1.

The exhibition “Sexuality and Transcendence” at the Pinchuk Art Center in Kiev, Ukraine (open until 19.09) fulfills its task better than it could hope for. If you expect an overwhelming, total experience, you got it all wrong. The space was not designed for anything overwhelming – the narrow staircase leads to narrow rooms, everything is fit-to-measure, and in consequence too small for the abstract pseudo-objectivity we are used to in most contemporary museum spaces. It could be a great space to move towards the intimate, and the topic seems to welcome such an interpretation.

This is not the case either. This version of transcendence seems to have little to do with what grows out of the self, or moves beyond it. It sometimes appears like it’s all about impressing the hell out of us, poor mortals, and this state of awe at first reading seems to be the contemporary proposition of transcendence.

But there is more.

Yes, it is but a collection of the creme de la creme of contemporary art. Yes, it focuses more on showing off the stars and thus confirming the power of the producer. Its sexuality, beyond a few exceptions, lies more in the power fetish of the curator than in the actual exploration of the field. Sexuality is not sexual – here it is first and foremost an artistic product.
Transcendence, here, is a plastic material that shines and can be molded into big lumps of money. It is mainly about transcending sex – by overtaking it with colorful, shapely, huge art gadgets. So we get our yearly fix of Takashi Murakami, Jeff Koons, Richard Price, a touch of Cattelan and Sarah Lucas. All this is a clear power-play. Apparently, sexuality is in most cases a clear excuse for power plays.

Is this the new transcendence? Having spent the day walking around Kiev, I get a slightly different impression. What if this was not an exhibition trying to interpret concepts in a universalist way? What if it was about how the people here see transcendence? The people who function in the art world? The rich? The ones with access to culture? Then it all makes sense: sexuality moves into fetish, and the fetish is the icon, the huge, shiny penis of power that transcends everything else. Looking at the over-sized cars and houses and planes of the Ukrainian nouveaux-riches, it seems like an obvious reading. If we can trust no-one and nothing, if all the gods betrayed us, we are left alone. And soon, our intimacy, our body, begins growing new forms of transcending itself/us, it moves from the swirls of sperm into the swirls of objecthood and plastic imagery, it objectifies itself so that it can be more than it is, so we actually move towards the metaphysics, the moving beyond, be it at the cost of losing all the rest – but isn’t this the price of any transcedence? When moving up, aren’t we left without the feet, without the stomach, without the tongue, with a spirit that needs us no more, no more subject, no more, a bare experience of the other, the perfect object, the one we become?

If this is so, it is a confirmation of how sad the exhibition appeared to me. Photos were not allowed, and that is just as well, it all seemed haunted rather than transcendent, and the guards checking you at every corner made sure you understood that clearly. (Those were not your average staff, but looked like actual bodyguards. Try and fly with such company at your side).

2.

The summum of the visit, the moment I was waiting for, was at first the most painful disappointment. Here comes Tino Sehgal! Here he is! Right here! His very own work, live, behind this wall, right here, yes. At your feet, the couple moving in an embrace, harmoniously, those are some well-behaved bodies, they know how to move, and where to be, they glance at me for a second, and then move into the embrace, I am here, the spectator is here, so it is time to work, and so they work, kissing and moving slowly and passionately, and I wonder why I’m witnessing this, not that they’re doing it wrong, but he is doing it wrong, Tino, and the curator, and owner, and whoever thought of putting this here is doing it wrong, very wrong, remember when Tino Sehgal’s work was transparent? When you would have to guess where it starts? When it was gentle and witty? Well, this is the exact contrary, you know exactly where it starts, it is there in a clearly defined space, you pay attention, you wait, they deliver, the two lovers embrace, and you get it, I get it, only they are now but a rich man’s entertainment, they dance as they are told to, this is a simple dance, not unlike some dances you might have seen around, the one and only difference remaining that they are in a museum, so it’s hard not to look at them as at an object, it is humiliating, deeply humiliating to see these people kiss just because some millionaire felt like having the work where two people kiss, I wonder if Sehgal realizes how close this is getting to the (in)famous pieces by Santiago Sierra where he made poor people do humiliating things for little money, only this was supposed to be something else, wasn’t it? It was fighting to be a celebration of the eventness, of the fleeting nature of all this, of the focus we try to have and never get, the performativity, the overpowering of being, action, contact, yes, the transcendence, somewhere along these lines, and the humanity, the humanity, where is the humanity? They keep embracing, and this is really a shy substitute of erotic shows, I observe the people coming in, they are all embarrassed, they don’t really watch, no longer than a minute or two, there is something unbearable about this, it is not the eroticism, certainly not the transcendence, rather the invasion, and as much as the performers try, they are still being invaded, they are not the hosts, we try to make it as easy for them as possible, but the invasion came much earlier, when they were hired to kiss, hired to kiss, hired to kiss, what a pity, and the sculpture of Louise Bourgeois stuck in the corner looks like an ironic comment, like some empty shell reminding us that this is an object and that is an object, that we are to treat them the same, that they are the famous artist’s participation in a show about power, damn it, damn it, I want out.

