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 That holds for both published and unpublished artists.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!

Art & Kindness (First Warm Night)

So I get this e-mail from my friend Mike. It goes something like “Firstwarmnight.com, Come out to party, Celebrate, Drums, Dreams, Drones, bla, bla…” It looked kind of interesting, and it didn’t have that typical culture-mining, hipster taste to it that by now is a complete turn off to me. But what really made me sign up were the words “brass band” and “flame throwers,” which reminded me of a similar event I went to on the Meat Packing District some years ago organized by some Iranian guys.
A couple of days later, it’s Saturday afternoon, and I’m standing on the corner of Houston and Chrystie, where there were already about 30 policemen waiting for us. Police State anyone? Soon, a few butterfly-winged ladies lead us into a Brooklyn bound F train, and out on the Smith/9th stop on Red Hook, a neighborhood that I'm really fond of. A good sign already.
Now I realize it’s more that a couple of hundred of us, and we are walking down the middle of the ghetto right through a couple of fútbol matches towards the piers. A very good sign.
A couple of people from the neighborhood saw my face, and immediately started asking me questions. “¿Y esto qué es? ¿A donde se dirigen? ¿Y... són maricones?” To which I burst out laughing. I told them “¡Aqui hay de tó!” Next thing I know, three drunk gang members have joined us, and are dancing Goran Bregoviç's "Mesceçina," while riding giant stuffed animals, and hitting each other with them. A really good sign.
There were iconoclastic urban cheerleaders, industrial pixies, reformed capitalists, poetry veterans, comedians on holiday, corporate serfs on retreat, neighborhood people, and just plain citizens! No posing, no attitudes. Everybody was civil, everybody was merry-making, and everybody was NICE! That's right, strangers talking to each other for no reason, other that sharing the same space-time. It was spontaneous (if you ignore the two months planning). It was creative. It was joyous, ephemeral, wild, and it was GENEROUS. Yes, generous, the one thing that is missing from most public art, these people had by the truckload. Public Art Fund, get off your ass, and take a good look!
People were sharing food, water, hugs, kisses, capoeira skills, music, art, you name it. Some people (ehem, cheesy hipsters) might think of this kind of event as being done for its own sake, or worse yet, for no sake at all, but I think it is done for very specific and necessary reasons.
Firstly, people crave real congeniality. Everybody was acting the way they act when they are on vacation. In other words, engaging on a personal level, and not trying to make a buck. Usually on the train, or at bars, openings, and so on, one of the first things people ask you is what you do for a living. A most disgusting habit when it is used to decide which turn the rest of the conversation is going take. Not only did I NOT hear the ubiquitous “What do you do?” I don’t even think anybody cared! Was this really New York?! (Don't get me wrong, I still love this city).
Secondly, no person can keep his, or her, guard up forever. This can be the most fatiguing thing about living in a city. We all need to let go, and just accept and be accepted. One of the most gratifying of all sensations is when you have no reasons to prefer this, or dislike that. You just give into a genuine curiousness about your fellow human beings. You want to know how they feel, and how they think. It is the reason why you travel 6,000 miles to strike up a conversation with a rickshaw driver, when you don’t even talk with the guy that drives your bus every day.
Thank you everybody. It was great, it was special, and it was memorable.

PS Did the flame throwers ever show up?

Den of Lions

My first lesson on working on Public Commissions:
DO NOT trust the engineers. They will always try to screw you.
This is something I had seen a professor of mine go through. It eventually grew into a huge public battle, which he lost. I did not quite grasp the many manifestations that this type of ignorance can mutate into.
So, yes, I got the commission, and yes, I eventually got the architect excited about my idea to the point that he saw it as enhancing the appearance and function of the building. But then came the technocrats (calling them bureaucrats is a disservice to semantics).
Basically, because my piece involved the heavy use of some of their materials, so that we could do something significant in scale, they waited until I went ahead with my bid, and then, did not allocate any construction funds for those areas. In other words, by letting me “spend” from my moneys to do the preparatory work which he was supposed to do in the first place, he kept me from spending money on other areas of the building that were going to serve to frame and contextualize the piece (the nature of the approval process necessitated this for reasons far too long and boring for this context).
So to sum it up: one person with ZERO artistic training, who could not even begin to comprehend all the conceptual aspects of the work I am proposing to do, and who controls all the financial aspects of the project, decided to wage a budgeting war with the guy who has the least money to dispose of. It was carnage.
I’ll just say this: Art has been taught, tried, and tested on universities since there first were universities. Engineering has only been taught in universities for the last two hundred years. Therefore my field has a more solid academic foundation that his. This, however, didn’t keep him from trying to tell me which symbols to use, and how to go about designing things. Of course, I totally blew him off, and now I’m paying for it. You should see what he did to the architect’s design….

