When The Art Bubble Bursts Into A Splash

Celebrity theory 101
When The Art Bubble Bursts Into A Splash  by  Elizabeth Currid

Goto:  http://gawker.com/news/celebrity-theory-101/when-the-art-bubble-bursts-into-a-splash-293722.php
To view article pics and additional blog commentary

You read Us Weekly for the articles. You can’t help but be interested in what Lindsay Lohan snorted, ran her car into or slept with this week. But, you went to college, you read the new Chabons and Lethems as soon as they come out! You’re not a vapid person! Good news: Celebrity is not only a major driver of the economy, it’s a subject worthy of academic scrutiny. University of Southern California professor Elizabeth Currid, PhD., explains the sociology of fame and pop culture.

Elizabeth writes:

The art world has a problem with itself, verging on self-loathing. No, I’m not talking about the impending bubble bursting that will render currently celebrated (or at least expensive) art work valueless. I’m not talking about the transformation of starving artists into celebrities who sashay about town with socialites and end up in the gossip columns alongside Paris Hilton or Jay-Z. They are both only symptoms of a bigger concern: Art is no longer just the stuff on museum walls or in wealthy collectors’ homes.

Art has become a marketable and highly successful commercial product that can be sold in many different forms, across many different genres, to lots of different people, and that success is creating a rupture within the art world between artists who believe that art should remain elitist and artists creating those commercialized products who believe art should be a part of everyday life for all different types of people. For sure, the translation of art into a commodity has been big business since Andy Warhol, who famously aspired to be a “business artist.” But never have we observed it with the gusto and ubiquity seen in today’s commercialized art. And nowhere is this more present than in the street art movement.

A stroll through the art districts of New York or Los Angeles or London gives you a sense of the buzz surrounding the contemporary street art movement—something unseen since the days of Keith Haring and Jean-Michel Basquiat. Lines stretch around the corner for Los Angeles-based artist Shepard Fairy’s opening. The photographer Ryan McGinley became the youngest artist with a solo show at New York City’s Whitney Museum for his startling images of young graffiti artists, “The Kids Are Alright.” banksyThe anonymous London-based graffiti writer Banksy’s show in a downtown warehouse in LA brought celebrities like Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie along with 50,000 visitors. In the three days the show was open, every single piece of artwork sold. The Soho-based gallery Deitch Projects has become a pivotal force in the art world, forecasting the next rising star with frightening accuracy.

These days, New York City artists are playing a significant role in driving the city’s economy. According to the Alliance for the Arts, a New York-based arts advocacy and research organization, in 2005 arts industries (ranging from theater to art galleries to commercial art) generated $8.2 billion in wages, $904 million in taxes, 160,300 jobs for New York City. If you consider what economists call the “spillover effect,” which is all the restaurants, hotels, bars and clubs that arts patrons also go to when they attend art openings, museum exhibitions, comedy clubs or the Tribeca Film Festival, the arts have an overall impact of $21.2 billion on New York City’s economy. Art galleries alone contribute $38 million in taxes and $420 million in wages, with an overall economic impact of $1.4 billion to New York City’s economy.

Despite all the hype, some within the graffiti world resent the invasion of their subversive clique by wealthy art collectors, masses of gallery goers, and Abercrombie & Fitch-wearing co-eds. Thus has it always been: Success breeds disgruntlement and resentment. People have complained about the “undeserved” success of their peers for a long time. But instead of breeding nasty cocktail party chatter, this resentment over artists’ “selling out” has bred something new: A campaign of violence (whether of actual or perceived danger) and intimidation against commercially successful artists.

In June, some kid lit a stink bomb at a Shepard Fairey opening in Brooklyn. Last November a hooded figure distributed propaganda flyers at a panel discussion that featured the street artist Swoon. And the last year has seen dozens of anonymous attacks on well-known street artists’ work throughout New York City by “the Splasher” (widely believed to be a curmudgeonly vandal collective), who throws buckets of paint on the art work, destroying it in the process, and leaving anarchist messages like “destroy the museums, in the streets and everywhere.” They also fancy themselves to be journalists, printing a mindless little treatise with the phrase “If We Did It, This Is How It Would’ve Happened” on the cover (a seeming play on the maybe-to-be-released OJ Simpson fictional tell-all) and a picture of a destroyed Fairey piece.