And so I’m out, I walk through the rest of the exhibition, uncomfortable, everything seems so dry now, I notice that Murakami’s famous sperm squirt (My Lonesome Cowboy, seen on pic) is actually made of two pieces, the sperm spiral is like a lego set, it is not one smooth surface, and that is so disappointing, this one line separating the two parts confirms how irrelevant all this is, how unexciting, how unengaging. Or maybe I can’t engage, maybe this is all about me, sure, good excuse, whatever.

(There are moments where I can’t even recall how it was possible to write reviews that pretended to be objective)

And I go back. I go back to the damn Sehgal, because I’m stubborn and because art often requires stubbornness, and I want to see the bodies, I want to compare them to dance, to think of performance art and theater, to watch the watchers, but mainly, to see the bodies, to resist resisting, to let go, to see where they take me.

And so I watch, mostly alone, for some 5-6 minutes. Maybe 10. And they move through the space. Almost absently. The choreography gets more and more constructed, I feel the dense layer of dance history, of dancers’ solutions to problems with moving from beneath, or above, or grabbing someone’s leg without hurting, it is technical, it is, it seems, a commodity, a good product, gentle and sweet, not as sweet as ice-cream and not as gentle as my cat, so the disappointment remains. And then another couple arrives and they take over, they do the same thing, for some two minutes they do it all together, the four of them, and I see how the new ones are new, how they actually make it theirs, you know, the interpreter’s thing. Now the new couple is alone and I enjoy the sulpturedance more. But that’s not the point.

The point is, at one moment, the sculpture looks at me.

The girl looks at the people who are there, into their eyes. And no one can resist such a look. No one is prepared, and the gaze of a living sculpture can be a scary thing. It is the medusa, it does not take hostages, it reminds each spectator of the double-edged gaze, and they give up quickly, they surrender, they turn away, they are perplexed, as this is no theater, this is hardly a performance, it is an objectified couple that knows you are here. That knows!.

But I have been here for a while and gazing back is a thing I often do. So I do.

And we lock. The eyes do not move away. She looks at me, I stare into her eyes, more into the left one, to focus well, and after a short time I don’t remember how the girl looks like, I have no idea, not even the face, I focus so much on the looking, and she looks back, she is moving, they are moving, the lovers are moving and one of them looks at me and acknowledges my presence, that’s all, forever, she is unbearably present and everything about her is the person that is there, and yet she is completely corresponding to what she is doing, to her submission into objecthood, to her awkwardly present dance, people start to look at me, they are not sure, you know, and now I get it. I get it, not like you get a joke or a conceptual piece. But like you get a virus, I get it, I got you, Tino Sehgal, you have no face and no shape, you have some blurred though precise movements, and I got you now, and yes, I believe this is transcendence.

The San Francisco LAB just closed their 25th-year-anniversary exhibition called PastForward, where they made an open call to young artists to respond to works of the established ones who came out of The LAB. The result seems to have been quite exciting – you can take a look at some pictures at this site (with some great jazz playing on the site – which unfortunately can’t be turned off…).
My favorite work, especially given the distant perspective (I’m in Warsaw now) is the Viewing Platform by Ellen Babcock:

Perfect for any vernissage! (And after all, what would contemporary art be without the vernissages!) It plays with an essential trait of contemporary art: centrality. You are taller, you see further, and as if by chance you are hence appreciated. You become the spectacle. Very tiring indeed. And fun, if you forget the impossibility of an intimate contact with the remaining works. I know, the people become the work, and still…
I would love to create a portable version of this. Like a small podium with railings that you could carry around the opening (wheels?), or rent, or receive if you are a VIP guest. Or just have one of my own, though the most enjoyable part might be having several people on this higher level, among the crowds. And believe you me, at the exhibition openings of the main Warsaw art centers, it would come in handy.