I just got back from Spain,

where I saw some wonderful painting and architecture. I stood in front of Velázquez’ “Las Meninas” the longest I’ve ever stood in front of any painting. I almost broke into tears more than thrice. From Gaudí, what can I say? The man was simply a consummate and very heedful artist and architect. He built houses like you build temples. The Catalans have a very long, continuous, and distinguished history when it comes to the arts. I can’t blame them for feeling so different from the Spanish. It seems everything they do, they do artfully; very much like Indians.
I also visited as many contemporary venues as possible, in both Madrid and Barcelona, and there seem to be two mayor trends running through their art world. One which basically takes all North American post-modern assumptions as truth, and basically regurgitates all the shallow and mindless crap that galleries are dishing out at the speed of sound, and another one (the one to which I was able to relate more) which looks at all the work out there, and stops and asks questions and holds the work up the standards of the history of art (as opposed to holding it up to yesterday’s joke, or the latest issue of Vogue). This second “school” I find very lacking on our side of the Atlantic; except for maybe Jerry Saltz, and one or two critics at the NY Times. I wont even get into Art Forum!
I did notice a lot of funding towards new and incredible spaces, but very little work to fill them. The Reina Sofía Art Center’s permanent collection centers around the modern and post-modern, but lacks work by Jackie Winsor, Louise Bourgeois and Isamu Noguchi. That was a little disappointing. They are building a new wing as big as the old one and the old one is not even full! I did hear a lot of talk from artists about politicians using the whole space-building-for-the-arts scheme as a way to pursue political, rather than cultural, ends. But let’s get into the lowest point of the trip. Shall we? Hee, hee... The high points were too sublime for this format (would be nice to be a writer too), and besides, you should experience those for yourself.
I ran into an old friend over there, and we decided to meet during the week-end to catch up. He invited me to a gathering he was having with some colleagues, and I went. I met many people from his industry (video), but there was this Briton that particularly pissed me off. The first thing he asked me was what I did for a living (and then they get mad when we tell them about their ubiquitous class consciousness!). When I told him I was a sculptor (I should have told him I was an ice cream vendor, or something, just to see the confused look on his face), he said “Oh really? Do you know Jake and Dinos Chapman?” I said yes, not personally, I did. He said “Oh they’re really good friends of mine.” Then I told him that I had my issues with their work and most of the crap that Saatchi peddles (which is going to be worthless in 20 years anyway), of course, not in that exact order of words. Then I told him I had read some of their interviews and that they seemed like very capable intelligent thoughtful people, but that all that sensitivity is just not present in their work, unlike Damien Hirst who is AS dumb as his work. Then he said “Oh, it’s all a big joke anyway. Everybody’s doing it.”
When did I go to sleep, that I woke up in the middle of this idiotic French-Rococo nightmare? What kind of fluffy standard is that to hold art to? There are much better (not to mention cheaper) comedians out there. And what the hell is a joke good for anyway, if only a few dumb yuppies are the ones laughing? Last time I checked, art was the realm of skill, in both form AND content, not one OR the other.
After feeling stupid for having said that, he got personal,
“Well, do you make a living out of it?”
PLEASE, allow me to quote another teacher of mine here THE ART WORLD IS NOT NESCESSARILLY ART.
That orgy of consumption that we are presently experiencing is the market-side of the equation exerting an unprecedented, and undeserved, amount of influence over our conception of ART. The difference between a true artist and a cheap opportunist lies in their motives. I don’t have to tell you that. Go look at a Raphael, and then go look at a Michelangelo. Both were rich, and both were popular, but only one made art; the other one just made pictures. You’ll see the difference. If you can’t, heaven help you!
And BTW I don't make a living out of it, I make a life out of it.

The new ironic art,

Or the pontification of nothing in particular. Spreading through the galleries like a tiny, efficient and simple little virus.
It is the perfect allegory of our times: selfish, not that rigorous, and less informed than the preceding generation. It doesn’t require much thought. It abuses, distorts, and reduces the concept of metaphor. Better described as “TVesque.” Yuppies love it, and it's perfect for coctail parties!
Just like junk food, it will give you a quick jolt of the throat, but leave you with an empty stomach. Just like the tiny, efficient and simple little virus it is, it has already crossed the oceans, feeding on greed (and need), and it is starting to affect major organs.
Not easily recognized.
Or is it?…

Today I completed the cycle of my first bid for a public commission,

and I came out of it with mixed feelings. Needless to say that after all the pontificating I do on public art and why it is so bad lately, I jumped on the opportunity to submit.
They called me and asked me to submit a proposal in 30 DAYS! Complete with itemized budget and everything! On top of it the amount of money was a joke for that size of building. If $33,000 is one percent, then they were constructing a 50,000 square foot, two-story building, with full glass facing, in downtown New Haven for one heck of a bargain! But since I would be a fool to turn down such an opportunity I agreed to submit. I went to the firm working on the project, and the architect was on vacation! None of the people that received me cared much about the project, nor did they seem to know much about it. I went with an architect (my brother) to the meeting, and according to him they were not very professional, and there were enough mistakes in the CAD files to gain them penalties from the contractors until they would have to settle down with building a very nice shack! (Of course I’m exaggerating).
When I looked at the plan, practically every square inch of the building was spoken for, so my first reaction was “so what the hell do they need me for?!”, but I took the blueprints and got to work.
