[Ditter]

I saw this movie, and while I liked it, thought it was funny and true in a lot of respects, the end was so sad. The kid wanted to be a successful artist so badly that we was willing to submit to being the strangler without a whimper. Or he felt so guilty that he had caused the fire that killed all the people that he allowed himself to be punished. I don't know which of those it could be.

I attended art school and in the beginning we certainly were taught how to draw, paint, color theory etc. As we progressed, the instruction ceased and we were expected and encouraged to 'get weird'.

I remember I decided I had been there too long when the class was taken on a field trip to a gallery to see a young artist work. Her work consisted of dead tree branches that held up rubber chickens hug by string. I did not enroll the following semester.

I have continued to paint and I try to do at least one workshop a year with an artist whose work I admire.

[Republicanprofessor]

The kid wanted to be a successful artist so badly that we was willing to submit to being the strangler without a whimper.

That's what really bothers me. He wasn't anxious to be freed, as he was "innocent," but all the attention "his" art caused him to want to stay in prison as long as possible.

Such lies perpetuated in the name of "art." I can't stand it.