Discernment

OK, so recently I was at an opening at a sort-of-mayor contemporary art institution, and somehow, during a conversation with an assistant curator and another artist, I said something along the lines of mediocrity in the contemporary art world. Then the assistant curator looked at me somewhat incredulous, and said. "Is that so? That's the first time I've heard that..."
So let's extrapolate not just her comments, but mine. I'll start with mine.
What I meant to say was this: from the multitude of artwork that is out there, some of it is good, and most of it will be bad. That holds for both published and unpublished artists. It would certainly be naïve to believe that when people don't get exhibits it is because their art is not good. We have all heard of overlooked artists who got ignored during their lifetime, and most of us know good artists who aren't getting any shows. It is just as naïve to believe that everybody who exhibits does so because they are good. Who hasn't seen a bad show? Or heard critics and reputed artists comment unfavorably about someone’s work? So the question is one of ratios, of how much mediocre artwork is out there in comparison with the good one. My guess is something like 1:9; an overwhelming majority.
Now, going back to our friend. What she meant was something along the lines of most (if not all) artists who get press, or exhibit, are good, while most who don't, are bad. Her ratios are something like 9:1 from among those artists who are enjoying attention, and the opposite for those who aren't. It is something like Social Darwinism applied to the arts. Bad things happen to bad people, and vice-versa.
I'm fascinated by the docility of these Art World worker-bees, and by their lack of an opinion. It seems like they don't have much wisdom to look for the things that make an art work interesting, and instead, they are ever content, and self-satisfied, with recognizing art work that looks, or seems to function, in a manner similar to work they are already familiar with. It's almost like they read Artforum not to see what is going on in the art market, but to see what they should like at this moment. I am willing to bet that if you asked most people who work in the art world what the avant-garde is, they would tell you it’s them! Yes them, the pranksters, scenesters, hipsters, etc. Even though they are all cloning the same post modernist work over and over, in some sort of incestuous, schizophrenic orgy of self-complacency without questioning themselves for a moment, somehow, THEY are the underdog. They are just misunderstood, neglected, poor, middle-to-upper class, unquestioning majority holders.
Dislocated, “sense of place” video has now officially become as abused as “stained mattress” art from the 90’s. You will find a couple of these in just about every student art show these days.
Hey geniuses! In case you’re curious about what edgy video is, go watch 10. I know. He wasn’t the first, but he was the one to push it the furthest, AND he did it on a budget.
It all goes back to the problem of art students being taught to start out with style first, and concept second. The truth is that when you start out with concept, the style will weave itself in more naturally, and if it doesn’t, then it means you need to make one up that will help you express what you want to say, and that's when you start breaking new ground. But when you start out with style, you’re only imposing your style on just about every subject matter you ever tackle. It’s pornographic (in the bad sense of the word).

Do I Confuse You?