Imagine my excitement when I realized that the school was in a Puerto Rican neighborhood! I guess that’s what the pencil neck I spoke to at the firm meant by saying it was in “not such a great neighborhood.” Now I really wanted to try my best to make it work. Since the space was so huge, but the budget so small, I thought the best way to have an impact on the space was to work with the same materials that were already at play in the courtyard of the building, so that budgets could be combined. I would be improving on some of the things that would have been merely utilitarian and turning them into something more, which would be a great opportunity to prove some of my points about how public art should engage people, and I don’t mean in a “push this button” type of way.
Some of the people in the panel seemed impressed by the concept, and by my interest in making something that those kids could use and feel proud of. Others just wanted to find somebody that would just show up at the end of the day with their little trinket, and hang it somewhere out of the way. Never mind ‘problem solving,’ ‘going the extra mile,’ or ‘developing new ideas.’
I came up with these beautiful patterns to be rendered on the rubberized playmats that they were to put on the floor. Apparently, having the audacity to work off the building’s inherent geometry was taken somewhat personally by the architect. I thought that he might even take it as a compliment! Boy was I wrong! Let me just say that at one point I heard the words “You took my courtyard and you…” but he stopped himself from making all of us innocent debutants blush. The best part was having the African-American construction manager stand up for my design, and tell him that not only was it feasible, it was a very sensitive way of approaching the problem! So when feasibility was settled, he turned his guns on my very controversial subject matter: flowers. LOL!
Yes folks, it is a sad day in history.
When I told him they actually came out of his geometry, he seemed to get even more upset.
Was that wrong? ;-)
I don’t know, maybe he was too macho for flowers, which are only half-male.
Now, don’t get me wrong, this was a very educated and perceptive man. When I finished my slide presentation he actually knew exactly where I was coming from, and he even explained the project in a favorable light when he said to everybody to “look at it in terms of a concept” rather than a finalized piece ready to be mounted. He knew I wanted to work with them, and to further develop this thing until it worked for everybody while still being faithful to the idea, but the sad part is this:
People work their asses off, and pay taxes to get schools for their children and to improve their living environment. They know the difference between bread and roses, and they want both. I think that's fair enough. Then a small group of people decide how, when, and where these buildings (which they will never use, or set foot in afterwards) get built. Later as a sort of afterthought, they think “Oh, I maybe we should throw some art in it, or something.” This is the same population that expects plenty of accouterments and embellishment out of their environment (or should I say “accruements?”). So, they call another group of mostly-Caucassian people to come and meekly hang their little “pet project” on one of their walls, take some pocket money for their troubles, and thank them for being able to even get that far (and when I say “pet projects” I do not mean “pet projects” in the artist’s eyes. Most of us care very much about what we do, enough to live with being under-paid, and under-appreciated by society).
Would you believe that I was the only Artist to actually visit the site, and talk to the neighbors?
Actually, I later found out I was the only one to even THINK about doing that. Shouldn’t that be an automatic impulse? “Gee let me see how these people feel about stuff…. After all they are going to be the ones stuck with my vision for the next 50 years.” Is it any surprise when kids come and spray paint the hell out of these places? Probably you are thinking “self-destructive behavior.” True, I don’t endorse it in any way, but do they even see it as SELF-destruction, or are they just reacting to what they see as handouts? How many more concentration camps do we have to build until our sensibilities have been reduced to a dull “cement gray”? Or should I say to a dull “box white”?
I was disappointed to see that from the two artists in the review panel only ONE asked A question. It was so memorable and insightful that I have to quote it for you. Ready? Here it goes:
“Is that resin?”
The people that were actually asking the important questions were the ones that we might tend to think of as “bureaucrats,” and the architect.
The most important word I learnt during my MFA career was “stultified.”
Public art and gallery art used to be two different things because they have two different purposes. It seems that now people can only SEE gallery art. If you have any sort of public agenda you have to be ready to explain what should already be obvious.
Public art is for the masses, but that doesn’t mean you dumb it down, as some people would have you believe, on the contrary it needs to have meaning and a strong sense of purpose. But the artist needs to think generously, and in a detached way, so that enough room is left for the public to complete the piece and give it personal meaning. Gallery art, on the other hand, only needs to enchant ONE person: the buyer. When you magnify one of these pieces, and put it in the middle of a square, in what amounts to an oppression of taste (or the lack of it), don’t complaint about people just walking by it. I am not saying that you have to please everybody, but if you are making a fetish piece that only you care about, or a dull pontification of nothing in particular, then why get into public, or monumental, pieces?
I still haven’t heard any results, so this is not about “sour grapes.” For all I know, an invitation letter may be on its way to my address. My meeting actually was the longest of the three, and I was very glad to see that my work was not so “ready made,” both in form and content, but that it actually required some work and development IN CONJUCTION with the architecture. That part of the experience was quite invigorating and encouraging. Had it been some sort of easy-pass, I may have had some serious doubts about my work. My only problems are with (1) the expectation of people for public art to be just a big version of white-box northern hemisphere intellectualistic (as opposed to intellectual) concerns, and (2) the lack of consideration for the population that the art is supposed to be serving. Yes, I said SERVING. If you are making public art without the word generosity ever crossing your mind, Heaven help us….

