Recently, I tried to show a video at an alternative space run by the city of Evanston. A video requires a device in order to view the work. I bought a television with a built in DVD and installed it. I filled out the form for the gallery to insure the piece and the print hanging next to it and went home feeling satisfied about the upcoming show. The next day I was contacted by the curator. She was informed by the Director of Cultural Affairs that the piece would not be covered by the city. I was told to remove the piece or show it at my own risk. This piece was not valued more than the other pieces in the show; in fact in some cases it was actually valued less. In a very short conversation I asked if the video inside the device was insured and I was told that it was not on the basis that it was digital and easily reproduced. It is important to note here that there is a digital print of mine hanging next to the video. It is covered by the city’s insurance policy.
The troubling observations brought about by this situation are:
1. It is perceived that a television is valued more by the audience than the artwork it makes visible.
2. Digital work runs the risk of not being insured because it is easily reproducible.
3. Digital work is not valued in the same way as other mediums that are easily reproduced such as printmaking and photography.
4. Traditionally produced and presented artwork is considered low risk in terms of theft.
5. The city supports the only the art that is low risk.
6. My role as a professional artist was not valued enough to negotiate with me as to the terms and conditions of showing the work.
7. A unilateral decision was made and I was informed. My professional status was ignored.
8. The continued infantilization of artists is in full force.
9. The city wanted a release in writing from legal responsibility immediately and I was given no time to seek legal advice.
Having said all of this, I do want to underscore that the key issue was that the space simply does not have the security in the building to satisfy the insurance company and that I recognize the representative of the city was just doing his job.
But the “unspoken” of this situation is that artists have given the powers stated above to the system. Artists are in part responsible for the situation because we have said nothing. I am saying something. The outcome I am hoping for is that other artists will think about the issues raised by these circumstances and be moved to break their own silence when this happens in their own career. I also hope that cultural/art representatives will also spend some time examining their own perception of the professional status of artists. I also hope that these representatives will begin to enter into equal business relationships with artists and allow for negotiations when the need arises.
Saturday, November 17, 2007
Sunday, October 28, 2007
On Ambition
No one is more ambitious than me. But why am I ambitious and who am I ambitious for? What good does ambition do?
Specifically, the question “Why do we hurt each other?” provides navigation to the development of my artwork. This started as a result of a personal violent experience and has been strengthened by my increasing awareness of other hurtful experiences in the local, national and global communities. For example, 9-11, the war with IRAQ and the relationship those two events have with each other. It is my personal thought that these things occur because the persons involved believe they have a right to act as they did. If everyone feels this way and does not acknowledge the validity of the other point of view then the world will never be a peaceful place. My work will help individuals discover how to create a world where tolerance, cultural awareness and diversity are valued.
The significance of my work is to increase people’s self awareness of the role that malleable belief systems play in forming our world. Unseen, Unspoken and Reveals are an effort to effect change in how people interact with each other not only intimately but also in a local and global community. I hope this work will change how people perceive themselves and their importance in the world. I hope that they will vote more thoughtfully and deconstruct the media more critically. I hope they will be more cognizant of their effect on others and be more respectful of diverse lifestyles and belief systems.
It is my responsibility to manifest this work in the world. The ambition is not for me it is for the message to be heard. Additionally, I wish to pave the way for other artists. Other artists also have important contributions to make and any gains in understanding or creating opportunities for venues will be passed on. So I am not only ambitious for my own message to be heard, I am ambitious for the messages of every artist to be heard. I hope to benefit everyone with my ambition. In a world where most of the artists believe that they have no significance and at best their work will only affect a few people and that their own personal ambition is a negative trait I am lending my ambition to them. Hopefully this will create a world where artists will believe in themselves again and believe that the work they do truly does change the world and this collective work does change the course of history.
In this blog I am identifying problems with distribution channels for art and proposed solutions. These ideas are not the only possibilities available to these problems but they are the ones I invented. Hopefully, this will start a dialogue among artists about other solutions and other proposals will be inserted into the discourse.
Specifically, the question “Why do we hurt each other?” provides navigation to the development of my artwork. This started as a result of a personal violent experience and has been strengthened by my increasing awareness of other hurtful experiences in the local, national and global communities. For example, 9-11, the war with IRAQ and the relationship those two events have with each other. It is my personal thought that these things occur because the persons involved believe they have a right to act as they did. If everyone feels this way and does not acknowledge the validity of the other point of view then the world will never be a peaceful place. My work will help individuals discover how to create a world where tolerance, cultural awareness and diversity are valued.
The significance of my work is to increase people’s self awareness of the role that malleable belief systems play in forming our world. Unseen, Unspoken and Reveals are an effort to effect change in how people interact with each other not only intimately but also in a local and global community. I hope this work will change how people perceive themselves and their importance in the world. I hope that they will vote more thoughtfully and deconstruct the media more critically. I hope they will be more cognizant of their effect on others and be more respectful of diverse lifestyles and belief systems.
It is my responsibility to manifest this work in the world. The ambition is not for me it is for the message to be heard. Additionally, I wish to pave the way for other artists. Other artists also have important contributions to make and any gains in understanding or creating opportunities for venues will be passed on. So I am not only ambitious for my own message to be heard, I am ambitious for the messages of every artist to be heard. I hope to benefit everyone with my ambition. In a world where most of the artists believe that they have no significance and at best their work will only affect a few people and that their own personal ambition is a negative trait I am lending my ambition to them. Hopefully this will create a world where artists will believe in themselves again and believe that the work they do truly does change the world and this collective work does change the course of history.