The more I deal with issues of ethnicity, the more I want to confuse the hell out of people when they meet me. By “dealing” I don’t mean to say “struggling,” “grappling,” or anything like that. I’m comfortable and proud of my heritage, so I don’t have much drama for you on that arena. What I mean by “dealing” is this: when I meet people in the Art World, and we start talking, I see a tendency of them wanting to put me in a certain category as soon as they meet me. I suppose this is so that they can proceed with their set of assumptions and preconceived notions as they talk to me. It’s almost like some sort of tagging game where they are chasing me around with a red tag that says “Hispanic Artist.” Don’t worry, I’ll explain.
Ever since this show at the museum opened, I’ve been meeting a lot of people on and off the museum. When they see the work, they enjoy it, and simply ask me how I came to choose my iconography and symbols. No problem there, that’s just interest, or curiosity. Only a few individuals get stuck on the surface of it, and question me about what they see as a contradiction between some sort of “Asian-ness” and my “Hispanic-ness.” But when I describe it, without them having seen it... O M G! You should see their faces as they struggle with me. This is actually a great sign for me, because (a) it lets me know that the content of my work is not something that is easy to accept, in other words, it is foreign to people, and (b) the fact that the work itself reduces (if not, eliminates altogether) this kind of reaction, tells me that I must be doing something right to bridge that gap.
I think that the conflict arises due to two facts: people’s obsession with the self (specifically their selves), and the constant set of justifications that people construct to justify such notions. (I should clarify that I don’t believe in the existence of a self,* and that, to a large degree, my work deals with this subject). When we believe that we “are,” then we have to believe that others “are” as well. This has two effects on personality: we draw the ubiquitous “me/them border,” and then we have to upkeep it. Anything that would contradict that notion is an attack on that imaginary border, and therefore, an attack on those it is meant to protect. Within such a worldview, things can only mean ONE thing. There can only be one principle, (one way of doing things, etc, etc.) because if one thing can be many things, then it is not elemental, essential, or special. To be more precise: it is not an entity. That would mean there are only events and processes in existence. This can be quite scary for many people, because they don’t have the tools to deal with such a concept.
In art, this reflects itself in the overwhelming dominance of similes over metaphors. Most art works consist of the simple formula: x means y. “You are you, I am me, he is he. And if I’m feeling frisky, maybe I’ll be this or I'll be that. But I will always BE.”
But what happens when existence gets defined in a series of things you are exactly NOT, or in a multitude of things you are at the same time, therefore becoming none of them? Metaphors (or at least good metaphors) function at a series of levels, and move within these. Most people cannot handle such a concept, because it leads to doubt of their own self. Jung said that one of the reasons that monotheistic religions hesitate to name their gods, or constantly refer to them by adjectives, is because knowing somebody’s name is seen as having an advantage over them. In other words, non-definable things are seen as threatening, definable ones are seen as manageable. If you think about it, the more above us that somebody is, the less we use their names. Think of what you call your parents, your employer, your rulers, your gods. Now think of what you call your siblings, your friends, your children, your employees. Get it?
In the same way, our arrogance and self-gratification has led us to favor artworks that reinforce our view of the universe and ourselves as we see it, or want to see it. We want objects that we can name, (but not too easily, of course) so that we can feel some sense of achievement. Originality is confused with stylistic shenanigans, and truly innovative work gets ignored all too often.
In my case, when people can’t define me easily, this can bring some sort of aversion. They can’t match my views, or capabilities, with their idea of others like me, and become uneasy.
One of these people who I’m talking about quipped, “And where is the Catholic component of your work reflected?”
He must have been assuming there is one, or else he would have asked, “Is there a Catholic component in your artwork somewhere?” Because then, I would have replied “Well, if there is one, please show it to me, so that I can do something about it the next time!” >:)

*For more on the illusion of the self, and the research being done on this by various neurologists and psychologists please listen to Radio Lab’s excellent show on the subject.