splasher1.jpgThese attacks are not just for kicks. The attacks have been directed mainly toward street artists who have been able to translate writing graffiti into making a living. The attackers’ fear is ostensibly invasion of the mainstream—save us from the pathetic masses coming from the Midwest or Pennsylvania or the Upper East Side to buy our culture. That this apprehension outweighs supporting artists’ who are actually creating livelihoods out of their passion reeks of jealousy and resentment masked as self-righteous art snobbery. When it comes down to it, the Splasher(s) and his/her/their ilk (those who believe commercially successful artists are sell-outs) come across as losers who are pissed that their artwork wasn’t good enough to get its own gallery show so they had to destroy someone else’s. These stunts are the straw man equivalent of hating the Prom Queen because she’s beautiful but pretending it’s because she’s a bimbo.

I’m not suggesting the dissent or disagreement is stupid—it’s not—but throwing buckets of paint is. For more constructive, pointed, creative responses to the commercialization of art, consider the recent flurry of attention London artist Damien Hirst is getting for his latest installment of absurdity: “For the Love of God,” a skull encrusted with 8,601 diamonds, which, with an asking price of over $100 million, is the most expensive piece of art ever made by a living artist. You may or may not like Hirst’s formaldehyde sharks, millions of dead butterfly wings or chopped up cows. His latest creation can be looked at as hilarious genius or simply an exercise in rococo kitsch. But even the critical responses to Hirst’s work represent everything art dialogue could be. The Polish artist Peter Fuss is selling a parody, “For the Laugh of God,” a skull encrusted in almost 10,000 fake diamonds. lauraAnother artist, known as “Laura”, dumped a skull of her own with Swarovski crystals and a pile of trash outside of London’s WhiteCube Gallery where Hirst’s skull was being shown. Or consider the recent gag at the MoMA, “Excuse me, is this a work of art?,” which entailed artists putting up signs complete with artist names, date of creation and origination in front of banal objects like water fountains, bathroom sinks and fire extinguishers, incorporating them into the museum’s collection. Or Banksy’s dozens of clever commentaries (and pranks) on the art world that are actually pieces of art in their own right. Creating a dialogue about what is good or bad art is important for the future of the art world, but at the very least the responses should be thoughtful and intelligent, not just thinly-guised jealousy towards an artist who became successful or famous.

Those within the art world who resent the commercial success of fellow artists who get book deals or commissioned work for fashion houses or sold out shows really need to think about what they really think they’re up against. Is it that street art is getting respect and admiration from the general public not just art collectors and gallery owners? Is it that these artists’ are able to hold down full time jobs as artists and not have to work part time as waiters or Starbucks baristas? Is it that these artists have become successful in a variety of different cultural ventures ranging from magazines to sneaker designs to clothing companies?

It strikes me that the anti-commercial sentiment within the art world ironically exhibits the very same “short cut to celebrity” that its followers rally against. Isn’t throwing buckets of paint on famous graffiti and having your protests written up in major national newspapers just another version of getting attention the cheap and easy way?

One might argue that commercial success is not the same thing as artistic success, but Warhol taught us that things can be otherwise. Business art was the ultimate validation of one’s aesthetic skills. If people bothered to buy an artist’s work then by extension one could conclude that the artist was producing good art. These days, the intimate relationship between money and successful art means that really good art sells. And maybe some good art doesn’t sell, but when the bohemian art demigod Ryan McGinley gets hired to do photography for the New York Times and has an entire project devoted to documenting Kate Moss, one might say that the economic market validated what the art world already knew: McGinley is an art superstar. His commercial success is merely a signal of his brilliance. Art goers can bicker endlessly about whether commercial art validates or detracts from the virtue of an artist, but ultimately this is an existential debate: The reality is that given the opportunity to make a living out of making art, many artists will choose to do so and there’s really nothing wrong with that.

When I interviewed Shepard Fairey several months ago for the research I conduct, he (like the other artists I spoke with) bore no ill will toward either the masses or the elite art world. He just wanted to do what he loved to do, and he was happy that it had been a successful venture that allowed him to provide an income for himself and own his own company. He also told me that it was important that he was able to get his art out there to as many people as possible. As he put it, “I can make pieces that are expensive but I want to sell $35 screen prints and $25 T-shirts. Where I am coming from in my work is that art is empowering. I want people to be able to access me…I never started as a fine artist and felt like a ’sell out’. I went in the opposite direction. I really like the street artist – you didn’t have to submit to a gallery or a magazine, you just went out and did it…A T-shirt is a walking piece of art. When I do a record label’s album cover, I am producing art that gives people pleasure while listening.”