About the Election

So I suppose, I should take a break and address the dreaded election results, since they will most likely AFFECT all artists (pun intended). I will do so, but with the following qualifier: DIEBOLD.
Could the names of the people involved in this disgraceful (mis)administration get more Orwellian?
Ahh…Since we will probably never know the real numbers in Florida let’s work from the premise that the Sunshine State wasn’t involved in the national consensus. Am I ignoring reality? Most likely I am ignoring a lie; something which I have never heard anybody complaint about. You can read Greg Palast's excellent article on this issue complete with Harvard University's US Civil Rights project at:
http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=392&row=0
So let’s look at what everybody seems to be the most concerned about: the Red and Blue States. Somebody just told me the other day that we shouldn’t be so shocked, because “just look at the map and all those red states in the middle. We’re just two bands on each coast.”
There’s just one small problem with that observation: LAND DOESN’T VOTE: PEOPLE DO.
A reminder about how the Electoral College is composed: “The number of delegates shall be equal to the number of representatives that each state has in congress.”
So far it sounds fair enough, right? Wrong. Go to that same red and blue map and do something for me: Look at the size of Hawaii and look at the size of Alaska. You could very easily fit Hawaii inside Bristol Bay, yet Hawaii has 4 electoral votes and Alaska has 3! Before you say “Hey, that’s not fair Alaska is much bigger and it only has three.” You have to consider the fact that congress is supposed to be a REPRESENTATIVE democracy, and if Alaska only has 626,932 inhabitants and Hawaii has 1,211,537 inhabitants, then Hawaii’s representation in congress should be twice that of Alaska, yet they are only off by ONE representative. The ‘2 senators per state rule’ was designed to give each STATE equal representation in the upper legislative branch because States in reality are almost autonomous territories which are federated for their common good, but by attaching the Electoral College to it, big landowners effectively trump the power of city dwellers (many of which may not even own land, but who power industry through sheer numbers).
So now that we have settled the matter of democracy being leashed to the post of capitalist interests, let’s address the matter of why the Chimperor is able to fool so many bipeds. You have to go back to the philosophers of the industrial era. In particular the ones hailing from the Weimar Republic and the dichotomy of thought prevalent in pre-WWII Europe.
People like Walter Benjamin and Theodore Adorno lost the battle of influence over Academia because of the rise of fascism in Germany. At the same time, their respective nemeses, Nietzsche and Heidegger, won the same battle THANKS to the rise of fascism. Fascism drew most of their fervor and thought from the anti-conceptualists and anti-rationalists working in Germany during and before the 1920s (Heidegger was even a card-carrying member of the Nazi party for 12 years. Bet you didn't know that did you?). After allied forces dismantled the Nazi movement many of these nice fellows continued to exert great influence on Western academia, now scared out of their pants by the Warsaw pact. Just try Googling "Operation Paperclip." The problem was that in separating their “bad politics” from their “good philosophies” later philosophers allowed the same anti-rationalist thought that gave us such a lovely movement to fester in the Western mind for far too long, and now this monster is coming back to bite us.
Allow me to explain. According to the Nietzsche, Heidegger, Derrida and this school which has exerted enormous influence over all of OUR minds (whether we realize it or not) the noble search for thought is one of searching for some sort of “authentic thought," a thought which comes before we conceptualize things into "car," "blue," "mother," etc. Intuition is seen as a guide to this “now-lost primordial thought process,” and should be trusted above rational thought, which depends on formed, or agreed upon concepts and charged words. like "car," "blue," "mother," etc. In essence, they negate the whole history of Western thought. History and science are suspect, and even Derridas said that he was not interested in the "personal biographies of philosophers" and that "their thought legacy could operate removed from their personal lives." This thought pattern is rooted in the land, or soil, and it's "true" or "authentic" occupant: the volk. It lends itself to powerful figures, pomp, ritual, romanticism, and elitist tendencies (the elitists being the ones who live the most “authentically” because of their disinterest on the mundane).
Rationalist thought, on the other hand, tends to lean towards concrete (as opposed to abstract) thoughts, which are viewable here and now, and which facilitate systematic thoughts and processes. According to Benjamin “that which is unutterable is false.” Things are what they are. Mystery elicits suspicion, “real” experiences are those of the mundane and the everyday, and all interactions are analyzed within this empiric context. Progress is palpable, and the show of it would most likely have a material expression. Empirical and objetctive methods are seen as substantially "truer." This pattern lent itself more readily to councils, politbureaus, and the desire to adjust nature, but mostly society, to what is perceived as good. In the words of John Berger “mystification is to explain away what would otherwise be evident.” Religion is immediately trumped by this thought process, because it can’t really show much in terms of progress. Science is supposed to lead the way, and technology should be used for the benefit of humanity. Is it any surprise that during the modern period the West gravitated towards abstract art, while Eastern Europe chose realist art?
I find myself agreeing with many aspects from both sides, although I have to admit that Nietzsche leaves a really sour taste in my mouth, and I just can not disagree with many socialist critiques of Heideggerian thought.
How does this relate to the election? And more specifically how does this relate to man-or-monkey and his cult followers? Well my dears, it is Nietzsche’s fault, it is Heidegger’s fault, it is Derrida’s fault, and most importantly it is OUR fault, because us “city-dwellers” are hard wired into anti-rationalist thought, by way of these fellows. How many times have you heard Nietzsche’s name dropped on a critique? They may not necessarily quote him, they’ll just mindlessly drop his name to look smart, or to justify certain aspects of their art without realizing that they are enshrining a man whose thought process itself was hard wired for fascism. Derridas, himself a secular Jew who experienced great anti-semitism from the French goverment in Algeria, went to great lenghts to dismiss Heidegger's Nazism as a "flirtation," and this is the same type of apologetical discourse that Hanah Arendt indulged in.
As artists, and "liberals," we come from the Walter Benjamin side of the fence, but as existentialists we readily buy into Heidegger and Nietzsche without thinking about it, and where do rural people go for their education? To the city. So even though our communal living gives us a palpability of the necessity of tolerance and cooperation (a socialist tendency), our tastes and musings are more Nietzschean and inward looking, sending us in inward searches that can even manifest itself in indulgence and excess, due to the flow of goods that come in and out of our shores, ports and stations. To the rural dweller who may come to the city to learn a trade for a short period and then go back to the land, his inward search manifests itself in the volk. He will have a bigger tendency (and more opportunitty) to root himself in the soil, in intuition, in ritual, and ultimately in the totalitarian tendencies that claim to order time and space for us. On top of that, the American country side is not densely populated, so there is not much need for tolerance. Nobody will bother the rural dweller much, and most people will prefer to conform with local custom, rather than being singled out by a large portion of their few neighbors. Yeah, yeah, yeah, but how does this even relate to the election? OK. Here it goes:
Only in a Niezschean society can a world leader say that he just has a "hunch" about another country having weapons of mass destruction, or that a god is giving him messages, and get away with it. In an EMPIRICAL, RATIONAL, society that would be unacceptable. May I remind you that most of the press that has been accepting and encouraging this type of behaviour resides in the so-called Blue States?
So, the vote you saw, my friends, was a rebuke against RATIONAL THOUGHT, which (in their intuition-based world) is not rooted in the land, is irreverent towards power figures, and fails to conform to their world view. But most of the fault lies with us, because when we regurgitate these ‘volkish’ tendencies without stopping to think about their context, meaning, and history, we are hard wiring them, AND OURSELVES, for this search of the so-called “true form” which is unhindered by the distractions of technology, progress, un-rooted people’s (i.e. immigrants) tendencies, etc. This form of "authentic" existence allegedly predates rational thought.
The problem with this view is that, as developmental psychologist Jean Piaget already showed, children go through a pre-cognitive stage in which the axioms of our common-sense view of the world have yet to emerge. Truths that we take for granted because of their supposed “immediacy” are actually acquired over a protracted period, the result of a process of interaction between the child and the world around him. Those who identify the common-sense view of the world with “primordial truth” are guilty of ignoring an even more primitive form of perception: learning. Simultaneously, they are turning their backs on the higher forms of mathematical relations to which common sense must give way in interpreting the natural world.
The division in the United States is not the one they would have you believe. It is not so much one of thought (we are both infected by these tendencies), it is one of habit.
Urban habits trump certain aspects of Nietzschean philosophy (even Nietzsche himself mistrusted modern living) because of the need to coexhist in a limited space. But in the countryside, these tendencies can run unchecked quite easily. If you don’t believe me, compare the vote in Franklin and Cuyahoga counties with that of the rest of the state of Ohio, or that of Miami with the rest of Florida. This is not about conservative or liberal, the truth is most North Americans are far from liberal. It is about our own creations coming back to bite us in the ass. Derridas is said to be the most influential thinker of our time. But when people say that like its a positive thing, they don't stop to think that he worshiped Heidegger! And Heidegger was a Nazi!
THE SHORT-TERM SOLUTION:
Secession. There is no reason why three nations can’t live symbiotically in what really is more of a continent than a country (and let’s not even get into the Imperial aspect of it). They need us for commerce and culture, and we need them for bread and raw materials. The federalist system is starting to hurt the people that it is supposed to benefit just because of the schizophrenic tendencies of the founding fathers which were landlords who happened to find themselves with the sudden possession of what were essentially European trading outposts on the East Coast of the North American continent. The problem with this is that secession would not happen without a stagering, and senseless, loss of life. So, there is
THE LONG-TERM SOLUTION:
Reject Nietzsche, Heidegger, Derridas and the whole bunch of them AS FAR AS SOCIAL APPLICATION goes. Post-modernist thought can help create great gurus, artists, and mystics, but they make awful citizens. In the same manner Benjamin, Adorno, and the rest of them can help create good communities, but they short change you in terms of introspection and spirituality. You can’t seriously believe that either school was perfect, can you? So let's discuss them, and more importantly TEACH them, in terms of METHODS and TOOLS with LIMITED (yet useful) applications. The Judeo-Christian tendency to unify everything, and to adhere to schools of thought with the fervor that befits a religion keeps us embracing and rejecting knowledge in a succession of enshrinings and cruciFICTIONS that could be compared to hugging a cactus because it has water inside, or throwing out the baby with the bathwater. So let's pick and chose a little, shall we? Wisely of course...

