One of the strange eventualities of announcing online what mailart I’ve created and whom I’ve sent it to is that a correspondent might notice when a piece of mail I’ve sent hasn’t arrived. This has just happened with Mark Lamoureux, who didn’t receive his copy of “AfHtJI” (qbdp # 9), so tonight I’ve made him a replacement copy.
But I used a different kind of postcard, one with a surface that is fairly non-porous. Now I worry that the fidgetglyph riding on the belly of that postcard will become rubbed off during transport. I may have to slip the card into an envelope to protect it during its trek.
un violon d’ingres
2 comments:
j0llyr0ger,
It definitely is. That's why I hated to push it into an envelope, but otherwise the object at the end of the process would be little more than a smudge.
A hard choice, so I sent Mark a few other things in the envelope as well.
Geof
I actually like decaffinated coffee though rarely drink the stuff. I prefer the real thing but it gives me a headache! I see the dilemma though. I quite often send postcards inside an envelope and even envelopes inside envelopes such as the one with unfranked postage returned to Ed Giecek yesterday. I quite like the idea of that "russian doll" effect of things inside things inside other things - I like surprises, and mail art should be surprising otherwise it can be deadly dull like 95% of ther stuff I get these days!
Post a Comment