Stratiegery

I just made it into a somewhat major biennial. The “somewhat” here only qualifies the “major” in terms of perception. It is actually a very good show. It’s kind of new, and that may have something to do with its lack of buzz, but it does get good, respectable, coverage, and good artists have come out of it. But this post is about balancing rejection with your goals and your outlook.
There’s this piece I have been working on for years. Literally. Ever since I conceived it, I got nothing but support from my peers and teachers (except for one certain famous conceptual artist whose work I wasn’t crazy about anyway). I never tried to peddle it around, because I knew it was far from ready, so there wasn’t much to show. After some time I got a hold of 3 dimensional rendering software, and became fluent enough in it to render my idea and work out its kinks without investing much in hardware and labor time. Now I felt I was ready to submit it to different places. I went for institutions, as opposed to galleries, because I wanted funding to build it. I sent one proposal to the Sculpture Center, because they have a very good space, and they don’t seem to have a narrow aesthetic agenda in their curating. I usually send a lot of these proposals out, and then go about my business without waiting by the mailbox, but to be honest, I was very surprised when they rejected me, because I’ve seen work there of pretty bad quality next to excellent work, so I figured if they’re using “filler” then they must be in need of good work.
Later I went to Creative Time to take advantage of their Open Door program, where you can show work to them to get some sort of assessment on it. I showed them another piece which I thought better suited their concerns and agenda, but I took copies of the Sculpture Center proposal, in case they wanted to see older work. I wasn’t expecting an offer, I just wanted a critique on the piece. They gave me some good advice on how to try to make it work, and even suggested some venues for it. Then they wanted to talk about the SC proposal. I explained it to them, and they loved it. I told them “Actually, I didn’t submit this one to you, because I know it’s good. I just need to build the darn thing already!” Also I knew that, good as it was, it really wasn't for them for a variety of reasons.
While all of this was going on, I had my eye on a certain Biennial here in NY, hosted by a Museum whose curating I really admire. From among the many venues in NY, this was one that I really cared about being in, because I thought we would be such a good match. Well, apparently they felt the same way, because I got in.
I know many people who only know about 3 major review shows, maybe 20 blue chip galleries in Chelsea, and that’s it. They apply to those, get rejected, and then they get frustrated!
So here’s the preachy part of the post:
DON'T DO THAT
All you’re doing is building up expectations about a few private institutions who only partly care about art. They balance their aesthetic concerns with a business model; a WASPy business model, and frankly, there is little room in there for unknowns. Chances are that you would probably run the place in the same manner if you were in their shoes, because of the ridiculous importance that celebrety plays in our societies.
As far as submitting to the large survey shows, yes, fine, definitely submit if you think you have something they’ll care about, but make sure you do submit to the ones where you fit in even if they’re not as flashy. Those may be smaller, but if you get in, your work will be shown to a captive audience of curators and critics. This will exponentially increase your chances of making it into the big ones, which in the end are more about the market than about art itself.
Here’s one of the healthiest habits you can cultivate while you are an artist:
Whenever you go to a gallery, or read and article about a show, if the work on display, or the theme of the show feel like your work, take a card with you, or rip the page out of the magazine and save it in an envelope. We all save the cards from the hottest shows, or bring home the business card of such-and-such that we met at this-or-that opening. Please keep those somewhere else. If your networking envelope looks like a survey of every first floor gallery between 25th and 18th streets, then I just wasted 20 minutes writing this. Not only will you never work your way through such an envelope, you will get rejected so many times, you will loose perspective on your own artistic purpose. Remember, if you truly are an artist, then you’re supposed to be doing art REGARDLESS of gallery acceptance. Galleries are only the business end of the equation, not the whole equation. As you complete work, or as your ideas develop, submit them to the people on your networking envelope in a discerning manner. You are bound to get a more productive response, better leads, or what you really want, a commitment from them to fit you into a venue.
Of course this doesn’t mean that you will waste yourself away running through every single hipster group show on the LES or Williamsburg. That can be just as distracting. Just be in touch with what the different scenes are, see where you might be able to gain some sort of ground, and if your scene doesn’t exist, then make it yourself!

Colbert Raport

You have to give it to him. It wasn't as funny as the show, but it was much more compelling and nuanced. He took what he had, synthesized it, and presented it in a personal way while at the same time speaking for a lot of us. That makes it art...
For the full video follow these links:

Part 1

Part 2

On immigration, the creation of yet another underclass, and how US Americans are making the same 19th century mistakes all over again...