–
Here is what the curatorial note says:

Ellen Babcock responds to Lauren Davies with a sculptural installation
that addresses Davies’ engagement with representations of the natural world. Based upon Babcock’s visit to a tiny museum in Twillingate, Newfoundland – a visit Davies herself had made prior to Babcock – the sculpture teases out the differences between the two artists’ approaches to the tropes of natural history display. Encountering a stuffed polar bear in the museum, Davies responded with a gently mocking mixture of humor and pathos meant to remind us of the absurdity of the way taxonomies simplify and freeze the fluid mysteries of life. Babcock, on the other hand, found the quasi-encounter visceral and beautiful. While she sees Davies as opening up a space for the Real in an iconoclastic rejection of the traditions of natural display, Babcock looks for vestiges of the Real in the moment of encounter when disbelief is suspended.

A mad junky in the name of art (Part 1 of 2)

Should being an “artist” automatically excuse for immorality and capriciousness?

The joystick of attitude
When someone is established in a path of spiritual awareness, in faith, he realizes his essence and uses every daily doing as a lift to spiritual enhancement, to personal growth, to the aspiration to all that which is noble, pure and luminous. It’s a question of attitude and attitude is an expression of the freedom of choise which God gave us, Humans.

A deep and intense spiritual awareness to the existential suffering of oneself and of mankind is a gift, but awareness which is not accompanied with equilibrium of the mind begets fear which might result in hatred, rather than a balanced and aware mind which begets love and faith.

Art can also be created out of love and faith and it will be as deep, impressive, creative and colorful as art emerging from the darkness of the artist’s psyche. Again, it’s a question of choise and once you do believe that God indeed contains everything – including the devil – because everything is within the boundaries of His Creation and His Providence governs all with absolute and infinite awareness, than the logical outcome of that realization, is that art which is lofted by the creative forces of the mind can soar much higher and further than art which stems from the rotten roots of the destructive forces of the mind.

Asceticism
Those artists who choose to create art out of self-hatred and conflict do so on their own, but by no means because it is necessarily the way of nature. Perhaps they choose to believe that if and when they will stop suffering they will also stop being unique. Perhaps it is the rooted belief that being miserable is being deep and that happy people are superficial and stupid. But that depends on where from this happiness flows, and of course when I say happiness, I mean true and profound blissful joy and not that unaware vapid hypocritical charade posed by most of them “happy” people.

Now, the happiness of sensual pleasures may indeed be superficial and stupid, but nevertheless it is an expression of the human nature just as much as stubbornly uncompromising and haughtily pretentious debatement concerning ‘deep’ philosophical issues. At the ultimate level of reality, enjoying a good steak like a beast isn’t more superficial than embittering your life with asceticism and self torture, as did certain artists of the past, since it does not indicate spiritual greatness but rather the greatness of the ego and it’s arrogance and the illusion that shields them and then turns them into a distorted and dangerous belief, that it is indeed for a higher cause – Art – nonsense.

Happiness
But there is true joy, what which we call ‘Happiness’ – that which derives from the knowledge that in any situation and at all times there is something unfathomably bigger than us, which is aware of us into our entire depths, which knows the purpose of our existence and tries to guide us through a universal scene of illusions and misery which he created for us.

From within those short moments of the happiness of faith and the experience of the radiance of truth, art is born which is not the outcome of misery and indecisive conflict, but rather one that, for a start, expresses all those objectively and impartially. Perhaps at a later stage an art emerges that is all of the nature of radiance, happiness and faith – art which is the embodiment of the divine, the exalted and the complete.

Attraction of similarities
As an incidental remark to the above and as a side effect of the suffering human, the frequencies we generate draw to us those people who generate the same frequencies. A magnet will not be pulled to or by glass or wood but only to iron. It is the law of nature. A man – an artist, a cook, a teacher, a driver or a cashier – who generates frequencies of self destruction draws to himself other people of the same frequency.

Someone who, in the name of art and out of deep soul affinity for art, generates frequencies of self destruction, will attract ‘artists’ or those with ‘the soul of an artist’, who ruin the lives of themselves and of those who surround them, without any aware striving towards the origins of all phenomenon and the real solution to their personal despair. This is also a law of nature.

And that is all I had to say about that. Thank God for the wisdom, the insight, the pride, the journey and the conflict.

Created by findigart On 04/16/09 At 08:09 AM

Flounder Lee is a photography professor at the Herron School of Art & Design at Indiana University/Purdue University in Indianapolis, Indiana. I met him there after I did a presentation about my first book, “Art In King Size Beds: A Collector’s Journal.” I thought that he would make an interesting interview subject. I think you’ll agree. By the way, the attached photograph is a shot of him being interviewed in Serbia for his recent one man show there called, “ReMove”. After reading out chat, check out his website at www.photoflounder.com

MICHAEL: Hey Flounder. Thanks for agreeing to chat. First, let’s start with the question that I’m sure you’ve be asked a million times. Flounder is an unusual, yet very cool name. Is there a story behind it?