In this blog I am identifying problems with distribution channels for art and proposed solutions. These ideas are not the only possibilities available to these problems but they are the ones I invented. Hopefully, this will start a dialogue among artists about other solutions and other proposals will be inserted into the discourse.
Overstepping the Bounds: Intellectual Property and Mooching
I have noticed a conceptual mooching practice among insecure art risers who make “art.” These people are not artists but they think they are. They might even have been an artist at one point. But something happened to turn them into a gold digger instead of the creative force they might have been. I am not looking to lay blame but I am looking for a reason why this happens. So here is my theory. In part it is not their fault, in some cases it is perpetuated by some art school. The ambition of the school supersedes any commitment to their student’s true path. They sell the “art career” and the exploration that is involved in the creation of art is ignored. So sometimes a person who would have been an artist is transformed into an “artist” making “art.” It is a very sad thing to see. These people become extremely insecure and loose any focus on any honest life derivative as an impetus for the work.
Now why is it important for me to point this out? Because the net worth of an artist (yes money net worth) is directly informed by the quality of the intellectual property and the marketing of that intellectual property. When an “artist” pursuing an “art career” makes “art” by mooching conceptually it hurts that artist’s ability to make a living. It is just wrong. It hurts. The object of your mooch is a fellow artist who has responsibilities to contribute to their family’s income or support a family, pay taxes, pay debt, invest in stock and plan for retirement. You are kicking a fellow artist in the groin when you mooch. Don’t do it.
I would like to make a point here that mooching is different than influence. I am not grousing about influence. Influence is what happens when you understand or misunderstand some one else’s work and it helps you understand your own work more fully. We don’t live in a vacuum and no one wants to stick their head in a hole in the back yard or go live in a cave on top of a mountain so we will all be influenced. But if you cannot trace the work you are doing back to your own childhood or your own life story without any kind of artificial mind-bending acrobatic convincing you are mooching. Your work should organically grow from your life story. Period.
One more comment to all my fellow artists - When you have made something tangible it becomes valuable. Do not devalue it. It is your bread and butter, shoes on your children and a comfortable retirement. If you give it away or allow someone to mooch by dismissing their actions you are hurting yourself and the larger perception of the value of art in our society. Protect yourself. Be careful out there.
Now why is it important for me to point this out? Because the net worth of an artist (yes money net worth) is directly informed by the quality of the intellectual property and the marketing of that intellectual property. When an “artist” pursuing an “art career” makes “art” by mooching conceptually it hurts that artist’s ability to make a living. It is just wrong. It hurts. The object of your mooch is a fellow artist who has responsibilities to contribute to their family’s income or support a family, pay taxes, pay debt, invest in stock and plan for retirement. You are kicking a fellow artist in the groin when you mooch. Don’t do it.
I would like to make a point here that mooching is different than influence. I am not grousing about influence. Influence is what happens when you understand or misunderstand some one else’s work and it helps you understand your own work more fully. We don’t live in a vacuum and no one wants to stick their head in a hole in the back yard or go live in a cave on top of a mountain so we will all be influenced. But if you cannot trace the work you are doing back to your own childhood or your own life story without any kind of artificial mind-bending acrobatic convincing you are mooching. Your work should organically grow from your life story. Period.
One more comment to all my fellow artists - When you have made something tangible it becomes valuable. Do not devalue it. It is your bread and butter, shoes on your children and a comfortable retirement. If you give it away or allow someone to mooch by dismissing their actions you are hurting yourself and the larger perception of the value of art in our society. Protect yourself. Be careful out there.
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
The Creative Gold Rush
"I have so many ideas, I wish I could find a benefactor or get a million dollar grant so that I could do them all." How many times have you heard this from your artist friends? This statement (or one similar to it) is uttered about a zillion times a day from artists all over the world. American artists like to throw in a comparison with Europe and its exemplary support of the arts and lament about how the USA does not understand or support its arts. Soon after a discussion ensues of Jesse Helms and the downfall of the NEA and the subsequent demise of art education in the public schools follows. (This contributes to visual illiteracy which exacerbates the situation.) We all know that the funding for alternative spaces is dwindling, the competition for professorships, gallery representation and grants is fierce and as a result artists are guilty of the backstabbing, money grubbing, brown nosing behavior that we all criticize the rest of the world for exhibiting.
Ok guys (yes, you my fellow artists), what are we (me to – we are in this together) going to do about it?
It is my opinion that the first thing we have to do is address the victim mentality that is underlying the original lament. "Get a benefactor or get a grant" means we just want things handed to us. This sentiment reflects that artists do not feel they are privy to the test of proving worth that the rest of the world has to attest to, day after day. The thing is, we are privy to it and the downfall of the NEA is proof. What I am suggesting is that we dump this old attitude and start to think and say to ourselves and to the world: "My art has merit and this is how it has value conceptually and financially." All the way through school my professors said over and over "Art is a business." Ok I will buy that (no pun intended), if art is a business then where is the stock? I want to invest.
