Art Basel: Why I’m not going. (Hint: It’s because the modern art world is the worst.) - Slate Magazine

Art Basel: Why I’m not going. (Hint: It’s because the modern art world is the worst.) - Slate Magazine

Technogical not Patriarchol control

I have always had a love/hate relationship with technology and the changes it effects in society.  I remember when first encountering the idea of public, online journalling that my first thoughts were positive and negative.  On the positive side, here was a use of technology which opened up the possibility of engaging in larger scale dialogues so that ideas and other perspectives could be presented and explored beyond your close circle of friends.  Surely this form of mass dialectic would direct us in a more positive direction quickly. Cool!  But then, any written diary is already a suspect document.  After all when we record an event, who hasn't fantasized about "some day when I am dead and gone, they will find this letter, or this journal or this picture and then they will know the truth or know how brilliant I truly am/was."  The truth?  Or the truth as the chronicler wants it remembered or sees it.

Fast forward to today and it would seem that most of the positives and the negatives have been magnified.  We have visual and written diaries like Facebook, and Twitter where our every moment is captured in a film script like sort of way, that exaggerates reality and promotes a surreal drama or pastiche of a life lived.  Hmmmmm?  Negative or positive?  We all want our 15 minutes of fame don't we.

So here I write in "my" blog knowing that everything is preserved on the internet and that someone will read this (even before I am dead and gone).   How then can that even be interpreted?   Ironically, I worry about that.  My intention with this blog is to give some insight into my artistic practice and yet this doesn't seem to be an artistic discussion.  I know for me, that everything comes out in the art some how.  And, one of my chief concerns about the world today, is the lack of ability of humanity to communicate and connect, notwithstanding the explosion in the technology to facilitate just that.  We are more and more disconnected and alone.

Even this blog is evidence of that.  I wanted to write on this more from the perspective of how technology has become the centre of all our work, community and family.  As an artist I must share with the public or they do not know I have created work.  More and more of my time is eaten up with websites, Facebook invites, etc.,  so that there is a real risk that my day to day becomes more about the technology than the art.  Beyond art, families use Facebook rather than getting together, text rather than call, and call rather than visit. If you are not on the net, you are more out of the loop than ever.  If technology is not the centre of your focus you are unconnected to a larger community and you are alone.  But then with technology it is like sharing a kiss through a glass wall and we are still alone.

just a thought.

Promotion or Dignity in Art

A fellow artist posted a link to the article that follows on Facebook and I was immediately conflicted.  My wife and I have been looking forward to going to see Frida Kahlo and Diego Rivera's show at the Art Gallery of Ontario ever since it was announced.  And now because they have engaged in a form of marketing that denigrates the artist herself, I feel that by attending I may be complicit.  As much as I want Frida and Diego's work to be seen, I would almost rather see this blow up in the AGO's face and have no one go.  Almost.

It has also occurred to me that as a member, whether I go or not they already have my support.  Sometimes the best way to protest is with your feet.  So  I have called Andrea Seaborn in the marketing department at the AGO.  I did not speak to her directly because she was unavailable.  I did however leave a voicemail.  The basic message that I left was that I was disappointed that an institution such as the AGO was taking a position that denigrated an artist whose work they were promoting.  I further stated that I would not be renewing my membership unless the promotion ended and a formal apology went out.  I suspect that little ol' me will have little impact, but then at this point it is a matter of conscience.

To see the article that I read follow the link:

An Open Letter to the AGO About Frida Kahlo’s Unibrow - Shameless Magazine - your daily dose of fresh feminism for girls and trans youth

Art and Politics or Shut up and Paint

So earlier I posted a letter to the editor relating to an article in the Guelph Mercury.  Without delving into that dialogue again, I have rediscovered that one of the outcomes of speaking out is that you draw both wanted and unwanted attention to yourself.  For the most part I have received a cascade of responses from those in the Guelph arts community, thanking me for my comments and generally applauding my letter.

And now for the downside. :-(   At least one gallery that I have been interested in for some time has decided that for an upcoming show (which I was to be invited to participate in) that they cannot now show my work.  The reason being that they feel there would be a conflict of interest if they show my work so soon after this recent article.  Sigh.

What does that mean to me?  Well first thoughts were....."shit"  all that hard work down the drain.  But then upon reflection, part of my decision to be an artist was to have a voice and to explore that voice through my work.  It was for this very reason that I responded to the article.  So lesson learned - Keep your voice in your art not in the press.  Am I likely to learn this lesson?  Nahhh. ;-)

guelphmercury

So good to see a dialogue about the arts that explores the value that a vibrant arts scene brings to a city's growth and prosperity. So if we accept the notion that "Farmer's feed cities," perhaps "Artists bring a city to life." I would love to see more tag lines. Please add your own and share this.

guelphmercury

guelphmercury

Sometimes it feels like we are all waiting to have someone else validate us.  Particularly in Canada and particularly where personal style is concerned.  In the art world, I often see people second guess themselves about buying a piece of original art because they are afraid that someone else might not value it.  And, by someone else they are referring to decorators and other unknown experts.  This is perhaps fine if what you are buying is fashion, in which case understanding trends is good. But trends in and of themselves do not dictate quality.  This mini diatribe serves as a preamble to what sparked my letter to the Guelph Mercury below.

guelphmercury

Today,  I have bounced around in the familiar post show territory that I am sure many artists fall into from time to time.  It is the territory of "what is my relative value", or "what price is correct for my work."  New artists and veterans alike struggle with how to value the work we do. As a professional artist there are many things that are taken into account when working out the price of my work including the 50% commission that most Galleries command, cost of studio rental, supplies, framing, transportation of work, and my time.  But ultimately it is what is fair for the quality of work I am offering; because, all the cost factors aside, the work is not worth anything if it is not good to begin with.

That being said today, I was greeted with an article that gave me pause.  Posted by a mentor of mine, Reinhard Reitzenstein, it cast a spotlight on the public rant of famed art curator David Hickey, who criticized the lack of debate and objective assessment of artwork, and the complicity of art critics today, in artificially propping up the value of celebrity artists.  For the full story you can follow this link (I hope) https://www.facebook.com/reinhard.reitzenstein/posts/10152213692455322.

Being a non-celebrity, my art is not quite caught up in the direct path of this storm, but it does raise the question of the valuation of those who fight for the faint flickers of the fringe of the spotlight.  I suppose criticism is no different than other forms of journalism, which seems more and more caught up in the vortex of entertainment and sponsor interests over real debate and dialogue.

One commenter on Reinhard's essay, suggested that "Hickey should go where art is made rather than shown."  I would think this statement should hold true for critics as well.  Interesting debate if nothing else.  So, I am happy to elevate the debate by inviting all curators and critics to my studio. :-)

For the sake of starting I am doing just that....starting.  I have been contemplating a blog with respect to my art practice for some time.  Why?  Why? Why?  That is the question.   In short, my work is not created in a vacuum and there are many associations/concerns/ideas/ideals that come into play when creating an art piece.  This considerations needfully disappear to the background and the work stands on its on merit.  But I have found that, for those who are interested, an understanding of motivations breathes a particular life into the work.  Does it demystify it?  Perhaps.  But then I do not feel this detracts from an appreciation of the work.  It still must stand on its own and I do not ever expect that my reasoning in its creation is paramount.  We all come with a unique set of sensors, developed in the unique incubator of our lives; and, therefore, even my imposed vision is subject to augmentation by the viewer's experience.

More will come as thought and time allow.  These are my thoughts.  They are neither correct or wrong, they simply are.