FLOUNDER: Hi Michael, I have definitely been asked that question a lot or at least some form of it. I can’t convince some people that my name is not Lee Flounder, especially businesses. I wish that meant I didn’t have to pay my bills! The origins of my name are shrouded in mystery but it came to prominent use in the Secret Snail Society. I should probably leave it at that. I legally changed it to Flounder in 2006. I find it helpful as a promotional tool and a conversation starter.

MICHAEL: Secret Snail Society? I probably already know too much. Moving on … I love your photography, but what I’ve seen isn’t photography in the mainstream sense. It appears that you splice and dice photographs to create totally different compositions. It’s almost like painting with pieces of photographs. Am I correct?

FLOUNDER: I don’t really consider myself a photographer. Maybe a photographic artist or an artist who uses photography. Sometimes I do video, sometimes performance, sculpture, etc. In my teaching I take a similar approach: I am teaching artists, not just photographers. My recent work has definitely been described as abstract painting. I think that some of it looks like Mondrian from a distance. Really what I’m doing lately is making work from a series of preset conditions. I’m taking as much control out of my hands to investigate the way things are instead of the way I want them to be. So if we stick with a painting analogy, it is more like programming a robot to do the painting.

MICHAEL: You just said you are teaching artists, not just photographers. Doesn’t that really get to the heart of the role of contemporary photography? I visit these art fairs and exhibitions where I see great photographs but they don’t necessarily rise to the level of “art” for me. It seems to me that even with preset conditions and lack of control, turning photography into art requires insight, physical manipulation and the introduction of unique elements. Perhaps my ignorance is showing.

FLOUNDER: I think it does get at the heart of it, I don’t think the sort of contemporary photography that I’m making or trying to teach is just photos. It isn’t about how pretty your sunsets are or how good your photoshop skills are, it is about the idea that drives the work. But that said, I think they generally need to be somewhat technically proficient and formally pleasing because we are past the conceptual 1970s. Dave Hickey helped change the notion that beauty is a dirty word in the art world. Work can be engaging and beautiful.

MICHAEL: I had the pleasure of walking with you through your exhibition called, “Own.” It involves old Native American lands, map making and photography.
It’s beautiful, engaging and has a powerful social and moral message. What’s it all about and where did you get the idea?

FLOUNDER: It is always good practice showing someone around a show, so thanks for coming. In the current work, I am mapping treaties between the US government and various American Indian tribes. I have European and Native American ancestry. Most likely it is Choctaw and/or Cherokee, but it is really hard to trace when your family narrative says that they were the ones who hid from the government to avoid moving west and tragedies such as the Trail of Tears. I’ve never been raised with any real awareness of my family’s history, but it fascinates and conflicts me. I have ancestors taking from ancestors. Not really sure how I decided to pursue this now, but I was mapping the borders of Los Angeles when I moved to Indiana and I wanted to keep mapping so this came up somehow. So far, I’ve mapped the treaties in their actual locations in five states. I find the original maps, import them, and follow the borders using GPS. I photograph at one mile intervals at set points in the four directions. This removes as much of my hand as possible from the equation. I want to show what is actually there, not what I want to be there. So if there is a casino or a Wal-Mart a quarter mile down the road and an empty field where my GPS says to shoot, I get the empty field.

MICHAEL: What you’re doing incorporates photography, artistry, anthropology, sociology, politics and travel. It all makes for very heavy subject matter that will inspire some and incite others. Yet art is your venue. I liked the exhibition, but you obviously know that pitching this to collectors or even curators can’t be easy. In short, it’s not “entertaining” and you know how much people want to be entertained … that’s assuming you can even lure them into a gallery. Is this a concern?

FLOUNDER: I make work that is important to me. Quite often it will be important to others too. I sometimes make work that is more fun or entertaining but that is not generally one of my primary goals, except maybe when I’m doing performance art. I honestly haven’t had many encounters with collectors at this stage in my career, but I’ve shown this work a few times already. A curator of a show in Europe liked it enough that she invited me to come make more work there for the show. I’ve also used this as a platform for teaching others about this history, including my own family. Even still, the patterns of images that emerge from my work can be enjoyed without knowing the history of what the work is about at all.

MICHAEL: Flounder, this brings up what I think is a great question. When you’ve busted your butt to make your art meaningful and true, isn’t it a little irritating to have people look at it and say, “I like the colors!” or “Will it match my sofa?” I’ve even heard artists reduce the work of other artists to simple whims. You’ve done all of this work and they’ve missed the entire point.