Zulu's Indian music obsession

This is a repost from a BBC article. It's quite a remarkable story and I hope you go check it out....

Carnatic music normally takes years of patience and dedication to learn
Few would have thought that the Zulus of South Africa would have much interest in southern Indian classical music.
But South African Patrick Ngcobo has proved that ethnicity and language are no barriers when it comes to learning about music far from home.
When he decided to learn southern Indian classical music, better known as Carnatic music, his African friends in Durban ridiculed him, and his Indian neighbours were sceptical.
For them, it was abnormal for a person from the warrior Zulu tribe in Natal province to take up Carnatic music.
Ignoring insults and sniping remarks, Patrick single-mindedly persisted.
Today, the 34-year-old sings in seven Indian languages....

For the full article go to:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3784767.stm

Impermanence is the new Obsession....

Yesterday for the umpteenth time I heard yet another artist’s work described as having to do with “impermanence.” Ever since Westerners discovered the term they have been abusing and misusing it to great lengths.
Granted. ‘Impermanence’ IS an English word, but there is little doubt that when used in the artistic context, art writers are trying to allude to the Pāli word 'anicca' (pronounced: anichcha).
According to Rev. Nyanaponika’s Buddhist Dictionary, anicca is the “constant arising and passing away of all phenomena.” Within this context basically EVERYTHING is anicca, which is the intention of the word in the first place! It lets us know that there is not one permanent thing within, or without us. When Westerners use this word they tend to think in the literal sense of the word, which only alludes to a “final” or “eventually complete” dissolution, but according to Buddhism, even that view is erroneous, because if nothing is permanent how can dissolution be “final” or “forever.”
Why do I even care about all this? Because I have been treating this subject in my work for the last twelve years.
Fine. Maybe I’m just taking part in a pervading generational concern. Maybe. Who knows? But the question is: are the artists being described by this new catch phrase really addressing these issues, or are they just being compartmentalized like it happens so often in the art world?
I remember, in the late 90’s, when I finished undergraduate and started graduate school, how the adjective of the moment was “obsessive.” Everything was obsessive! Obsessive this, obsessive that.... “Oooh, her work is SOO… obsessive!” (Where's the puke emoticon on this thing?!).
Any motif that got repeated more than twice made the work “obsessive.” They even tried to pin this label on me during a few critiques, even though I despised the concept of obsession as laudable in itself, and my work dealt mainly with detachment and, yes, impermanence...
I even remember being told that the “impermanence” of my work was a hindrance to its marketability because nobody would want to buy something that they would stop having after a while. But now, impermanence is the toast of the party!
Here is a list of artists recently labeled as doing art about impermanence (the ones with an asterisk next to them* had the honor of being previously labeled obsessive):

Rachel Whiteread*, Doho Suh*, Lee Bontecue*, Rirkrit Trivaniya, Andy Goldsworthy *, Cai Guo-Qiang, Hans Holbein* (for heaven’s sake, Hans Holbein!), Stephen Shore, Nikki Lee*, Frank Stella, Nigel Hall, Tom Friedman, Dieter Roth*, Sara Tze*, Yayoi Kusama*, Wolfgang Tillmans, and the list goes on, and on...
This may not be the fault of the artists (although now many artists are tripping all over themselves to fit into this new fashionable category), and many of the above mentioned artists do deal with the subject of impermanence (although decay would be a more suitable word for many of them), my problem is with how critics simply sling the word around, just like they did with “obsession,” or whatever else was there before. This are the same type of people that bring us the Death of Painting every 10 years, or so! LOL
Now, decay and dissolution are impermanent themselves, so a work that simply disappears, is only pointing to another permanent concept: that of loss. To think that something is gone, or disappeared, is just as off the mark in addressing impermanence as thinking that it will be there forever. They are just two extremes of the same thing: the hedonistic vs. the nihilist. The whole point about impermanence is that just like you can’t get something out of nothing, you can’t get NOTHING out of SOMETHING! And that, in fact, there is no actual THING appearing, or disappearing, in the first place. There are only ever-changing, conditionaly-arising events.
“Oh, but Boti, you’re being too harsh, maybe these people are not trying to do Buddhist art!”
That’s all fine and dandy. Again, my beef is with the writers. The rise of this writing trend does follow the rise of Western Buddhism into the mainstream, so, surely, some parallels do apply, but more importantly, maybe, just maybe, we should stop trying to place art within snappy little sound bites to be (ab)used at cocktail parties, and maybe, just maybe, we should start trying to E X P E R I E N C E art with all six senses first, and then, when trying to explain our experience, maybe we’ll understand the meaning of the work.
It’s not a test people! And you are not expected to have an answer to everything! Words are traps, and they are only good for pointing at things. Somebody told me once (and with a highly didactic tone too!) when addressing the smell component in one of my pieces, “Well, that’s why they are called the VISUAL Arts, after all.” To which I replied, “Well... that’s just in English. Most other languages use words like Plastic Arts, or Beautiful Arts."
Beauty, what a concept…..