The second mind-set that presents a roadblock is the general belief among artists that if you are financially successful as an artist you must have sacrificed your artistic integrity to get there. This paragraph is perhaps a tangent but I am going to talk a bunch about money in the successive paragraphs and I want to nip this critique in the bud right now. Let's give this belief some consideration and assume that it is credible. You can find proof everywhere. Thomas Kinkade and Anne Geddes have absolutely no artistic integrity. Their work is laughable but yet has broad appeal. They really bring home the bacon and have employees to boot. This is proof that the work has to be vacuous conceptually to be mass produced and sold. I would say, we are smarter than them. We can make smart work that has broad appeal. It is just harder than making sentimental fluff with an inane concept. I think we can do it.
The other elephant in the room is the voice of academia declaring from on high that they have preserved their artistic integrity by retreating into the ivory tower. These are artists who have had nominal success in the gallery system but are tenure track. I would say that they are suspect because they are the ones who have mastered that particular marketing venue. For an artist to win that finicky competition, the work has to be able to function academically. No one who is too controversial is found in most universities. You can’t be too far “out there” and you need the support of other academic institutions on your vitae. And by all means – keep your mouth shut so that you don’t offend anyone unless being offensive is your persona. Some of those on the inside perpetuate/preach their opinion that artists other than those in the club have no right to make a living in the profession and if they do they must be sacrificing artistic integrity. Those that don’t keep their mouth shut for political reasons. I would include the entire gallery, grant, residency and educational system to be a part of the scene. I think it holds back artistic exploration and places constraints on an artist’s development in a different way. Are there people who have been able to fight these constraints? Yes, but they are few and far between. The situation is the same as the venue of mass production. Retreating into academic circles is not an answer.
I could pick apart the gallery system next and talk about artists who have been widely successful within that system but I am growing tired of this part of the diatribe. The point is each possible distribution venue has the same challenge. It is up to the individual artist to hang on to their integrity as they move the work from inception to the studio to distribution no matter what venue they choose. It is up to the artist create desire for their work a lesson taught to us by Thomas Kinkade and Apple Computers.
And so, back to my earlier desire, I wish to invest in art.
It would be great if people were able to:
1. Buy stock in companies that have the intention of making art.
2. Invest in an Art Index.
(Nanotechnology has one [PXN] – why not us?
We could call it the AI 500 – I kinda like the pun)
3. Speculate in Art Futures.
4. Participate in options trading in art stocks.
As these thoughts became clear to me I decided I would see what I could find to invest in. I tried to compile an Art Index. I found Sotheby’s [BID] right away and did my research to discover that if I invested $100 initially and then $100 a month from Aug 2003 to the present I would have invested $5200 and the stock would have a market value of $10,800 (approx) – I would have doubled my money less the brokerage fees. Sotheby’s is a good investment and just about the only stock I can find that could qualify itself as an art stock. But it does not fit my criteria. They do not intend to make art nor do they encourage contemporary art production. They deal strictly in the secondary market which rarely benefits the individual artist.
So then I thought maybe the Art Index could be made up of companies who inadvertently make art. The first one that came to mind is the makers of the iPod [AAPL]. If Apple was an artist, her/his concept would be to create seduction and desire and he/she would be doing an awesome job at it. From an investment point of view $5200 invested in the same way I did in the paragraph above would have a market value of approximately $23,000. A wonderful return, a wonderful company but they really are missing my number one criteria and that is to intend to make art. The bottom line is, they intend to make electronics and they use desire created by awesome product design to sell them.
I then considered Sony Pictures because they made “Adaptation.” But Sony doesn’t care about art and they have no intention of making it. If they happen to fund a movie that is art as in the case of the above mentioned movie, it is by accident. I want to invest in Charlie Kaufman. Now that is an artist I could really get behind. If only he had stock.
I went through similar thoughts and research for Edios Interactive (Warren Spector’s Deus Ex and Thief series) and Big Beach Films (Little Miss Sunshine). Edios has the same issues as Sony and Big Beach Films is private.
I delved into artists who have private companies next. There I found Kinkade, Geddes, Hirst and Koons. Kinkade and Geddes are just bad artists and I really can’t get over my gag reaction to invest. But then it is simply not possible because they are not publicly traded. Hirst and Koons are interesting artists to look at as investment possibilities. They took the Warhol idea of the Factory and ran with it, they are generally considered to be good artists and both have formed corporations. Science Ltd is Damien Hirst’s and Jeff Koons Productions, Inc is the corporate entity keeping him from being personally liable in court. (Sidebar: Jeff Koons was a commodities broker for 6 years after graduate school.) For a very short time in 1998 you could by stock in Damien Hirst’s Pharmacy (Hartford Group). The pharmaceutical themed restaurant did not really fly very well. The rest of the restaurants were poorly managed and the company did not make any money. I should say that the Hartford Group had other people involved in it and was not an exclusive Damien Hirst venture. Maybe if it had been it would have made money. In these two artists, I see a glimmer of what the future could hold. If they had stock I would put my money on them.
At this point the reality that what I was looking for really did not exist dawned on me. The world I was/am looking for has not been created. There is no Art Industry. There is no stock, no indices, no mutual funds, no futures or options trading. There are some art “hedge” funds out there but my invitation to invest and/or participate in it must have gotten lost in the mail. They are inaccessible. (Btw, futures trading would be perfect for funding art ventures.) Investments in art would provide a new source of revenue for artists to create their work unobstructed. They could use the investment money to profit personally and commercially and begin to have an impact beyond the studio and gallery. Artists who have no intention to be educators would have the choice of staying away from the classroom. The credibility of the profession of artist would be restored and we would have the collective ability to fund our own R&D (grants, scholarships etc) and other altruistic endeavors.