FLOUNDER: Artists aren’t the only source of meaning for their art, so art is going to mean different things to everyone. How’s the saying go? “You can’t please everyone.” Well, things are going to be pleasing to people for their own reasons. I want some people to get my work but know not everyone will. I really dislike a LOT of art, I don’t get it, but know other people do. I don’t think this is an issue really. I’ve always thought that colors and matching and such are just levels to the work. Maybe levels that I don’t care about, or even care to know about, but levels none the less. My wife isn’t an artist and she is definitely more concerned about artwork fitting in with our other decorations than I am, she doesn’t understand how I don’t really worry about color schemes and the like.

MICHAEL: Many of the artists I know are totally “consumed” by art. Many, if not most artists consider art synonymous with who they are as individuals. Does this describe you?

FLOUNDER: Yes, I think it does and I’m sure my wife would agree. She has a hard time grasping that my work does not really have any sort of set hours. I can just be playing online but it is usually at least tangentially related to my art. I’ll either be looking for blogs to submit, looking up new artists or shows, reading about mapping or science. I never know where my new ideas are going to come from so I keep constantly looking. But even all that said, I still take plenty of time to do other stuff if I can find it. I love to camp, hike, cook, and garden (although I rarely do most of these activities without a camera).

MICHAEL: You said earlier that you dislike a LOT of art and that you don’t get it. Do you think this is more of a reflection of your personal taste or the artists’ failure to communicate effectively? When people read my writing, I find it somewhat upsetting that they missed my point. They don’t have to agree, but they do have to get the point, otherwise we’re not really communicating.

FLOUNDER: I think sometimes it is a combination of both of those things and also the fact that some art really doesn’t carry a lot beyond its surface. Art means a lot of different things to people and sometimes it is purely a visual exercise. Of course this is the art that I generally don’t like and it rarely receives any sort of critical praise, but still might be popular with many people who think the best a painting can do is look like a photo and the best a photo can do is look like a painting. Ha! I like art that gives you something on multiple levels, it has the surface stuff that you can appreciate, but it has a depth to it that allows you to explore. Writing is sometimes similar, just because something is funny or exciting, doesn’t mean it doesn’t have depth of meaning. I’m currently reading a couple of books about geography and history. One is textbook type writing and I can barely stay interested even though I love the subject. The other is narrative style and I hate to stop reading it to do anything else, but I still feel like I’m learning a lot about the subject.

MICHAEL: When it comes to art, what do you think you’ll be doing 20 years from now?

FLOUNDER: Well I’m really hoping that they come out with Dream Recorder by then because I think my dreams are really where it’s at. Otherwise some sort of digital media and installations probably. But honestly who knows, 20 years ago I was 10, playing on a playground wanting to be a rocket scientist. That desire got me to 19 when I left the University of Alabama’s aerospace engineering program to take a year off and move to Florida where I got my degree in photography.

MICHAEL: Sounds like the sky is your limit. Thanks for chatting Flounder. Don’t forget to check out Flounder’s website at www.photoflounder.com

MICHAEL CORBIN IS AN AVID ART COLLECTOR AND AUTHOR OF THE AWARD-WINNING BOOK, “THE ART OF EVERYDAY JOE: A COLLECTOR’S JOURNAL.” CHECK IT OUT AT WWW.ARTMAESTROGALLERY.COM

Created by Michael Corbin On 04/06/09 At 10:59 AM

I am convinced that the Modigliani exhibit at the Vittoriano Gallery in Rome was curated with one thing in mind: pencils.
The only way a stodgy museum gift shop could ever get more than 1 Euro for a pencil is by hosting a name brand artist’s exhibition. At the Modigliani exhibit, they were asking 5 euros for one such item. The man was a tubercular caricaturist who did a great Cycladic Idol impersonation. Sure, he did paint a few interesting portraits, but the majority of the wallspace was submerged in wine stained sketches. Recipients of the sketches, which were scribbled in exchange for said wine, probably thought nothing of the indistinct little scraps of barroom genius. Decades later however, the would-be collectors soberly went back to their closets and dug out the sketches when it was established that they were drawn by a bona-fide genius.

I paid 7 euros, with a student discount, to see the exhibit. That means I paid close to 1 Euro per square meter of art – prime beachfront property in Vietnam costs about the same. How do they arrive at such sums? Is there an admission to art ratio I am unaware of? The Louvre costs twenty and is not nearly as scant.

As I said, the story far outweighed the productivity. Why is it that storyless art doesn’t sell? Much like Gould on the piano, playing a lovely five minute piece and then talking about how lovely he played it for two hours afterwards. Modi, on the other hand, has others to speak for him. Probably dealers that want to up the value of their inventory. They talk the city into hosting the show, for free I might add, at the gallery commemorating Vittorio Emmanuele – you couldn’t vote for a better location; the flow of tourists is constant!

