member of the Avante-Garde for many reasons. By simply adjusting with and reacting to the times in which he worked, he is granted enormous credibility as regards his industriousness. He was able to see possibilities for expressing himself and for utilizing his skills in almost every medium of the time, many of which involved the written word. He didn’t limit himself to a specialized genre, but instead chose to follow his desires across various platforms, mastery be damned. Although, master many he eventually did.
His dexterity in function and form reflect importantly on his dexterity of thought. Coined “The Prince of Paradox,”[2] Chesterton’s art lied in the way he could hold two opposing beliefs in his mind and turn each on it’s head while still examining the disparate truths of either and/or both. The paradox, or rather the spectrum of tensions created by paradox, was Chesterton’s artistic and intellectual fuel. He loved exposing the cultural hypocrisy that seems inevitable in a modern society.
This simple foray into differentiated aspects of culture and his diverse use of mediums is already very avant-garde. The established knowledge and popular wisdom of the time would suggest that specialized skills were highly valued. Hard work in one discipline was the gold standard. Professionals in every field were formalizing their profession. That period seems to be the time when people’s pursuits became more and more individualized.[3] It was the study of this or that, not this and that. By overthrowing these traditions of popular culture in his work, Chesterton participated in a cultural liberation from the passivity that capitalism encourages.
In his weekly publication G.K.’s Weekly, and along with the poet and essayist Hilaire Belloc, Chesterton espoused the economic system of distributism. This system, a balance between the two poles of capitalism and socialism, is based on the idea of increasing the owners of production as much as possible. Whereas in capitalism the means of production becomes inevitably centralized, and in socialism it’s under the control of the state, distributism “seeks to ensure that most people will become owners of productive property.”[4] This system reflects many of Chesterton’s artistic principles as well.
As owner and publisher of his own weekly magazine he produced and distributed his own artistic content at will. He provided an example for an emerging society of artists who had advanced technology and tools at their disposal. On politics he is quoted as saying, “The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the Conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected.”[5] Chesterton seems to be providing a creative blue print for the more typical modern man to make his own work. Become owner and producer of your own artistic property. Ignore the political polarization of popular discourse; it doesn’t affect all public points of view. There is no wrong or right way. “Mistakes” are welcome. It is dogma that seems to be the enemy; the mutual presence of contradictions is encouraged here.
Chesterton put into popular forms many complicated theories and philosophies, making them at once more accessible while also exposing their inflated importance. He said, “Oscar Wilde said that sunsets were not valued because we could not pay for sunsets. But Oscar Wilde was wrong; we can pay for sunsets. We can pay for them by not being Oscar Wilde.” And about George Bernard Shaw:
After belabouring a great many people for a great many years for being unprogressive, Mr. Shaw has discovered, with characteristic sense, that it is very doubtful whether any existing human being with two legs can be progressive at all. Having come to doubt whether humanity can be combined with progress, most people, easily pleased, would have elected to abandon progress and remain with humanity. Mr. Shaw, not being easily pleased, decides to throw over humanity with all its limitations and go in for progress for its own sake. If man, as we know him, is incapable of the philosophy of progress, Mr. Shaw asks, not for a new kind of philosophy, but for a new kind of man. It is rather as if a nurse had tried a rather bitter food for some years on a baby, and on discovering that it was not suitable, should not throw away the food and ask for a new food, but throw the baby out of window, and ask for a new baby. 5
He reconciled catholic thought with liberal thought.[6] He addresses Kant, Darwin, Materialism, Orthodoxy, Ontology. “He was a literary and social critic, historian, playwright, novelist, Catholic theologian and apologist, debater, and mystery writer. He was a columnist for the Daily News, the Illustrated London News, and his own paper, G. K.'s Weekly; he also wrote articles for the Encyclopædia Britannica, including the entry on Charles Dickens and part of the entry on Humour in the 14th edition.”[7]
