In a message dated 10/22/99 11:17:14 PM !!!First Boot!!!, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: << jason, sorry, ive been to chicago. i didnt care for it. it had nothing for me artistically. i think that the whole time i was there, i took about two pictures...no exaggeration. it bored me. i could never move there. i found the scenery in boston(and the whole state of massachusettes) much nicer and picturesque than chicago... cheers, pixie >> I suppose, if you're into the whole "old world" apeal of the archetecture in Boston, then Chicago wouldn't be much of a site. However, Chicago is bigger than most people think and some of the best stuff is hidden. That aspect kind of sucks, because tourists and out-of-towners don't get to experience some of the more apealing aspects of the City. There are neighborhoods that have nothing but Frank Loyd Wright houses in them and so on. We also tend to get a bad rep as far as the art scene goes also. (which is very frustrating as I'm some what af a struggling artist) People come from out of town and all they see are these down town galleries and miss out on some of the more inovative small galleries around town, that have much more to offer than some of the bigger ones, and draw a conclusion on the entire cities "art scene" from that. I travelled much of the country, touring with my past band, and didn't find anywhere that apealled to me like Chicago does now that I've lived here a while. I don't understand what people have against it. cheers, Jason