The Lean Years

The other day I was talking to a colleague about “the lean years” in art making. You know; you’re out of school, not yet where you want to be in terms of exposure, or business, and you start wondering whether you are on the right path. You see your schoolmate’s careers taking off, and feel a pinch of envy, or anguish, and maybe you feel like you are out of the loop, because you are holding a day job, and aren’t working on your art as much.
Needless to say that today’s version of art patronage is a joke compared to what it used to be, and that the stigma on art-collectives and unions is far from gone, making kindred spirits less inclined to pursue common projects. So for those of you who have not secured your Sugar Daddies/Mommas yet, I will try to offer some detached advice which is easier to say than to follow...

#1 Never ask yourself the “Did I make the right decision?” question unless you are doing art at that very moment! If you are on the right (or wrong) path you will know right there and then.

#2 As humans, we can’t help feelings of envy from arising, but we can turn them into positive energy. There are many implications to our colleagues making it in the art world. If they were friendly to you, then you can feel happy for them. If they weren’t, then it means that “if that looser can make it, then mine should be coming pretty soon...” No, but seriously, these things can be taken as an indication that people at your level are finding their niche, so there is no reason why you shouldn’t.

#3 If you feel like you are out of the loop, then get back in it! It only takes one hour to flip through the art journals in your local bookstore once a month. In New York, you have even more possibilities, escape from work every now and then and go to a gallery. There are bookstores like St. Mark’s where you can go at night to read. Even if you hate the work being shown out there, at least know what’s being shown out there. Every skilled profession has a whole culture of journals and things to keep its practitioners informed and you, as an artist, are no exception. So you have to go see the work, and inform yourself.

#4 Disconnect your TV! Or better yet, give it away. You are in NY, you lazy, bum! Go to the movies, go to a park, or at least walk and rent something good on video! Without the idiot box you’d be surprised how much time you will find to work, or take in other art forms. Of course if you thrive on pop culture or make video art then keep the TV, but maybe give yourself a regime of x number of hours to work, or just play it in the background while you work.

#5 Make your day job work for you. Go for things that will either feed your technological knowledge, or teach you how to run an operation. Did I mention free Xeroxes? Lots of computer-scanner access? Web searching? Try service, do something that feels good. At least we got an education, some people would kill to have the choice to study whatever they wanted in their hearts.

#6 Just because you aren’t creating objects doesn’t mean you have to stop practicing. Keep a sort of journal with possible projects as they pop in your mind. Maybe later you will have a surplus of time, and a deficit of ideas, and you can refer back to these ideas and pursue them.

One teacher asked me once “If you didn’t have access to the materials that you are using now what would your art look like?”
Exactly….

Your art is the expression of something that is within you. Try to find out what those concerns and relationships are, and learn to apply them to different things in your life. Most importantly, try to recognize them in other people’s actions as well.

#7 Research, research, research. We could all use better skills, or more information on grants, residencies and the like. There are some links on this blog, and please e-mail me any others that you have. Share this information with your colleagues, so that you establish a dialogue and they can return in kind.

Today I was listening to a Pop Art discussion on WPS1....

Today I was listening to a Pop Art discussion on WPS1 Art Radio. It must have been from the 70’s or 80’s, I couldn’t tell because there were no discernible date references. I caught the last three speakers --all art critics. The first one seemed to be defending, or advocating, the qualities of Pop Art, but the last two caught my ear the most.
Neither was condemning the movement, but they both had a bone to pick with Pop Art for seemingly antithetical reasons. One said that while talking to Lichtenstein he told the artist that he didn’t like his cartoon paintings because (and I am greatly summarizing here) the subject matter was "so strong that he could not see the painting, or its qualities as an object." The other one used as his case study the Campbell’s Soup paintings by Andy Warhol, and said that his problem with them was that the subject matter was so banal and timid, that they might as well not have any subject matter at all. That such choice showed a lack of passion and a sort of “running for cover under the roof of graphic design” [my own words, it’s hard to recall word by word what he said].
Although I think both those artists were good and skillful, specially Warhol; I tend to agree a lot with the points mentioned by the last critic who went on to talk about the old Western habit of making a tyranny out of every movement. What I don’t agree on with any of them is on the premise of having to choose between form OR subject matter, (the Greenbergian tyranny of minimalism), and on the belief that somehow subject matter takes away from the concerns of the craft and the search for new ways of expression. If post-modernism has shown us anything is that the search for new media has arisen FROM the need to express new ideas. If you doubt this, look at all the artists that were the greatest defenders of “art for art’s sake.” How many new media did they come up with? With the exception of Duchamp and Picasso they were all highly romantic artists working on 19th century methods even as new discoveries in industry were bypassing them at lightning speed. Even the Futurists chose canvas and bronze as their mediums! Paradoxical indeed...
Luckily, our generation is leaving Herr Greenberg behind more and more, even if they circumspectly shy away from denouncing his beliefs. But even as artists increasingly embrace a complexity in subject matter, many will nod in approval when somebody starts pontificating on the virtues of “Art about Art.” Hmmm... is the same meekness behind our current political quagmire? :-)
Anyway, the truth is that an art about art will limit your palette quicker than anything else, because the things you are talking about are contained within the medium itself! In other words, if there is nothing to express outside of yourself, or the items in your toolbox, it is very rare that you will find the need for new ways of expression (and therefore growth), or engage in the play of meanings and ambivalence (whether in media or subject matter) present in many of the art that today continues to move us. You will just engage in an exercise in banality in which you are rearranging the same materials, or ideas, over and over; more like a decorator, and not like a propagandist, which we all are.
By this I’m not saying that you should drop what you’re doing, and start doing Bolshevik or neo-classicist posters, but that we should stop mindlessly repeating this minimalist mantra that subject matter eats away at objectivity. We should all hope that the objects we produce are AS COMPLEX as the subject matter that propels them!
I have not seen one single purist movement that was known for its creativity. Not in literature, not in religion, not in government. Usually such movements tend to be destructive because they are based on exclusivity, are too often guided by some sort of tunnel vision, and have no use for tolerance, adaptation, or practicality.
So embrace your subject matter, and most importantly, EXPLORE IT to its fullest, both in content AND form. Weave a beautifully simple and/or tangled web, but weave it well, and artfully, because nothing is unconditioned, and art will give you ideas about life, but life will give you ideas about art.