I’m not exactly sure what’s worth making a “splash” about other than the fact that street art is actually getting the respect and public interest it deserves. Isn’t that what art was always about in the first place?
___________________________________________________________________________________
Elizabeth Currid is assistant professor at University of Southern California’s School of Policy, Planning and Development. Her first book, The Warhol Economy: How Fashion, Art and Music Drive New York City, will be published by Princeton University Press this September.

6:04 PM on Mon Aug 27 2007

automatism with a heavy filter

8:11 AM 7/16/2008 [original draft]

automatism with a heavy filter

also see the artist as a filter

My definitions of automatism and how I use it:

Automatism as a “pure” process in art making is virtually impossible to achieve.  An artists process involves making history and life history and it is impossible to eliminate this history from a person’s process, let alone an artist’s process when making art.  All of this experience and education becomes the “stuff” that makes up how the artist is a filter.

If a painter could somehow tap into a “pure” automatism making state, there would be no style.  All of the elements that make up a particular piece would follow the laws of chance and random.  A painting would only be formed from the artistic choice of medium and support; scale; etc.  The design would have no connection to the artist per se; thus forming a design similar in structure and color as what might show up in a rock.

diversity discussion, again!

8:52 AM 5/16/2008 [original draft]

diversity discussion, again!

my art work is like handwriting; all from the same hand, just different content.  There are distinguishing identity marks embedded.  Sometimes they aren’t readily apparent.  Even when I use a particular artist as a filter or aid, the final results come close to the originator, sometimes, but most often my handwriting will come through in the way I handle the brush or something similar.

I don’t know why the diversity issue bothers me so.  I have had this issue bouncing around in my brain for over 40 years; since graduate school daze.  When I get off this treadmill and just work, everything comes out fine.  I think this issue,for me, is an insecurity issue.  Also it is a product of my impatience.  Also it is a product of my interests in never stepping into the same river twice; i don’t like to repeat myself; making more than one image look-a-like tends to become a boring activity and I want painting to be exciting and dynamic.

12:23 PM 6/13/2008 Update:  While reading an article on the paintings of Sam Francis [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0268/is_7_37/ai_54169955/pg_3] , these words rang a bell for me; “And it was when the assembly line really started cranking that his work began to turn a bit stale, a bit predictable.”  Translating these words to fit into my scheme of making art, to me I have a long running fear of making stale and predictable art by making images that are similar; or making images in long sets;  by repeating myself.  I don’t want to repeat myself.  On special occasions I want to explore an idea in-depth,  then I will create images in series.  Example, I am working on a set of paintings on paper, wood, and cloth centering on a concept of mantle (fireplace mantle I guess — dunno, just like the idea of a mantle).

12:45 PM 6/13/2008:  Also as my mind jumps from place to place revealing only what it can reveal, so do my paintings throughout a session- jump from one image to another (sometimes).  Usually, as I work each painting influences the next one.  I see something that I just painted and it sparks energy to make something else.  I just follow the impulses and paint.  If I procrastinate the intuition, then the process stops dead in its tracks and the session is dead.  I have to start all over again.  Sometimes it never restarts for that day.  Automatism makes this so.  Automatism creates the life in my painting.  Questioning the first solution idea/move automatically stops the process.  This is what I observe and experience in the studio.  This is what makes all of this so exciting.  It can be a problem for a viewer who wants to see logical progression from one painting t another over a period of time.  Well, there is logic.  It comes in the form of Dada and Automatism.  Wrap your mind around this and you can wrap your mind around my painting.  It is that simple.

painting-as-process

2:40 PM 5/11/2008 [original draft]

painting-as-process

Concept:  The process, techniques, and materials, and design, and everything else painting is the subject, content, meaning, raison d’etre defining painting and its message/s communicated, real or otherwise.  In many ways it [concept] has always been this way for painting save for the illustrators who work exclusively with word-to-painting translations whether the translation is from something an artist is interested in illustrating a literature from a personal position or the artist is illustrating a literature of others; including poetry.  Without process art cannot exist; painting cannot exist.