Chesterton’s work in popular culture is one of the reasons he was more appreciated in his time rather than posthumously, as was the case with many of his contemporaries. Although, it is still curious as to why he’s not as studied as several other turn oƒ the century artists. Perhaps he was too uniquely of an age, perhaps too prolific and diverse to be studied in our traditional way. Maybe his temperament as a Gemini produced work that, though quotable and funny, seems superficial. And maybe still, his work, involving paradox, and his tongue in cheek turning of conventional wisdom on its head, might put the average reader ill at ease:
I have never managed to lose my old conviction that travel narrows the mind. At least a man must make a double effort of moral humility and imaginative energy to prevent it from narrowing his mind. Indeed there is something touching and even tragic about the thought of the thoughtless tourist who might have stayed at home loving Laplanders, embracing Chinamen, and clasping Patagonians to his heart in Hampstead or Surbiton, but for his blind and suicidal impulse to go and see what they looked like. This is not meant for nonsense; still less is it meant for the silliest sort of nonsense, which is cynicism. The human bond that he feels at home is not an illusion… But to travel is to leave the inside and draw dangerously near the outside. [8]
As a student of astrology this subject, and his sense of humor about it, strike me as particularly funny. “Mercury is connected with travel because travel is a means by which one fills in the details of one’s map oƒ reality. Mercury signifies travel of the routine, day-to-day variety, however, not long journeys, which are discontinuous with normal experience and hence expand the mind.” Mercury is of course the ruler of Chesterton’s sun sign, Gemini. “Often underplayed in astrological writing... Mercury signifies the gap that exists between separate entities. The world as seen in normal human consciousness is a world of divisions. The first of these is the division between subject and object... We can never fully occupy another’s point of view, yet we are not wholly cut off. We can communicate, and communication is one of the chief mercurial functions.” [9]
Still Chesterton seems content with the confusion he causes. Rather than explain himself, he lets the work speak for itself. And though it may appear so, his work is not easy. It unfolds and explains itself over “around 80 books, several hundred poems, some 200 short stories, 4000 essays, and several plays.”[10] This idea of allowing not just the work, but also the whole body of work, to speak for itself seems very modern to me. We live in an age where very little that’s created in or for the public sphere is truly lost. This easy proliferation of easy product is becoming and has been becoming since Chesterton’s time it seems.
Nowadays, consistent and unfettered access to online materials seems to be promoting more and more the vision of art that Chesterton propagated. The means of production are more so than ever in the hands of the producer, and unlimited access to the art consumer allows for work that can endlessly refer to itself (or, at this point, even Others). In our digital age, Lady Gaga acknowledges this new system of distribution in her work by creating pieces that are layered, symbolic across levels, and that expand on a narrative begun with her earliest underground and online work in New York City. This system seems appropriate to our modern age and correlates nicely with what appears to be G.K. Chesterton’s point of view: everything exists on a spectrum between two poles, nothing exists without its opposite, the process is the product, and the paradox is the solution.
[1] Wikipedia contributors. "G. K. Chesterton." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 30 May. 2010. Web. 2 Jun. 2010.
[2] Douglas, J.D.G.K. Chesterton, the Eccentric Prince of Paradox, 24 May 1974.
[3] Wikipedia contributors. "Modern history." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 1 Jun. 2010. Web. 2 Jun. 2010.
[4] Wikipedia contributors. "Distributism." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 24 May. 2010. Web. 2 Jun. 2010.
[5] Wikipedia contributors. "Distributism." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 24 May. 2010. Web. 2 Jun. 2010.
[6] Victorian Periodicals Review, Vol. 22, No. 1 (Spring, 1989), pp. 44-45. Published by: The Johns Hopkins University Press
[7] Wikipedia contributors. "G. K. Chesterton." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 30 May. 2010. Web. 2 Jun. 2010.
[8] Royal, Robert. Our Curious Contemporary, G. K. Chesterton. The Wilson Quarterly. Vol. 16, No. 4 (Autumn, 1992), pp. 92-102
[9] Hand, Robert. Horoscope Symbols. Whitƒord Press. 1981. pp 54-58
[10] Wikipedia contributors. "G. K. Chesterton." Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 30 May. 2010. Web. 2 Jun. 2010.
SPEAKING IS THE ORIGINAL CREATIVE ACTIVITY