No hay mas ruta que la nuestra

The following is a translation of the final chapter of “How to Paint a Mural” by David Alfaro Siqueiros. I feel it is a good way to open this blog, and the fact that this book is not available in English says a lot about the social standing of artists today, and also confirms what Mr. Siqueiros talks about in this text.
I don’t agree with everything, but I do agree with a lot of it, specially with his take on social issues. Some of it will seem dated (it was written in 1951), and it would be interesting to see what his take would be on the torrent of technology that artists have adopted today.....
Anything in [brackets] is my own text added to clarify some areas. Even in Spanish, the text is a little dense, and I made no attempt to simplify it, because I don’t want to start hacking away at somebody else’s work.

Here it goes :

Chapter XVIII
Final Note:
Style constitutes the last extreme, the wrapping, the physiognomy of a work of art.
Function creates an organ. The style of a mural –like the style of any other painting done during a notable period in the history of art—should not renderred a priori. Such is, perhaps, the fundamental defect of all contemporary [now modern] painting. The first thing that a contemporary painter considers is what style he will give to his oeuvre. Of course he looks for an autonomous style that will have nothing to do with that of other painters, an original style, etc. The contemporary painter currently suffers from a syndrome of originality-by-any-means as the fundamental base of creative endeavor, and by doing so, he has only gained (as paradoxical as it may seem) to distance himself further from his own personality by running away from kindred influences. El Greco –as I have said in many occasions—did not try to hide Tintoretto’s direct influence up to the last moment of his life, and there is hardly a more original painter than El Greco. Naturally, this extraordinary Greek, trunk of the Spanish school of painting, contributed his own genius to the influence of his master, and therefore, enriched baroque conception.
Style should be a consequence of the social function of the mural, of the modern technique that a progressive, contemporary mural demands. By technique, I am referring to materials, principles, and scientific methods available to the painter in his era. And when I say that style should be the consequence social function, we indicate that it will not be solely the product of the artist as creator, but the product of the creative team and the corresponding audience.
Everybody seems to be talking about the necessity for a new realism, the formal vehicle of a new humanism in art, but it is almost generic and futile to try to formulate definitions regarding the style of this new realism. Would medieval Christians have been able to fix, or even anticipate the style, or styles, that would belong ultimately to Christian art? In reality it took Christianity twelve centuries (from the classical period) to find its own form. It was not until the Byzantine, Gothic, and pre-Renaissance periods that the so-called properly Christian form appeared. We will not have to wait twelve centuries, but our habits, tastes, and routines are not going to change overnight, because not only are we carrying the weight of the past cultures, we also have the baggage of 400 years of a minor (or lower) art, an art produced mainly for the homes of a minority (at least in the industrialized world). We can not shake off these remnants so easily.
So, what is the future of the visual arts?
To know that, we have to know the past well, and we have to document the present without any false illusions.
We have, first of all, three European examples. Greece as a case study for antiquity, or pre-Christianity. What is today called Italy can serve as the example for the Middle Ages and the Renaissance, or, in other words, Christianity and the Reform. And, lastly, we have France as the case study for the present era, or the end of traditional liberalism and the beginnings of democracy.

CASE STUDY #1: GREECE AND ANTIQUITY

MARKET: The theocratic state and a reduced slave-holding aristocracy.

SOCIAL PRODUCTION TENDENCIES: Public art, or official art, as fundamental; private art as complementary.

SUBJECT MATTER: The subject matter of the official theocratic state, the one that implied by their corresponding mythologies.

PROFESSIONAL DOCTRINE: That which required by the proselytizing function of the subject matter; clarity eloquence, figurative art with realistic intention. Polychromality, of course, for architecture and sculpture alike (the so called white Greek marble is a modern misconception).

MATERIAL AND PHYSICAL TECHNOLOGY: That which corresponded to the primary industrial development of that era, it showed more creativity during the flowering periods and more banality and archaicness during the descending periods.

PROFESSIONAL TECHNOLOGY: That which corresponded to the proselytizing nature of the artwork’s function and the generic nature of available materials and tools.

FORMS OF PRODUTION AND PEDAGOGY: The collective shop/factory, where training occurred during its daily production processes sustained by the official demand.

CASE STUDY #2: ITALY AND THE MIDDLE AGES AND THE RENAISSANCE

MARKET: The religious state, during the pre-Renaissance, and the religious state and a new rising aristocracy during the Renaissance.

SOCIAL PRODUCTION TENDENCIES: Public art, or official art, as fundamental; private art as complementary. Like in antiquity.

SUBJECT MATTER: That of the official religious state and its proselytizing Christian dogmatism during the Middle Ages. During the Renaissance and the Reform we see the addition of the ascendancy of neo-classicism and neo-paganism.

PROFESSIONAL DOCTRINE: That which was determined by the proselytizing religious function; clarity, eloquence, figurative art with realistic intentions. Christian dogma, through exalted expressions; art aimed at ultra realism. Like in antiquity.

MATERIAL AND PHYSICAL TECHNOLOGY: That which corresponded to the embryonic industrial and technical development of its era, again showing more creativity during the flowering periods and more banality and archaicness during the descending periods. The fresco, tempera and encaustics were perfected and enriched and oil painting was developed.

PROFESSIONAL TECHNOLOGY: That which freed itself from its elitist function and the generic nature of its new material technology and tools.

FORMS OF PRODUTION AND PEDAGOGY: The collective shop/factory, where training occurred during its daily production processes sustained by the official demand. As in antiquity.

CONSECUENT FORMS OF MULTIPLYING AND DIVULGING THE ARTISTIC PRODUCT: Mass production, for the popularization of mayor works, by means of newly developed printing methods. Like the different types of engraving and lithography. Public art, the official art, enriched itself immeasurably with the technical contribution of the printing press.

CASE STUDY #3: MODERN FRANCE AS THE EXAMPLE OF OUR CONTEMPORARY ERA

MARKET: The private collector, and an ever reducing --and increasingly bureaucratic-- new State demand. This represents the greatest reversal in history of the socio-economic base of the art world.