That being said, this is a very simplistic approach to defining all painting and my painting in particular.  I have stated, and my work illustrates this, my painting has its basic roots in classical Abstract Expressionism as defined in mid 1940 and practiced until the mid 1960’s when it was successfully challenged by minimalism, pop art and other divisions of painting developed as a reaction to AE.  In my opinion, all of this stew has co-existed quite successfully since that time.  Over the years I too have challenged this position in my work only to keep coming back to a thread that links back to the 1945-65 AE period.  It is my belief that artists must be true to their centers (however defined) and let their art be a reflection or projection of this center.

I have often of late made reference to using Automatism in a pure form.  Again I mean here that I am choosing a form of Automatism that dates back to its origins in the early 20th century.  I am also trying to use this system of art making in a pure a form as I can.  However, a person cannot separate influences of life experience from a behavior pattern.  Therefore, at best, my use of Automatism is that of a filter.  I filter my experience as a person and as an artist through an imagined Automatism filter; thinking that the way I use it is pure in its structure in all ways.  Well, this isn’t really truth because I can’t eliminate all the influences that have formed my art from the beginning and the influences that still put pressure on how I make my art and what tools and material make up my art.

Also, of late, I have made and make reference to the idea that my paintings are nothing more or nothing less that working spaces; space as a place to put and arrange the stuff of painting.  What this stuff is covers wide territory and its parts are forever in addition as well as subtraction (removal); this last concept has been referred to as a dialectical analysis process).

Since I intentionally do not insert any literature in my painting, there is no (or should not be) any verbal translations of what my painting is when it is said to be completed and then hanging on a gallery or museum wall.  So what are they?  My best guess, and this guess has held up now for some years, my paintings operate in the human world as mirrors.  If an audience member has to start a translation process that remotely starts to add words to the mix of understanding, then the viewer should start discussing themselves.  There is no way to find any detailed verbal or literature about or from me in my painting.  The question, “what does it mean?” doesn’t have an answer.  My painting/s individually or in groups don’t mean anything.  There is no politics here.  There is no literature here.  There are no stories being told.
8:50 AM 7/11/2008

When you look at one of my paintings you are essentially looking at your self.  These paintings act like mirrors reflecting some essence of the viewer.  At times this can get scary.  Revealing a truth about one self can cause a denial.  The denial can also lead to anger, etc.  Don’t get angry at me, get angry at your self.  If what you see is negative, try to correct the issue.

Size does matter

10:14 AM 3/24/2008 [original draft]

Size does matter

1)  If it weren’t for the bad economy for the past 4 years (for me) and who knows how long for others in my situation (artists/painters), I never would have started working on small wood blocks.  Another influence on me to turn to painting on wood, recent retro of Richard Tuttle.  I have looked at his work closely over many years, like it to some extent, but never got enthralled.  But after I had a look this time around, I fell in love with the work on wood; and some of the small sculptures.  However, he works his way and I work mine.  I fell in love with how paint and wood relate to each other.

2)  Bad economy means I can’t afford to ship large paintings to a gallery/venue on spec; no sales no shipping.  This is a catch 22 to the nth degree.  Very frustrating.  But life must go on.  I still make large paintings, but they seem to stay in the studio.  I make small paintings for the shipping crowd; no not boats, UPS and USPS.  I can afford to ship small stuff to a venue on spec.  This means, no sales and I haven’t gone bankrupt.  I live to work another day.

3)  Size affects the painting process.  I think and work differently on a 5 x 5 x 1 block of pine than I do on a 58 x 55 canvas.  I don’t think this is unique.  It is unique for me since I don’t plan a painting’ image structure in advance.  I work as pure as I can using a modified program of surrealist automatism.  The modifications are simple: over 40 years of living and painting; studying and practicing; forming and making.  No matter how pure one tries to tap into our subconscious and let it out without any conscious connections, you still can’t separate the brain parts and the brain from our life’s experiences.  It is a computer and one that learns every second it is operating.  So we are left dealing with world of ideals.  This gets me going everyday in the studio.