The city gets the take from the door, while the organizers get the gift shop proceeds. After packaging Modi properly, they ask 5 Euros for a pencil with his name on it, and the posters cost about 20 Euros. The profit margin is enormous; we are talking about wood and paper! -And the city covers their overhead.

Does this mean that in the future I will be paying 40 euros to see a vomit stain on the wall of a subterranean abode where someone who was thought to have been artistic lived? They will put an M.R.I. scanner on my head to map the amount of neural stimulation my hippocampus received, whereupon I will be charged a second time based on my cerebral response to having seen the vomit stain.
Modi was starving most of his life and now, after his death, the money comes rolling in. He was a martyr who provided collectors with the means to profit by the poor and hungry artist’s own demise. Hungry artists just work better I guess. Drawings must sell better.

These days non traditional art forms have to battle it out to get a brief showing in some obscure gallery on Via Dei Querceti, where the poor artists must then converse with wealthy provincials about their creations. This is a fate worse than Modigliani’s. Living artists must die of exhaustion before they can reach a global audience, or at least a tour group.

My solution is this: a worldwide gift shop pencil price index. It is just like the Big Mac index from The Economist. Every reader who attends an art show from now on must record the price of the pencils in the gift shop, and we’ll average it all out. We will then create a database which we can use to appraise our own work. The idea is this: you no longer have to worry about selling your art; you just sell pencils with your name on them while you give your art away for free. No more talking to nouveau riche art collectors or energy sapping dealers; you just hang out in the gift shop and count those pencils. The employees are more fun anyway!

Once we have an idea of what Picasso pencils get in Japan and Manet pencils get in Romania, it will be easier to give your work away on Craigslist and then have a show of your pencils in Guam. Auction them off at Sotheby’s, sell them wholesale on eBay, or stockpile them for a rainy day. You could even let your dealer sell the pencils for they’ll be otherwise unemployable. Start keeping track of those gift shop sales everyone, I want to have an Excel sheet done by next month…

Created by Jeffrey Andreoni On 02/19/09 At 01:36 PM

Money for nothing
Most artists do not deal with anything. The “art geniuses” deal with “artistic issues” which are of interest only to the art critiques and a hand full of artists, and by that narrow the language of art – the language of shapes and colors, the most universal language possible – down to a collection of petty conflicts and dilemmas with tedious solutions that are of no importance to anyone, at any scale. Few are the artists who deal with issues and problems concerning the whole of humanity and the essence of existence, probably just as few are the people who really care about others of their kind.

Perhaps the beautiful thing about the art of the Middle Ages, for example which was mostly religious, is that it really served a purpose. There is no doubt (I think) that they are primitive, and there is no doubt that utilizing different solutions and revelations from the course of art along the ages might assist in conveying messages in a more articulate, advanced, attractive, credible, authentic and diverse manner. However, I feel that in the great efforts of escaping the conditionings and fixations of the archaic and institutionalized art and of creating new “art languages” every alternate day, perhaps unconsciously art has gradually become a tool in its own hands and nothing more.

Kahnweiler, what?
For example, problems in the field of analytic cubism interested only Picasso, Braque and a hand full more of copycat cubistic artists and the enthusiastic art critiques and interpreters who found some new “artistic issue” to mess with as a child would have with a new toy. But actually all that toy does is distracting the mind from the simple truth, that there is no real essence in analytic cubism. It is merely an anal fetishism of that hand full of artists who were to busy in being artists and not as much so in being humans. Brass tacks, who cares about the fairly-artistic and vital-scientific “problem” of expressing three-dimensional forms upon a two-dimensional canvas?

And even if and when I bother in great exertion to discover the hidden abstract (excuse me for saying) facial features behind the title: “Portrait of Daniel-Henry Kahnweiler”, then what? Who cares to discover that at all? What am I supposed to do with this discovery? Who gives a shit about him, anyway? Hence, the cubistic portrait of the chap was not meant for anything expect for being a tool in the hands of Picasso, with which to disintegrate the “real” nature into another “real” nature which he defined. That’s all. No one else cares about that.
Malfunctioning horsiness
Does a blacksmith manufacture cubistic horseshoes which do not fit any horse only for the sake of forcefully inventing and then solving some problematic issue in the field of perceiving the interaction between the three-dimensionality of the horse and the multi-dimensionality of horsiness? No, he does not. Similarly, you can imagine a situation where you stand in front of someone, engaged in a conversation, and that someone does not seize to blather pointlessly, only because he is so busy in utilizing language for the sake of finding new ways for utilizing that same language.