We have work to do, we need to stop belly aching about the over saturation of the gallery and academic systems and start hammering out the industry that is ours. It is wide open and there is plenty of room. It is a new frontier. This frontier is very exciting because it is the place where artists can stop competing with each other (at least at first) and come together on the common goals of creating and exploring to reveal the breadth and depth of humanity’s potential and to extend the boundaries of civilization. It is time for the gold rush of creativity.
http://www.nysun.com/article/60389
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000088&sid=aCTxxmKVlgWI&refer=culture
http://danpink.com/
Ok guys (yes, you my fellow artists), what are we (me to – we are in this together) going to do about it?
It is my opinion that the first thing we have to do is address the victim mentality that is underlying the original lament. "Get a benefactor or get a grant" means we just want things handed to us. This sentiment reflects that artists do not feel they are privy to the test of proving worth that the rest of the world has to attest to, day after day. The thing is, we are privy to it and the downfall of the NEA is proof. What I am suggesting is that we dump this old attitude and start to think and say to ourselves and to the world: "My art has merit and this is how it has value conceptually and financially." All the way through school my professors said over and over "Art is a business." Ok I will buy that (no pun intended), if art is a business then where is the stock? I want to invest.
The second mind-set that presents a roadblock is the general belief among artists that if you are financially successful as an artist you must have sacrificed your artistic integrity to get there. This paragraph is perhaps a tangent but I am going to talk a bunch about money in the successive paragraphs and I want to nip this critique in the bud right now. Let's give this belief some consideration and assume that it is credible. You can find proof everywhere. Thomas Kinkade and Anne Geddes have absolutely no artistic integrity. Their work is laughable but yet has broad appeal. They really bring home the bacon and have employees to boot. This is proof that the work has to be vacuous conceptually to be mass produced and sold. I would say, we are smarter than them. We can make smart work that has broad appeal. It is just harder than making sentimental fluff with an inane concept. I think we can do it.
The other elephant in the room is the voice of academia declaring from on high that they have preserved their artistic integrity by retreating into the ivory tower. These are artists who have had nominal success in the gallery system but are tenure track. I would say that they are suspect because they are the ones who have mastered that particular marketing venue. For an artist to win that finicky competition, the work has to be able to function academically. No one who is too controversial is found in most universities. You can’t be too far “out there” and you need the support of other academic institutions on your vitae. And by all means – keep your mouth shut so that you don’t offend anyone unless being offensive is your persona. Some of those on the inside perpetuate/preach their opinion that artists other than those in the club have no right to make a living in the profession and if they do they must be sacrificing artistic integrity. Those that don’t keep their mouth shut for political reasons. I would include the entire gallery, grant, residency and educational system to be a part of the scene. I think it holds back artistic exploration and places constraints on an artist’s development in a different way. Are there people who have been able to fight these constraints? Yes, but they are few and far between. The situation is the same as the venue of mass production. Retreating into academic circles is not an answer.
I could pick apart the gallery system next and talk about artists who have been widely successful within that system but I am growing tired of this part of the diatribe. The point is each possible distribution venue has the same challenge. It is up to the individual artist to hang on to their integrity as they move the work from inception to the studio to distribution no matter what venue they choose. It is up to the artist create desire for their work a lesson taught to us by Thomas Kinkade and Apple Computers.
And so, back to my earlier desire, I wish to invest in art.
It would be great if people were able to:
1. Buy stock in companies that have the intention of making art.
2. Invest in an Art Index.
(Nanotechnology has one [PXN] – why not us?
We could call it the AI 500 – I kinda like the pun)
3. Speculate in Art Futures.
4. Participate in options trading in art stocks.
As these thoughts became clear to me I decided I would see what I could find to invest in. I tried to compile an Art Index. I found Sotheby’s [BID] right away and did my research to discover that if I invested $100 initially and then $100 a month from Aug 2003 to the present I would have invested $5200 and the stock would have a market value of $10,800 (approx) – I would have doubled my money less the brokerage fees. Sotheby’s is a good investment and just about the only stock I can find that could qualify itself as an art stock. But it does not fit my criteria. They do not intend to make art nor do they encourage contemporary art production. They deal strictly in the secondary market which rarely benefits the individual artist.
So then I thought maybe the Art Index could be made up of companies who inadvertently make art. The first one that came to mind is the makers of the iPod [AAPL]. If Apple was an artist, her/his concept would be to create seduction and desire and he/she would be doing an awesome job at it. From an investment point of view $5200 invested in the same way I did in the paragraph above would have a market value of approximately $23,000. A wonderful return, a wonderful company but they really are missing my number one criteria and that is to intend to make art. The bottom line is, they intend to make electronics and they use desire created by awesome product design to sell them.
I then considered Sony Pictures because they made “Adaptation.” But Sony doesn’t care about art and they have no intention of making it. If they happen to fund a movie that is art as in the case of the above mentioned movie, it is by accident. I want to invest in Charlie Kaufman. Now that is an artist I could really get behind. If only he had stock.
I went through similar thoughts and research for Edios Interactive (Warren Spector’s Deus Ex and Thief series) and Big Beach Films (Little Miss Sunshine). Edios has the same issues as Sony and Big Beach Films is private.