Two places at the same time and nowhere at all

1:59 AM 2/27/2008

Two places at the same time and nowhere at all–

If Gerhardt Ricter can work in two completely separate aesthetic schemes at the same time, non-objective abstraction and fuzzy foto realism, then I can work on neo-geo and automatism-chance based non-objective paintings at the same time; or nearly the same time. I don’t have a studio large enuff to accommodate working on two separate ideas at the same time. This means that this scenario unfolds in a very linear way. These two separate making energies follow one another. The results can exist side by side but not the manufacture. If I were to create paintings in two divers aesthetics at the same time it would be too confusing I think. Of course this is just a guess on my part. I believe that I would find this kind of multi-tasking difficult to…. I am searching for a word to describe my overview of this multi-tasking event. I find it difficult to construct paintings with a single focus in play. However, I can imagine one painting being ae-automatism-chance oriented and the next being neo geo. In many of my mainstream paintings over the years I have incorporated neo-geo elements as detail or major element. The neo geo paintings of 2004-2006 grew from a position where the geometry started out as detail, then expanded to become the majority structure with ae-automatism-chance areas being reduced to detail. Ultimately in 2005 neo geo became the structure of 100% focus of the painting.

Just had a flash. If I get a NC painting grant to work on a collection of ae-automatism-chance paintings, and Ron C wants me to workup a collection of neo geo for a show in Philadelphia in September of 2009, it could prove to be an interesting year. I would be forced to paint both of these streams at the same time. Ouch, forced is a word/concept that really doesn’t apply here. I do have a choice! Can you say schizophrenia?

arguments + – reference artistic multi-tasking = reality

I found the following statement on the internet and forgot to write down the reference and location. So sorry — if anybody cares to do it, please correct or add the reference. Thanks. dpn.

“…baffled by the fact that he seems to vacillate between realism and abstraction, or even between various styles of abstraction, often at the same time. These vacillations seemed to me so extreme when I saw a retrospective of Richter’s work in Chicago in 1987, that it looked like I was seeing some kind of group show. “How can you say any style is better than another?” Warhol asked with his characteristic faux innocence in a 1963 interview. “You ought to be able to be an Abstract Expressionist next week, or a Pop artist, or a realist, without feeling that you have given up something.” For most artists in America, it is important that they be stylistically identifiable, as if their style is their brand. To change styles too often inevitably would have been read as a lack of conviction. But what the show at MoMA somehow makes clear is that there finally is a single personal signature in Richter’s work, whatever his subject, and whether the work is abstract or representational. It comes, it seems to me, from the protective cool to which I referred-a certain internal distance between the artist and his work, as well as between the work and the world, when the work itself is about reality. It is not irony. It is not exactly detachment. It expresses the spirit of an artist who has found a kind of above-the-battle tranquility that comes when one has decided that one can paint anything one wants to in any way one likes without feeling that something is given up.” Arthur Danto writing on Gerhard Richter’s show at MOMA [Gerhard Richter: Forty Years of Painting] 2002. [Gerhard Richter: Forty Years of Painting February 14–May 21, 2002 Second and third floors. Purchase the exhibition catalogue ..”

http://www.absolutearts.com/artsnews/2002/02/18/29661.html

“Ranging from photography-based pictures to gestural abstraction, Richter’s diverse body of work calls into question many widely held attitudes about the inherent importance of stylistic consistency, the organic evolution of individual artistic sensibility, the spontaneous nature of creativity, and the relationship of technological means and mass media imagery to traditional studio methods and formats. However, while many contemporary post-modernists have explored these issues by circumventing or dismissing painting as a viable artistic option, Richter has challenged painting to meet the demands posed by new forms of conceptual art.”

My gestural related painting is of two minds; intellectual and emotional. Intellectual in the sense that the structures sometimes are intellectually invented as parody or appropriations of my past work and the work of other gestural oriented ae painters. Emotional in the sense that these structures are invented as purist-automatism-chance structures referencing only themselves at the moment they are made.

My work; me; them; ---Seen together, these works call into question such widely held assumptions as the importance of stylistic consistency, individual artistic sensibility, and spontaneous creativity. They also explore the impact of technology and media imagery on the traditional methods and formats of painting.

http://www.cultureflux.com/April03/richter.html

"You see, Richter doesn't fit the formula for success that many art curators and influential critics and other art powers-that-be have carefully crafted in the rarefied atmospheres of the upper echelon of the art world. In fact, Richter breaks every "rule" that is imposed on 18-year-old art students and then hammered home in reviews and lectures by many contemporary art critics and curators. Rules like "you better have your own recognizable style" or "only new is good" and the oddest rule of all: "painting is dead!"