There is nothing wrong in the endeavor for enriching the language, whatever it is, when that language has a purpose of conveying a message. This is its only purpose.

Accessing art
I think that many people are recoiled by art. They fear from it because in the course of generations – initially fueled by the insecurity of the Renaissance artists and later on by their followers – it transformed from a simple creative practice into a sophisticated trade of philosophical contemplation in the hands of some arrogant intellectual elite, and therefore seized to serve the people. The fear of the artists from being “of the people” as blacksmiths and not “elitist” as philosophers caused art to lose its integrity and to turn into an empty and useless tool.

What makes art accessible to the common people has got nothing to do with whether or not it is created from common day to day materials. The problem is that not only that the different forms of modern art are the opposite of user-friendly, but on top of that the manufacturer does not even bother to supply minimal instructions for the buyer. If you studied art and you are ably clairvoyant and good in seeing through pillars and walls, then you’ll understand it and if not then ‘ts’yo’problem.
You may stand there in that gallery and gaze at your will like a drowsy cat, while you take caution not to admit your ignorance if you are an intellectual, and admit it with a jaw-breaking yawn if you are truly wise.

Every doing, every product in this world serves all, this is why it was manufactured to begin with. Art is an exception to that rule; it is the only field which serves only itself and its products are consumed only by the fashion clerks of contemporary art.

The boundaries of art
The picture expresses pictoriality, the theme of the painting is the method of paintings itself and the theme of the sculpture is sculpting… could it be that the message is “message” and that a dog is made out of a “dog”? does medicine exist for the sake of its own self, or rather for the sake of curing the ill? Is the purpose of a scientific research to amuse the mind of some physics geniuses or rather to discover for the benefit of humanity and a better future?

You cannot explain a term using the term itself. You cannot exceed the boundaries of painting by painting, not to mention exceeding the boundaries of reality by inventing an illusionary alternate reality. Painting about painting is parallel to talking about talking or languaging about language upon langiging the linguabenge – art is not a method for attaining the ultimate truth or changing reality. This is reality.

Hand in hand
Tell me a story, interest me, take me with you on a fascinating journey and teach me some lesson. Waken inspiration within me, make me think, feel and grow up as a human being. Make me look at art, eye to eye and learn from it about myself, because art without a purposeful message is like a good-looking stupid girl – nice to look at but no dialogue. In this case I’d rather drink my coffee by myself – Starbucks offers a pretty good Cappucino and not to bad of a chocolate croissant.

Created by Ilan Lichtnayer On 02/05/09 At 12:25 PM

The Art Newspaper spoke with the British artist Keith Tyson about how artists are starting to take control of their career, rather than simply handing the reigns to the art dealer and hoping for the best. It’s a theme that comes up more and more lately.

Here’s a couple quotes from the article..
“Galleries will promise you the world in terms of production costs but it comes at the price of complete control. There’s a conflict of interest in having the people who retail your work being the same people that help you with production because they will try and own it.” Keith Tyson Quote

“The bottom line is that you need to be in the centre making the decisions with the gallery working for you, rather than vice-versa.” Gavin Turk Quote

I have no sympathy for the art dealers. I appreciate that running an art gallery is a tough business, but I’m happy to see them lose some of their power over artists. Most artists will probably still stick to the traditional artist/gallery relationship, but it’s good to know that you don’t have to sell your soul to one art dealer if you don’t want to.

The Internet and business superstars like Damien Hirst and Jeff Koons haven’t been good for traditional art dealers. It makes me think of the music business and their unwillingness to change.
>> Being an Artist

I told myself that I wouldn’t mention Damien Hirst for a while as he’s a bit of a news hog, but I just can’t help myself. There’s no other artist out there like him. None of my artists friends have told me that they’re laying off up to 20 employees as none of my artist friends have 20 employees to lay off.

The quote below is from the Guardian newspaper here.
“On Thursday, up to 17 of the 22 people who make the pills for Hirst’s drug cabinet series were told their contracts were not being renewed, according to two sources close to Science Ltd, Hirst’s main art-producing company. Another three who make his butterfly paintings were also told they were surplus to requirements.
It is thought that amounts to approximately half of the London-based artists who work for Hirst. They are paid about £19,000 a year, sources said. In June 2007, Lullaby Spring, a cabinet filled with hand-painted pills, sold for £9.65m.”

Artinfo also mention the story here.