I delved into artists who have private companies next. There I found Kinkade, Geddes, Hirst and Koons. Kinkade and Geddes are just bad artists and I really can’t get over my gag reaction to invest. But then it is simply not possible because they are not publicly traded. Hirst and Koons are interesting artists to look at as investment possibilities. They took the Warhol idea of the Factory and ran with it, they are generally considered to be good artists and both have formed corporations. Science Ltd is Damien Hirst’s and Jeff Koons Productions, Inc is the corporate entity keeping him from being personally liable in court. (Sidebar: Jeff Koons was a commodities broker for 6 years after graduate school.) For a very short time in 1998 you could by stock in Damien Hirst’s Pharmacy (Hartford Group). The pharmaceutical themed restaurant did not really fly very well. The rest of the restaurants were poorly managed and the company did not make any money. I should say that the Hartford Group had other people involved in it and was not an exclusive Damien Hirst venture. Maybe if it had been it would have made money. In these two artists, I see a glimmer of what the future could hold. If they had stock I would put my money on them.
At this point the reality that what I was looking for really did not exist dawned on me. The world I was/am looking for has not been created. There is no Art Industry. There is no stock, no indices, no mutual funds, no futures or options trading. There are some art “hedge” funds out there but my invitation to invest and/or participate in it must have gotten lost in the mail. They are inaccessible. (Btw, futures trading would be perfect for funding art ventures.) Investments in art would provide a new source of revenue for artists to create their work unobstructed. They could use the investment money to profit personally and commercially and begin to have an impact beyond the studio and gallery. Artists who have no intention to be educators would have the choice of staying away from the classroom. The credibility of the profession of artist would be restored and we would have the collective ability to fund our own R&D (grants, scholarships etc) and other altruistic endeavors.
We have work to do, we need to stop belly aching about the over saturation of the gallery and academic systems and start hammering out the industry that is ours. It is wide open and there is plenty of room. It is a new frontier. This frontier is very exciting because it is the place where artists can stop competing with each other (at least at first) and come together on the common goals of creating and exploring to reveal the breadth and depth of humanity’s potential and to extend the boundaries of civilization. It is time for the gold rush of creativity.
http://www.nysun.com/article/60389
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000088&sid=aCTxxmKVlgWI&refer=culture
http://danpink.com/
Thursday, June 7, 2007
Functional, Non-Functional and Functionable
Traditionally art objects have been either functional or not. Functional art is usually a recognizable sort of object with a known mode of usage. It is widely utilized, enjoyed and understood. On the other hand there is the non-functional art object. It is found on the walls and pedestals of galleries, museums and collector's homes. It has no function other than to be itself. Its only objective is to carry a message and provide a transcendent experience for the viewer. The goal of the art object is to expand the perceptual boundaries of humans. It defies the notion that an object must have a utilitarian application to justify its existence.
There is a third option in the function vs non-functional discourse. I would like to introduce the notion of the 'functionable' art object. The functionable object has characteristics in common with both functional and non-functional art work. It is transcendent like non-functional gallery objects but it has a purposeful positioning and demeanor that allows it to function in the societal arena. It delivers to the viewer a transcendent experience in an easily recognizable, easily understood package. Because the viewer is able to enter the art work the meaningful exchange between artist and audience is more readily facilitated.
Examples
Functional: teapots, jewelry, quilts, furniture, architecture, anything by lucas, anything by Spielberg, most graphic design, most video games
Non-Functional: every gallery object
Functionable: Movies-Adaption, Running with Scissors, American Beauty, Lord of the Rings, any video game by Warren Spector, some graphic design, the ex knife holder.
There is a third option in the function vs non-functional discourse. I would like to introduce the notion of the 'functionable' art object. The functionable object has characteristics in common with both functional and non-functional art work. It is transcendent like non-functional gallery objects but it has a purposeful positioning and demeanor that allows it to function in the societal arena. It delivers to the viewer a transcendent experience in an easily recognizable, easily understood package. Because the viewer is able to enter the art work the meaningful exchange between artist and audience is more readily facilitated.
Examples
Functional: teapots, jewelry, quilts, furniture, architecture, anything by lucas, anything by Spielberg, most graphic design, most video games
Non-Functional: every gallery object
Functionable: Movies-Adaption, Running with Scissors, American Beauty, Lord of the Rings, any video game by Warren Spector, some graphic design, the ex knife holder.
Sunday, June 3, 2007
The Gift of Fire
Let me tell you about the time I got drunk with Donald Judd.
My first year of graduate school three exchange students and I decided to drive out to Marfa,Texas to view the installation at the Chinati Foundation. Derek (a professor) phoned ahead to arrange for us to stay for a few days so that we could experience the installation more fully. We set off in my 1980 Dodge Colt. After a grueling 15-hour drive we arrived and were escorted to the installation. As I walked into a transformed helicopter hanger a hush like that would experience in an empty church greeted me. It was breathtaking. The fatigue from the trip melted away and the quiet meditation before me took over - transporting me to a more peaceful place within myself. After this initial introduction we settled into the barracks. A curatorial assistant extended an invitation to dinner and we accepted.