Just had a flash: At my MA review (University of Iowa/Iowa City; Feb 1966), the faculty committee scolded me for being too divers. They felt that my work needed to be more focused. Yikes! I had forgotten this bit of criticism of my work early on. Even then, i couldn't be pigeon holed into painting in a singular self identifying style. GREAT! OH! they also wanted me to draw and paint the human figure. They thought that this would add a sense of personalization to the work. Can you say schizophrenic? What? I just remember this event. For some reason I have completely blocked this memory from my histrionics.

9:03 AM 2/27/2008

This morning looking at googled "minimalism+sculpture". The usual suspects show up first -- Jud, Andre, and that ilk -- the blocks, cubes, plates, and all things geometry in wood and metal. Then an entry came up for Frank Stella. What about looking at a 1967 minimalist Stella next to a 2006 wire-like floor or wall sculpture. Talk about diversity and possible audience confusion! Stella through his fame diverts any idea for audience confusion. There is over the top advertising out there discussing Stella's every move. This is the stuff of celebrity. Some may also say the curse. Look at the current crop of celebrity melt-downs. Sorry to digress here. Me. I plod along in total obscurity. This is also a blessing and a curse. Can't win they say? In the end, what is your definition of "win"? I don't have one!

http://thinkingaboutart.blogs.com/art/2007/06/a_quote.html

“Warhol's "Factory" a whore House? no seriously Warhol's BEST work is the paintings he made in the first 3-5 years .The ones he painted by hand ,all those tarted up photos are just That! A little messy paint to give some color but then again if you don't have an eye you probably think the painting that just went for 70 million or so is a masterpiece... like to hear what Old Masters we a talking about ? and if you ever wondered why you couldn't quite understand why Rubens was such a great painter because you have seen some real dogs so many times ?did you know he had 5 price levels The highest price for the ones he painted and everything else is everything else As far as Sol Dem Witt Take a look at Ron Davis from the mid 60s or for that matter Frank Stella But its mostly about I don't want my art to look like a object or product AND don't you think its time for a change?AND I just wanted to cause a little trouble with the art retards And have some FUN...Peter”

Posted by: peter Reginato | Sunday, July 01, 2007 at 12:49 PM

“Well, I don't want to say Andy wasn't a "sellout" because I think he'd prefer that he was remembered that way. But I do think the Factory years were definitely some of his best. I think the "Factory" itself was a performance piece. "Power" is a desirable level to be at in one's professional career. "Power Transfer" is an even higher state. Look at the "stars" we have because of Warhol (Lou Reed, Nico, Taylor Mead, Basquiat, etc)The Large Mao paintings, the Disaster series, the movies. Also the critique of "tortured, solitary, impoverished, original" authorship. That is his legacy. The paradox of his embrace of the world as it is and his anemic, pallid persona.”

Posted by: chris lee | Sunday, July 01, 2007 at 08:21 PM

9:31 AM 2/27/2008

Enuff already. What is my point here? My point = authenticity. And this idea wraps around late 20th and early 21st century definitions attached to: Artist, Hand-Made, Factory, Art, Advertising, Money. This list has no end really. As a person who calls himself an artist, I define my self as a maker. I hand make all my stuff. I have no assistants. I prep and make everything; myself and by hand.

I question the authenticity of attributed works by these people who are called by experts and themselves, artists. This list grows every day. Here are a few suspects. In my mind these people are not artists but better defined as business men CEO's in charge of an industrial complex or manufacturing enterprise where the product/s look like art. Andy Warhol, Frank Stella, Damien Hirst, Jeff Koons, Dale Chihuly (others I am sure) -- this first set of names are people who (most of the time) advertising of their work and shows hides the fact they didn't participate in making the final product; they just signed it (maybe -- Warhol assigned this task to assistants at times). A second tier of people -- Elizabeth Murray, (plate steel sculpture guy)[I forgot name]– oh yes Richard Serra, Gerhard Ricter, Willem de Kooning late works (more I am sure, again) claim to author their work with open credit to help from assistants. I believe that any artist who is in the blue chip range has to have assistance in making the work because of the demand for it; the numbers of works needed to support the enterprise. Damned if you do and damned if you don’t????