>> Damien Hirst News, Being an Artist

I’m finding myself rather mute during this political season in the U.S. I think I’ve grown tired of the hype in the presidential elections. I have a friend who says simply that to really change anything politically in the U.S. one must start first at home in ones own community, ones own city, ones own county and finally in ones own state. What happens at the national level is so complicated by party politics, compromise and even corruption that nothing you hear will be true. Most of it is just hype to get elected. I agree that little happens from the top down.

My friend has another question that always follows this suggestion. Do you know whom the candidates are who are running for school board, city council, and state representative in your district or governor? Do you know who is running for Sates Attorney General, Clerk of courts or who will be on the committee at the state level to fund or defund your local arts council?

I’ve heard a lot of people complaining about those who believe in the other political party. They always say things like I can’t believe those people actually think that way and much worse. Funny thing is when people are not thinking politics they do pretty much the same things, make pretty much the same decisions and mistakes in life affected little by their political beliefs. Most people in this country are nearer the middle than the extremes yet we have been so polarized by campaign promises and slogan and mud all designed to get you to vote for one party or the other. I’m guilty of some of these things myself…well and so is my friend whose wisdom I’m speaking of. We all are. We must remember that most of our political beliefs are just that…beliefs, theories, faith in something we were taught or think we’ve come to realize in our lives as a truth. The problem with truths are that they are so often defined by our limited point of view.

No one is going to convince a Democrat or a Republican to vote for the other party. Too late for that. Too many decisions have already lead them to their beliefs. So don’t waste your breath trying to convince and convert. Art that becomes propaganda does the same thing. Very little art that has political content converts anyone. Art may support the beliefs of those who believe the same thing and that may be worth the effort. But the funny thing about art is that it can be read from both sides and interpreted to mean things other than intended. Personally I like work that cuts both ways and speaks to many points of view.

So if you are a U. S. citizen I encourage you to vote. But between now and election day do make some effort to do some research on the candidates in your vicinity. Know who they are and what they stand for. Then, if you find one or another who stands for the things you believe in vote for them rather than just pulling a party lever behind the curtain. Make an informed decision and change things on the local level.
Eventually it will have an impact at the national level. And be aware of those issues that will affect you as an artist. Bring these issues before your local congress and other authorities. Write letters, send e-mails. And pay attention to the way things are written…the devil is in the details.

Created by Walter King On 09/25/08 At 08:38 AM

One of the problems with trying to do something good is that the people trying to do something bad don’t like you. Having an artist scammers list means that artists will appreciate it, while art scammers won’t.

I have received emails and someone left a comment about a person called “Bikram Shrestha” sending them the usual scam letters, so I listed the person and their email on the list. The artist said that a “whole group of woman artists” received the same letter from this email sbikram81@yahoo.com

The comment that the artist left went like this..

Subject: Artworks Enquiry…
Hello,
I came across some of your masterpiece while surfing the internet at http://www.xxxxx.com website and I am interested in purchasing some of your artworks for our new apartment in Malaysia. I will like you to send me some pictures of your recent porfolio so I can select from your stock. Also let me know the price range of your artworks.

I will look forward to hearing from you soon.
Regards,
Bikram.

Looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, so I slapped the duck label on it.. and I’m still confident that it is a duck.

BUT.. according to an email that I received from the duck today, he or she isn’t a duck!! In the email, it also includes the email that “Bikram Shrestha” sent to the artist.. and the reply of the artist.

Here’s the email that “Bikram Shrestha” sent to the artist..

From: Bikram Shrestha sbikram81@yahoo.com
Subject: Interested Your Artworks
Hello,

Regards,Bikram.

Ticks all the boxes of a scam email. So nothing there changes my mind.
In his email to me, Bikram also sent the reply of the artist, which made me laugh.

Here’s the artist’s reply..

oh I can’t wait till I can fill your wonderful home with my “masterpieces.” what a poor lucky artist I am.
http://www.artnewsblog.com/2008/05/list-of-artist-scammers-and-fraudsters.htm

So, that prompted the angry Bikram Shrestha to send me this threatening email..

Subject:
Fw: Re: Interested Your Artworks… Kindly remove my name from you List ASAP

To Whom It May Concern.

- Bikram Shrestha.

I would be very happy to take his name and email off the list if I hated artists, but I don’t. I hate people trying to take advantage of others. I have seen at least three emails from Bikram Shrestha, including the one above from him, and they all fit the format of every other art scam email that I have ever received.

Apology? For calling a duck a duck?
Good luck with getting the “free millions of dollars” too as I am an artist!

So if posts slow down on Art News Blog, blame Bikram Shrestha as we’ll be in court fighting over my “millions of dollars”..lol.
>> Art Scams