Samuel’s Musician Of The Week ACTION Open Day

Previously on Samuel In Dolgnwot

March 5th, 2006 at 11:27pm

As you may recall, last year I ran a series called Samuel In Dolgnwot. This ran for nearly a month with daily releases of the pictures which were drawn in 1999, at the end of the series I suggested that I might make a new series, and then confirmed that today would be the start of a new series of Samuel In Dolgnwot.

The new series will be released weekly on Sundays, however the first episode will appear tomorrow (Monday) night. The reason for this is that the new series picks up where the old series left off, and it is important that we quicky recap Series 1 of Samuel In Dolgnwot.

So, here is a quick recap of Series 1, join me tomorrow night for the first episode of Series 2 of Samuel In Dolgnwot.
(Due to the length of having all 27 episodes on the front page, and the way it probably prevents most people from scrolling to the next article, I have hidden them from front page view. Clicking on “more”, or the article’s title or the comments link will show them for you.)

Episode 1
Episode 2
Episode 3
Episode 4
Episode 5
Episode 6
Episode 7
Episode 8
Episode 9
Episode 10
Episode 11
Episode 12
Episode 13
Episode 14
Episode 15
Episode 16
Episode 17
Episode 18
Episode 19
Episode 20
Episode 21
Episode 22
Episode 23
Episode 24
Episode 25
Episode 26
Episode 27


Entry Filed under: Samuel In Dolgnwot,Samuel's Artwork

Print This Post Print This Post


  • 1. Chuck A. Spear  |  March 6th, 2006 at 1:45 am

    Will your old teacher asses the new series?

    From her comments I am guessing that she shared Plato’s view that ‘art is a pursuit whose adherents are not to be trusted; given that their productions imitate the sensory world (itself an imitation of the divine world of forms) art necessarily is an imitation of an imitation, and thus is hopelessly far from the source of the truth.’

    I am more leaning towards Aristotle’s view that art helps serve the purpose of emotional catharsis.

    I think your ‘Dolgnot’ piece is a fine example of the literal presentation of your reality through these literal and symbolic images. Moreover, it is an example of representationalism. Your linear spectrum of colours, defines your individual direction and cognitive concepts.

    ‘Dolgnot’ is a perfect counter arguement of lay critiquẻ compared to Hirst’s ‘The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living’. Further, ‘Dolgnot’ provides an opposing thumb to that of ‘My Bed’ by Tracy Emin.

    What type of pencil/crayon will you use in the new series?

    I have a friend who works for National Gallery of Victoria (NGV). I will give her the URL.

  • 2. Samuel  |  March 6th, 2006 at 1:51 am

    I still have the original pencils, so I am using them. I considered utilising the services of a computer for this series, but I decided that only hand drawn works can truly present my art the way I want it.

    As for Mrs. Brophy, I have considered tracking her down, I would really like to have her on Samuel’s Persiflage to explain the gold game (a unit of school work which the original series was loosely based on), and to talk about teaching in general. It would be nice to see what she has to say about the new series, I wonder how she would react to a new series?

  • 3. John B1_B5  |  March 6th, 2006 at 5:50 am

    Brophy ? ……. Hmmmmm …… Sounds like a good old Irish name .

  • 4. heatseeker  |  March 6th, 2006 at 9:24 am

    Those creations are either pure genious or total insanity … I am at a loss to categorise, or even contemplate, them!

  • 5. cunninglinguist  |  March 6th, 2006 at 12:24 pm

    Poor Mrs Brophy will probably need a bottle of Irish Whiskey, if she hears that you’re doing more of these pictures.

  • 6. eebl  |  March 6th, 2006 at 3:12 pm

    Haha. Comic gold, Sam.

    I like the continual defiance. Hilarious.

  • 7. Kooky_Pound_Puppy  |  March 6th, 2006 at 7:40 pm

    3/9 my you have improved these drawings are national icons

  • 8. cunninglinguist  |  March 7th, 2006 at 11:02 am

    Samuel, you rebel you!

  • 9. heatseeker  |  March 7th, 2006 at 12:41 pm

    I do concur with the teacher … how could you listen to the radio, watch TV and work on the computer in 1857?

  • 10. cunninglinguist  |  March 7th, 2006 at 1:15 pm

    I agree, that doesn’t make sense.

  • 11. heatseeker  |  March 7th, 2006 at 2:49 pm

    Perhaps it’s a metaphor for the duality of man …

  • 12. Samuel  |  March 7th, 2006 at 3:33 pm

    It’s either creative licence or technologically advanced, I suspect a bit of both.

  • 13. cunninglinguist  |  March 7th, 2006 at 4:29 pm

    Perhaps the Samuel in the story is a time traveller, like Dr Who and takes the technology with him in whatever century he travels to .

  • 14. heatseeker  |  March 7th, 2006 at 4:44 pm

    Perhaps Samuel is an updated Billy Pilgrim, and he is in fact “unstuck in time” and living a parallel life as an exhibit in a zoo on the planet Tralfamadore with the exotic dancer Montana Wildhack.

  • 15. cunninglinguist  |  March 7th, 2006 at 8:42 pm

    Samuel, I know a young lady who could improve your life. Her name is Tanya. She has a blog too, so there’s a talking point for you to start off.

  • 16. heatseeker  |  March 8th, 2006 at 7:21 pm

    I think Samuel’s very happy with just his Nattie keeping him company … and why wouldn’t he be?

  • 17. cunninglinguist  |  March 8th, 2006 at 9:27 pm

    HS, it is nice but it is unnatural. It is only puppy love, not the real thing. It’s not like they can marry and have Sampups. No man is an island, and I hope Sam isn’t lonely.

  • 18. Samuel  |  March 9th, 2006 at 12:22 am

    I think there may be some misunderstanding here. Nattie is a pet and is part of the family, this does not imply some kind of unnatural interspecies relationship, instead it implies a standard family relationship, where the family members love and care about each other member of the family.

  • 19. cunninglinguist  |  March 9th, 2006 at 1:20 pm

    What is a standard family relationship these days anyway? There are so many forms now.

  • 20. Samuel  |  March 9th, 2006 at 1:23 pm

    I’m talking about your average mother-father-children-pets relationship.

  • 21. heatseeker  |  March 9th, 2006 at 3:04 pm

    ‘I think there may be some misunderstanding here. Nattie is a pet and is part of the family, this does not imply some kind of unnatural interspecies relationship, instead it implies a standard family relationship, where the family members love and care about each other member of the family.”

    Exactly what I meant Samuel … couldn’t have put it better myself!


March 2006

Most Recent Posts


Blix Theme by Sebastian Schmieg and modified for Samuel's Blog by Samuel Gordon-Stewart.
Printing CSS with the help of Martin Pot's guide to Web Page Printability With CSS.
Icons by Kevin Potts.
Powered by WordPress.
Log in