When we arrived at "dinner" we were surprised to see a table set for about thirty people with Donald Judd sitting at the head. I remember the other students and I exchanged a look between us when we realized what kind of a dinner we had been invited to attend. All the prominent people of Marfa were there. The mayor and ranchers from the area were all in attendance. It was definitely not our style. But the food was free so we stayed. After a meal of brisket and guacamole there was a concert.
The concert consisted of bagpipe music in a gymnasium. Imagine two hours of constant bagpipes echoing endlessly, the sound reverberating off the walls of the building. At first it was a bit confusing and annoying but as the experience continued I felt engulfed and lifted to a meditative place - very Zen. When the music finished the group went outside and there was an unlit bonfire waiting.
The group encircled the wood and waited as an assistant tried to light the logs. His ignorance was apparent as he tried to light it - first in one place and then - another. At a moment of frustration he poured gasoline on the wood and still he could not get it lit. Donald's embarrassment started to become apparent as the evening was supposed to be a carefully planned seamless spiritual meditation in commune with nature. I stepped forward at this point and asked the assistant to let me try. Knowing that if I held the flame in one place twice it would light I did so and (due to the gasoline) the bonfire went up in a spectacular show of flames. The uncomfortable silence disappeared as the people relaxed. I laid back on the gravel and enjoyed the leaping of the flames and gazed at the stars.
As people began to leave Donald motioned my friends and I to join him. He took us to his kitchen and pulled out the leftover beer. We all sat down and a conversation began. It went something like this.
DJ: You think I am a traditional artist?
Emma: Yes, in light of all the things that are happening in contemporary art.
DJ: There are no contemporary artists - Only people running around thinking that they are artists wasting their time.
Chris: So you are the last artist?
DJ: yes
Amy: Why is that?
DJ: Because my work does everything that artists have been trying to achieve. Now that I have reached the pinnacle art is now dead.
Chris: So - art is minimalism. - a pseudo religion in which a vector of nothingness is the pinnacle of enlightenment?
DJ: No - I am art and when I am dead, art will be dead.
The conversation continued in this vein for several hours. Emma, Amy and Chris all tried to argue that this artist or that artist was making important work and that was evidence that art was not dead. Donald remained unconvinced. I remained silent thinking that it was a pointless discussion. - it was obvious that he would not be swayed from his position.
At the end of the night - (it was about the dawn by that time) - I finally had to ask. So why are you talking to us? Why would you waste your time with a bunch of delusional children? And he said to me - because you gave me the gift of fire. I looked him straight in the eyes and said - so there is hope, then. He very slowly - without blinking - looked me straight in the eyes - and nodded.
Donald Judd died about a year later.
My first year of graduate school three exchange students and I decided to drive out to Marfa,Texas to view the installation at the Chinati Foundation. Derek (a professor) phoned ahead to arrange for us to stay for a few days so that we could experience the installation more fully. We set off in my 1980 Dodge Colt. After a grueling 15-hour drive we arrived and were escorted to the installation. As I walked into a transformed helicopter hanger a hush like that would experience in an empty church greeted me. It was breathtaking. The fatigue from the trip melted away and the quiet meditation before me took over - transporting me to a more peaceful place within myself. After this initial introduction we settled into the barracks. A curatorial assistant extended an invitation to dinner and we accepted.
When we arrived at "dinner" we were surprised to see a table set for about thirty people with Donald Judd sitting at the head. I remember the other students and I exchanged a look between us when we realized what kind of a dinner we had been invited to attend. All the prominent people of Marfa were there. The mayor and ranchers from the area were all in attendance. It was definitely not our style. But the food was free so we stayed. After a meal of brisket and guacamole there was a concert.
The concert consisted of bagpipe music in a gymnasium. Imagine two hours of constant bagpipes echoing endlessly, the sound reverberating off the walls of the building. At first it was a bit confusing and annoying but as the experience continued I felt engulfed and lifted to a meditative place - very Zen. When the music finished the group went outside and there was an unlit bonfire waiting.
The group encircled the wood and waited as an assistant tried to light the logs. His ignorance was apparent as he tried to light it - first in one place and then - another. At a moment of frustration he poured gasoline on the wood and still he could not get it lit. Donald's embarrassment started to become apparent as the evening was supposed to be a carefully planned seamless spiritual meditation in commune with nature. I stepped forward at this point and asked the assistant to let me try. Knowing that if I held the flame in one place twice it would light I did so and (due to the gasoline) the bonfire went up in a spectacular show of flames. The uncomfortable silence disappeared as the people relaxed. I laid back on the gravel and enjoyed the leaping of the flames and gazed at the stars.
As people began to leave Donald motioned my friends and I to join him. He took us to his kitchen and pulled out the leftover beer. We all sat down and a conversation began. It went something like this.
DJ: You think I am a traditional artist?
Emma: Yes, in light of all the things that are happening in contemporary art.
DJ: There are no contemporary artists - Only people running around thinking that they are artists wasting their time.
Chris: So you are the last artist?
DJ: yes
Amy: Why is that?
DJ: Because my work does everything that artists have been trying to achieve. Now that I have reached the pinnacle art is now dead.
Chris: So - art is minimalism. - a pseudo religion in which a vector of nothingness is the pinnacle of enlightenment?
DJ: No - I am art and when I am dead, art will be dead.
The conversation continued in this vein for several hours. Emma, Amy and Chris all tried to argue that this artist or that artist was making important work and that was evidence that art was not dead. Donald remained unconvinced. I remained silent thinking that it was a pointless discussion. - it was obvious that he would not be swayed from his position.