I am an immigrant myself. In my case, citizenship was imposed on me and 3 million other Puerto Ricans after our country was “liberated” one hundred years ago. Instead of going over the usual list of talking points, I will give you two case studies and you make up your own mind.
I have two friends. One came here 12 years ago on a tourist visa, and stayed (let’s call him X). X hasn't been back home since. Another one came here legally on a work visa obtained through a visa lottery system (let’s call her Y).
For the last ten years X has been working as a hardware specialist for an information systems company, he has no college education, but has some understanding of academics, and did well in school back home. His employer hires most of his employees in the same fashion. X is seriously underpaid (he makes less than me, an artist, so you can imagine), and he works more than 8 hours per day with no overtime pay. During the time that X has been working for this company, it grew from a mom-and-pop shop to a medium size business with offices in two cities, yet if his employer finds out that he has taken on freelance jobs that the company could have handled, he will be fired on the spot. During this time, X’s salary has actually decreased. X is an active member of his community, has no vices, speaks good English, and is a good citizen in every respect. At one point X had hopes of studying and earning a degree in his field, but as a result of his paper situation, X has become increasingly withdrawn, and this depression was augmented by the fact that his father passed away while he was here. He has become the principal breadwinner for his family back home, and he is so conscious of this fact, that, in fear of being deported, he avoids most official transactions, like plane travel, applying for a driver’s license, regular health care, and many other things that you and I would take for granted as members of this society. In turn, he has watched many people arrive from his country on visa lotteries, and secure their status while he is left behind. So to sum it up: from X’s work this country has directly benefited economically (his employers have become wealthy, more jobs have opened, he spends money locally, and never claims his taxes back), but he has traded in his most productive years, his health, and ruined his chances for marriage due to the lack of a civil status.
Now let’s look at Y. Y is a college educated, brilliant young lady with a slight physical disability. Her English is not great, but she manages just fine, and even reads García Márquez in translation. All her life she suffered harassment and discrimination because of her disability, and she has fiercely fought off any attempts at being labeled or treated as anything less than normal. She hides her disability so well, that I didn’t even notice it the first few times I saw her. She is a fighter indeed. She is very intellectually capable, and has a curious mind. She doesn’t have any vices either, and tries to be a good practitioner of her faith in a moderate, middle-class, sort of way.
The circumstances under which she came here are somewhat interesting and interwoven with US policies in her world region. In her country, she worked as an engineer for a fabrics manufacturer whose main clients were here in the US. She had toyed with the idea of coming here, but didn't seriously pursue it, as she had a good job back home. She had filed a visa lottery application in her country in the same way that in all countries where the US has this practice, people file these things “’cause you never know.” Just like the lottery! Ha, ha! :-(
So one day, the US decided to invade her neighbor, unjustifiably, and all orders from the US suddenly stopped coming in. She lost her job immediately. The pattern followed throughout her industry, coupled with the increasing US dependence on China for fabric imports. After looking for work for some months, the visa lottery happened to come in, and, of course, she took the opportunity.
Y is now also very underpaid for her position (she is basically an executive assistant, insanely overworked and making less than a secretary). She performs at extremely competent levels, and her workdays easily reach 12 hours (no overtime pay either).
When she told me how she came here, a deep sense of irony hit me. On the one hand, we destroyed her livelihood with our stupid bombs, pulling her out of the country where she expected to live her life, with her loved ones, and we stole an outstanding citizen from a country that had invested in her for its own benefit. While on the other, we did so when we had people here like X, who wanted to be here and fulfill the American Dream --the old one, not the new frivolous one.
When our moron President talks about “skipping the line,” he is asking you to place emotions before reason. It is unreasonable to keep handing out work visas abroad when so many willing and able people are already here. It is also unreasonable to keep so many of your people, yes YOUR people, here in limbo when you know you need workers. What is happening now is exactly what happened during the Jim Crow era. We have an entire sector of our population that wants, and NEEDS, to be lifted, in order to make this country a better place, and our society a more equitable one, but we keep choosing to ignore them, even as we need them too. No offense to Italian-Americans, and other European-American groups, but they got to “skip the line” ahead of Blacks thanks to US American racism. As a result, a whole section of American society has been mired in the ills that accompany poverty for the last 150 years. We haven’t even helped them (ahem, Katrina), and now there’s 11 million more members of our society going down the same tube, and this imbecile is talking about “skipping lines.” Like we’re in the third grade.
Hey Mr. Asshole pResident! My friend has been standing in your stupid line for the last 12 years! He learned the language, paid the taxes, and even added a company to your ailing economy (that’s one company more than you have added), now it’s your time to do something for him. Not only would X or Y make a better President than you, they would make a better American...

Human beings are not illegal!

It only took two years... :-P

All the bureaucratic stuff is out of the way now for the Percent for Art Commission, so it's on Baby!
Two things on that:
1. Finding insurance sucks!
I went through hell on this one. The trick is basically this: keep your description of the project as **simple minded** as possible when dealing with agents. Whatever it is that you're planning on doing, always make it sound like you're doing a very traditional procedure (i.e. painting, carving, etc.) in your studio, and moving it to the site for installation in a very conventional way; like hanging, bolting etc. NEVER mention scaffolding, even if you are painting a mural, this will get you denied on the spot.
2. If you can bring somebody in on the project, do so.
(a) You need the teamwork experience. (b) Doing these things by yourself is very demanding. (c) You get the opportunity to do something about all those compliments you gave to your peers about their work. And (c) it's just good karma!
That's basically it for today. It's Friday and I'm exhausted, so I'm going to the Hamam!