SOCIAL PRODUCTION TENDENCIES: Private art as fundamental; public art, or official art, as complementary, or more precisely, as circumstantial, in complete opposition to Antiquity, the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. Ideological functionality as a proselytizing agent ceases to be, and, consequently, estheticism is born, or “art for art’s sake.”

SUBJECT MATTER: Complacency, lack of transcendence, preciousness, etc., increasingly more accented: something which the lack of ideological momentum will consequently impose on art. The suppression of the heroic and trascendental, of the ideological and eloquent, of the social and educational, in favor of things which better correspond to the physical domesticity of the artistic product and the nature of its market.

PROFESSIONAL DOCTRINE: Individualist nihilism; as many theoretical formulations as there are artists. For the “moderns,” as well as for the “academics,” the tendency is towards “museumism” and folklore, that is, unrelenting retrospection disguised as a modern creative invention. This is, in actuality, a complete lack of comprehension of all the new, and very real, life sensations created with the advent of modern mechanics. What is simply instinctual is presented under a false scientific guise. To sum it up, it is a false modernity, or a modernity that is purely chronological.

MATERIAL AND PHYSICAL TECHNOLOGY: An archaizing tendency runs in direct counter-current with the superlative technical developments of the corresponding era (late 19th to 20th c.), and there is an absolute conformity with the embryonic technology of the past, and a careless disregard for the chemical revolution occurring in the field of plastics, and the overwhelming array of mechanical instruments, there does not seem to be a notable perfecting of traditional mediums, or even a significant contribution to the previous material technologies. Basically a complete anachronism permeates the practice of the “moderns,” as well as that of the “academics.”

PROFESSIONAL TECHNOLOGY: Technical intellectualism, sensuality, mysticism, etc., epidermic classicism. That is, a trend towards a superficial use of the style and mannerisms of the classical, while leaving generic forms intact, even though these are the fundamental forms of any corpus (without public form there is no classicism). The dictum is “plastic pleasure for its own sake.” I have named this: “epicurean estheticism,” since its drive lacks all social, or human, purpose in a democratic, or majoritarian, sense. This deep-rooted anachronism in material technology is reciprocated by an equally deep-rooted primitivism in professional technology: this is the epidermic version of the styles, or manners, of the Etruscans, of romantic lithographs, of popular art, of partial and superficial “constructivist” searches of merely snobbish airs. In the best of cases this amounts to mere intellectualist speculation, or to “chic” technology.

FORMS OF PRODUTION AND PEDAGOGY: The solitary “atelier,” that is; the production, in the mist of individual intimacy, of a product destined to individual/intimate appreciation. Domestic production, more and more, for the domestic market, but of course, with experimental pretensions. Pedagogy is of a routinary and scholarly nature within academia, and autodidactic within pseudo-modernism. Either case is equally catastrophic for the apprentice.

CONSECUENT FORMS OF MULTIPLYING AND DIVULGING THE ARTISTIC PRODUCT: Lithography and the diverse printing forms of yesteryear, now old and even more affected by their exposed limitations, are still being imposed by a mystic aestheticism that dominates the private market. Archaic mysticism combined with a complete lack of interest for new and extraordinary mechanical reproduction methods, since these are in aesthetic and social disagreement with the buyer. Select galleries, expensive monographs, distinguished magazines, and the like represent the maximum social shrinkage of art’s services in deference to the vanity of the collector and the speculative benefit of the art dealer.

CONCLUSION: The end of the Renaissance brought about the dawn of a decline in the SOCIAL aspects of the arts. This tendency has not stopped in regards to representative, or allegorical, art. Two movements have tried to stop this decline: the first one –class oriented—came about with the French Revolution (from David to Ingres). The second one --also class oriented-- pretended to “recuperate the fundamental values lost with the Renaissance,” and it came about during the 20th century (from Cezanne to Picasso). These attempts were only superficial. They made no effort to actualize the social and material forms of production, and naturally, fell short of their (mainly theoretic) goal, and gave us, at best, a few cases of brilliance with varying degrees of decorative invention. Would anybody really be able to refute this historical reality? Are these trends the product of inevitable social tendencies? I think that the first question is irrefutable. As far as the second one, the answer to it would require a very specialized and deep analysis.

AND IN AMERICA? [The continent]

--American antiquity can, in all the essential aspects of our discussion, be said to equate ancient Greece.
--The same can be said about the Spanish colony in America and the Middle Ages and the Renaissance in Europe.
--We can not, however, say the same when we compare Latin America and France in this era [1951]. France’s art expresses an acute intellectual colonialism. Failed decadent and revolutionary y forms, now at the service of elitism and centered on Paris, seem acutely affected as a whole. They belie the pathetic horrors of lacking a vision.
--But there is an exception, although yet in its infancy, and that is the modern Mexican pictorial movement: our movement. This is a pro-classicist movement, like the one from David to Ingres, or Cezanne to Picasso, but which has taken a better route, the objective route, that of a new actualism, the theoretic desideratum of the modern artist. It is a re-appropiation of the public forms lost after the 16th century, but within the social and technological conditions of the democratic world. Furthermore, this movement hasn’t just stayed in the realm of discussion. In the last twenty-five years it has been sowing the seeds of a true and sustainable practice. Without a doubt, the only true universal route into the future.

Wow, and it only took me five months, for my second posting! ;-)

So you decided to become an artist....

Welcome everybody,
The economy is in the pits. Gallery owners could not care less about your welfare, but you still keep trying. Why? You care deeply about what you do. You put your money and your time where your mouth is, and frankly, it is not easy. It is not impossible, but it is not easy.
Through this blog, I hope to share some frustrations, (maybe more importantly) some resources, and anything else that comes to mind. I will try my best to keep up with what is going on in New York or anywhere else, but sometimes I will just be plain busy in my studio. I pledge not to promote my own work through this blog, but I hope to highlight artists who I think are doing important and compelling work, so if you saw a show that knocked your socks off, or you think somebody (OTHER THAN YOURSELF) is of notable skill, please let me know so that we may see the show, or try to look up the artist.
Some of my postings will be technical (please feel free to pick my brain on this one), some will be critical-analytical, some will be just plain rambling, or complaining. I hope most of them will be helpful.
May you all find your niche, and may you all be happy!!!