What does this mean? In the end, who made the work? How is value attributed? When does this stuff become fraud? If I pay a million dollars for a “Stella”, “Koons”, etc, what do I get for my money? What will be its future value? How does the real world feel about attributed art, authenticity, art? Certainly old masters that don’t hold up to being made by the master him/herself are of much, much lesser money value than authenticated works. Will this happen to Stella, Koons, Warhol (all the others listed here and all those who can’t prove authorship of self)? I think the answer is yes; now and in the future. These questions are already being asked. Proof is being challenged in the courts over authenticity of works by Chihully and Warhol, even some recently found Jackson Pollock paintings; recent paint analysis proved them to be fakes because the paint on these things was developed after Pollack’s death. Just goes to prove that money counts in the art world over the art itself and the artist’s who make it.

AE and Automatism

D:\artstatements\aeandautomatism.txt

1:45 AM 9/15/2007

AE and Automatism

I have always wanted to work within the classic American Abstract Expressionist School of painting since I can remember. When I first started to study art, I was immediately attracted to painters working this way. I fumbled around with other approaches, but when I finally did hit my stride in AE, I was elated. This was 1963 or there abouts.

Working within this tradition is difficult because it is easy to fall under the spell of one artist or another. My first giant as an influence was Hans Hofmann. Then came Philip Guston. I tried to merge these two and come out somewhere along my own road. I kinda succeeded toward the late 1960’s, then I got trapped into believing what I read at the time. This kind of painting was dead. Of course the POP folk were now established and the minimalists were also underway. What did I do? I went another course and worked with the figure in an abstracted realist way in drawing, brush paintings and sprayed paintings. This lasted from 1969 to 1973. I tired of this approach and went back to AE. I have never really strayed since. Oh, I worked on a program of abstracted seascapes from 1981 to 1987. In late 1987 I finally came back to AE and have been here one way or the other since. Oh, again, I strayed into geometric abstraction from 2004 to September 2006. Then I came back again to AE and automatism with a focus on non-gesture [as an intellectual insert], paint pouring, paint manipulation with knives and scrapers of various sizes, monoprints from polyethylene plates of various sizes, paint transfer using waxed papers and similar impregnated papers as transfer platforms.

All of my AE work has involved strong use of Automatism. Some of my first solution ideas and moves involved intellectual structures; painting moves and ideas out of my past and their deliberate use in a paining or a conscious choice to use a structure borrowed from another artist or my own past. Some of my first solution ideas arise from pure improvisation. Improvisation in its pure form is the most exciting process for me when it works, and the most horrifying when it fails. At the moment I am enjoying a new found trust in my ability to carry out first solution ideas; locate the love areas and destroy them –paint them out for the good of the project’s forward progress. Over the years trying to save the love areas (those ares in a painting you just love because they are juicy or something) –trying to save them, for me, breeds anxiety and ultimate failure whentry to solve the rest of the painting around the love area [francis bacon audio interview on the subject of destroying paintings]. Francis Bacon speaks to this destruction eloquently in a BBC interview with ?????. So, saving the love area means the painting will fail. I have experienced this at the rate of 100% failure. Now, I get rid of the love area immediately and move on. How exhilarating. I think the new paintings on paper, wood and canvas are much more exciting because I no longer try to save the love areas.

In the end, I still want to continue the AE movement in painting. I don’t buy into the current thinking that this approach to painting is dead. It comes in and out of fashion commercially. But there are many, many painters who continue to work in this way. I find the AE approach still alive and full of unexplored territory. I continue to take this road because the road still offers unseen vistas as I travel it.

funny thing, there is some renewed interest in writing on abstraction. ARTnews April 2007 issue.

Before closing, my brand of abstraction is non-objective abstraction. There is no physical references in my painting. Otherwise, abstract painting can deal with any subject the artist wants to engage from realism to non-objectivity. All abstract painting in any of its forms is subjective and reflects the personality of its maker.

dpn

________
addendum

I remember in graduate school how horrified fellow students and some faculty were about my interest in paint and paint application processes considered as legitimate subject matter for painting. Why not? Paintings are paint. Even at their most realistic in imaging, they are still paint on a flat surface. So to me, in 1964, paint and paint application was a legitimate subject matter for making paintings; exploring the painting process as subject was legitimate. It is even more focused and part of my painting experience today – 44 years later. Egad, how time flies???!!!!

______________
to be continued

base aesthetic/philosophy

D:\artstatements\thewayiworkoctober2007.txt

1:30 AM 10/8/2007

The way I work October 2007; updated January 2008.

Base aesthetic/philosophy: Classic American Abstract Expressionism.