At the end of the night - (it was about the dawn by that time) - I finally had to ask. So why are you talking to us? Why would you waste your time with a bunch of delusional children? And he said to me - because you gave me the gift of fire. I looked him straight in the eyes and said - so there is hope, then. He very slowly - without blinking - looked me straight in the eyes - and nodded.
Donald Judd died about a year later.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
From the Chicken Coop to the Meat Packing Plant: The Life of a Painting.
When I was a child we kept chickens in the summer time. There was only one rule: do not name the chickens because they were food - not pets. Every year I watched these chickens grow from cute fuzzy yellow chicks in the basement to smelly annoying dirty animals that I had to chase whenever they would get out of the coop to my plate at Sunday dinner. The life of a painting is much like this. It starts out small and quiet – letting a small peep out every once in a while. The artist nurtures it and treats it as if it is precious at this point. Then as the dialogue with paint and canvas ensues there are moments of frustration – points at which the painting is lost and regained. At times you feel in control and other times the painting is controlling you. It invades your dreams and becomes obsessively present in your brain and soul. You think you must turn it to the wall to escape it for a while but this does not work. The painting with all of its weaknesses and possibilities is demanding your attention. Your stomach starts to hurt as you feel you will never conquer it. Self doubt arises – perhaps you should have gone to law school creeps in your thoughts. Litanies of self-deprecating thoughts follow. Why did I think I could ever be an artist? Why did I ever think I could make a good painting? What kind of arrogance did I possess to think that any kind of message of mine would be important enough for others to look at or consider? The painting has become that annoying, dirty chicken chasing you and making you chase it to return it to the coop. And then it happens.
The Break Through
The painting has a direction, a purpose for its existence. A resolution presents itself. The painting has become ready for public consumption. And so like gathering the chickens into cages and loading them onto the truck you prepare this thing you have created for its public life. Presentation, documentation issues are addressed. It is framed or not framed as needed, you shoot slides and title it and write an artist statement. And there it sits ready like a newly butchered chicken with its giblets in a little baggie neatly wrapped up in plastic – waiting for a consumer. If you are lucky enough an audience notices it and it becomes food, sustenance for the soul. Feeding the dialogue between humans - the painting and the viewers giving life to each other. It leaves you then and takes on a life of its own and you return to the studio where another blank canvas waits quietly peeping from the dark basement of your soul and asks you to feed it.
The Break Through
The painting has a direction, a purpose for its existence. A resolution presents itself. The painting has become ready for public consumption. And so like gathering the chickens into cages and loading them onto the truck you prepare this thing you have created for its public life. Presentation, documentation issues are addressed. It is framed or not framed as needed, you shoot slides and title it and write an artist statement. And there it sits ready like a newly butchered chicken with its giblets in a little baggie neatly wrapped up in plastic – waiting for a consumer. If you are lucky enough an audience notices it and it becomes food, sustenance for the soul. Feeding the dialogue between humans - the painting and the viewers giving life to each other. It leaves you then and takes on a life of its own and you return to the studio where another blank canvas waits quietly peeping from the dark basement of your soul and asks you to feed it.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
When Impulsiveness
Becomes A Calculated Leap
When I was 23 my favorite thing to say was “There is genius in boldness.” This was how I viewed and justified my life and my art. At the time my art was very much like my life – chaotic, unpredictable and naïve. I did not have time for sketches and planning and thought that most artists who did this were not in touch with the power of intuition. I did not even bother with a palette squirting my paint directly from tube to canvas. Letting the paint take me where it will like a feather adrift in the breeze or like debris flying loose in a hurricane depending on the mood of the day. I did not care for aesthetic theory or art history. What did that have to do with me? I only looked at other painters for technical guidance and I never read those books with the recipes of the masters. My peer group and professors alike often described me as impatient.
But there was a nagging feeling that the impulse to make art was as a result of need to expose or say something. As I progressed into life after school the speed of my paintbrush slowed and the nagging became unbearable. I began to think about why these objects must exist. I thought there must be more than an existentialist extension of the tradition of abstraction. The words of the Catholic and Buddhist mystics that I had read in school blurred and faded. There must be something unique about the contribution I and every other artist had to make. If there wasn’t something more to contribute then what was the point?
The making of objects ground to a halt.
I began to study the world. Listening to it instead of my own incessant chatter. I collected news stories and advertisements. Scavenging life bits trying to fit together the pieces of the puzzle. There must be more… there must be more… replaying like a mantra in my head. I was fully immersed in what I now call (looking back) my incubation period. And I had passed a point of no return. The realization that I must leave that which I loved the most in order to create something else (more?) was excruciating and invigorating all at once. I was reborn and fully vulnerable.
Patterns began to emerge. It was like a kaleidoscope with a ubiquitous hand was turning the view port. The patterns would shift and suddenly the pieces would make a different perspective – a new image. Stocks rising and falling, economic shifts creating and destroying jobs, a well placed vote to prevent or start a war, the relation of taxes to providing to those in need, science and technology and its membership to creativity and the Hollywood image machine. Then I realized – it was not a ubiquitous hand – the hand turning the view port could be mine if I possessed the confidence and courage to reach for it and make a turn of my own. It was not that my hand was more important or less important than anyone else’s – it was that was MY hand and my hand is as valid as anyone else’s. I gave myself permission to contribute - permission to shift the view port and let others consider the perspective.