Present focus: Automatism practice from as pure an interpretation as possible.

Medium: acrylic polymer

Support/s: Cotton duck canvas, paper, various woods, linen, plastics

size: canvas [4" x 4" to 72" long side]; paper [4x4 to 17x34]; wood [cut from 1x6, 2x6 and up; various plywoods; found woods]

Tools: Palette knives, drywall scrapers and knives, polyethylene plastic sheets as print plates and edges as scrapers/squeegees, cardboard edges as squeegees, wax paper as transfer (print) sheet, brushes; computer graphic/painting software

Statement: Painting results are what they are when derived from automatism and improvisation. They reflect my mood and place at the time I painted each one. The result image can change from one painting to the next throughout a studio session or the result can be a set of variations on the same theme. In the end, to me, the result is the result of many years of painting practice which is closely related to all phases and nuances of classic American Abstract Expressionism. At the onset of my art practice in 1959, I was naturally drawn to AE imaging. I practice this imaging today in 2008.

negatives = novelty, kitch, fashion…

D:\artstatements\noveltkitschandtheantisocial.txt

12:49 PM 10/16/2007

negatives: my take on some of the art now being shown in galleries everywhere?????

*****
novelty
kitsch
fashion [not fashion as fashion once in awhile breeds some very serious new art]
shock for shock
anti social
sexual
isms [fem, fag, etc]
cult
just to be different
no message
narrative [for me this is a no no; I don't respond well to narrative visual art]
telling hermetic stories — embarrassing to those who are not part of the joke
mannered historical ref art
bad art that shows a struggle is OK
glorified amateur conceptual and technical = embarrassment
political art = religious art = propaganda = scary = horrifying = politics = loss of freedom
film/video = narrative art for the most part
non-narrative video and film is ok; should add to this― music
music = abstract = pure = probs to achieve in visual art = worth while involvement

2:34 AM 10/18/2007

The clever, glitchy, shocky, “I love me”, psychedelic druggy art only scratches surfaces. On the whole the work is or lies only on a surface; not deep in concept and often technically shallow. In many ways you have to be a clever, glitchy, shocky, “I love me”, psychedelic druggy person to get it! Yes?

2:47 AM 10/18/2007

no stories. no drama. just paintin my music and lettin it all hang out naturally. lettin ma muse run free. lettin one moment in painting lead to another moment in painting and allowing it to unfold according to its own need and requirement. me, I am just a medium too. paint and me are the same stuff. havin fun. not tryin to impress anybody, just doin ma thing. enjoying my time. working alone in da studio. I am my own most enchanted listener. self arguments define painting sometimes. why not?

Duchamp is a fraud

D:\artstatements\truenew.txt

12:39 PM 10/18/2007

Duchamp is a fraud

Art. We gotta have boundaries. Art isn’t art because mr. x says the elements he/she puts together is art. In order for elements to become art they must meet some commonly agreed to definitions and defined criteria of what makes, painting say, a painting and not just a wiping of a brush. Hmmmmmmmm???? My argument just died!

Uh oooooh????? Art does come out of redefining elements. This is how the new is born. So — education is required for some of us to understand the hermetics of the new. Those of us who are engaged in the old which once was new and are trying to create a new out of this old need to be educated about the new elements and their combinations to make what could be defined as the true new now going on.

So — by familiarizing one self with the elements of this new, we begin to understand what the new artist is establishing in this new art.

In the end, the more education one can garner, the better informed one is (this is a truth for all levels of life and life’s little daily encounters). It all boils down to I like or I don’t like and we either move on or get fascinated to the level of deep engagement. That’s life!

The good new (good = personal value judgment and is very much an arguable element) requires the new artist to have a vision and the art thus forms a path revealing the struggle to achieve the vision. I say struggle because struggle reveals a commitment (personal value judgment here). Again we (I) can agree with the vision, misunderstand the vision, hate the vision, like the vision, be indifferent to the vision, yada yada the vision.

Is it all about vision? Is it about seeing? Is it about revealing a position that is personal? Yada yada?

Then there is the moral issues and honesty. For me, whatever form the new requires and an artist commits to this form and the new, there must be honesty involvement. Otherwise there exists something in this activity that becomes false and suspect. We as people feel dishonesty and/or honesty from deep within our gut. We know it to be honest or dishonest at the basic non-verbalness of our being. This is a truth in art.