All of this coincided and collided with my participation in the corporate world. The corporate world from the perspective of the artist is a fully planned, calculating machine, which is often considered an evil force manipulating the masses for the betterment of a few executives. While I will not deny that this happens I have also found (through membership as an employee) that the corporate world is also a place that is perhaps more creative than that of the art community. For example: a multi-billion dollar media corporation being started with a poker game of used car salesmen and a radio station owner. (i.e. Clear Channel Communications – think what would have happened if Howard Stern had been present at that poker game and had won that hand) In contrast the art community appears to be a stagnant place with all artists lock stepping Nazi style to the demands of the establishment. (For people who purport to be creative – I don’t see much creativity in the choice of how most artists choose to live their lives.)
As I became fully cognizant of the power of the corporation and the idea that this world could be used as if it were a canvas with investment and return a set of paints and brushes I also became aware of the possibility of what could be should artists allow themselves to participate. What kind of a world would it be - if artists formed corporations? The desire to fully participate in the world allowed me to begin to plan and calculate how and when I would make the next leap. It would not be a blind leap of faith but a leap where I would be sure of where my foot would land on the other side of the canyon. Of course like anyone who decides to leap across a canyon all the planning and calculating of rate of speed and angle of trajectory could be made useless by one gust of unexpected wind. In the post-Enron corporate world anyone who participates must also realize that it is not the rock of Gibraltar but more a ship at sea – privy to the weather and the currents – with the combined possibilities to go anywhere and find undiscovered territory or find a grave at the bottom of the sea.
And so – at 38 years old - I amend my earlier thought to say, “There is genius in the boldness of planning and the calculated use of intuition.”
The era of the Corporate Fine Art Entity has begun – where leaps of faith are calculated and artistic contributions planned and delivered to the masses.
Copyright 2004-2007 Theresa Devine. All rights reserved
But there was a nagging feeling that the impulse to make art was as a result of need to expose or say something. As I progressed into life after school the speed of my paintbrush slowed and the nagging became unbearable. I began to think about why these objects must exist. I thought there must be more than an existentialist extension of the tradition of abstraction. The words of the Catholic and Buddhist mystics that I had read in school blurred and faded. There must be something unique about the contribution I and every other artist had to make. If there wasn’t something more to contribute then what was the point?
The making of objects ground to a halt.
I began to study the world. Listening to it instead of my own incessant chatter. I collected news stories and advertisements. Scavenging life bits trying to fit together the pieces of the puzzle. There must be more… there must be more… replaying like a mantra in my head. I was fully immersed in what I now call (looking back) my incubation period. And I had passed a point of no return. The realization that I must leave that which I loved the most in order to create something else (more?) was excruciating and invigorating all at once. I was reborn and fully vulnerable.
Patterns began to emerge. It was like a kaleidoscope with a ubiquitous hand was turning the view port. The patterns would shift and suddenly the pieces would make a different perspective – a new image. Stocks rising and falling, economic shifts creating and destroying jobs, a well placed vote to prevent or start a war, the relation of taxes to providing to those in need, science and technology and its membership to creativity and the Hollywood image machine. Then I realized – it was not a ubiquitous hand – the hand turning the view port could be mine if I possessed the confidence and courage to reach for it and make a turn of my own. It was not that my hand was more important or less important than anyone else’s – it was that was MY hand and my hand is as valid as anyone else’s. I gave myself permission to contribute - permission to shift the view port and let others consider the perspective.
All of this coincided and collided with my participation in the corporate world. The corporate world from the perspective of the artist is a fully planned, calculating machine, which is often considered an evil force manipulating the masses for the betterment of a few executives. While I will not deny that this happens I have also found (through membership as an employee) that the corporate world is also a place that is perhaps more creative than that of the art community. For example: a multi-billion dollar media corporation being started with a poker game of used car salesmen and a radio station owner. (i.e. Clear Channel Communications – think what would have happened if Howard Stern had been present at that poker game and had won that hand) In contrast the art community appears to be a stagnant place with all artists lock stepping Nazi style to the demands of the establishment. (For people who purport to be creative – I don’t see much creativity in the choice of how most artists choose to live their lives.)
As I became fully cognizant of the power of the corporation and the idea that this world could be used as if it were a canvas with investment and return a set of paints and brushes I also became aware of the possibility of what could be should artists allow themselves to participate. What kind of a world would it be - if artists formed corporations? The desire to fully participate in the world allowed me to begin to plan and calculate how and when I would make the next leap. It would not be a blind leap of faith but a leap where I would be sure of where my foot would land on the other side of the canyon. Of course like anyone who decides to leap across a canyon all the planning and calculating of rate of speed and angle of trajectory could be made useless by one gust of unexpected wind. In the post-Enron corporate world anyone who participates must also realize that it is not the rock of Gibraltar but more a ship at sea – privy to the weather and the currents – with the combined possibilities to go anywhere and find undiscovered territory or find a grave at the bottom of the sea.
And so – at 38 years old - I amend my earlier thought to say, “There is genius in the boldness of planning and the calculated use of intuition.”
The era of the Corporate Fine Art Entity has begun – where leaps of faith are calculated and artistic contributions planned and delivered to the masses.
Copyright 2004-2007 Theresa Devine. All rights reserved
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)