Once upon a time the academic tradition had a strangle-hold on the 'art world'. Rules were applied to every type of artistic expression (Though one could debate that works of the time were more like regurgitation of old rules rather than a form of self-expression. How can you express yourself when rules apply?).If one were to break these rules he would be considered unskilled, untalented, or the Devil himself.
Eventually there was a clash between those who followed the academic tradition and those who broke free from the mold in order to create modern works of art. In the end we find ourselves in a world that is mostly tolerant of all forms of art.
The early experimental artists had an uphill battle against a highly structured ideology of how art was supposed to be applied. These free spirits risked being beaten in the street, locked away for charges of insanity, or ostracized from their communities.
In a sense, these New Masters made the way for all of us who create today. However, there are still artists devoted to the academic tradition (Nothing wrong with that.) and it would seem that some of them are just as narrow-minded as their forefathers (Big problem with that.).
In my opinion, the best example of this can be found on the Art Renewal Center (ARC) website. You can observe the site here: http://www.artrenewal.org/
According to the fundamentalist academic traditionalists of this site one is not an artist unless he or she creates art with the discipline of the academic tradition. Everyone else is some form of parasite that has plagued 'their' art for several decades and should be stamped out.
One controversial feature on the site is the 'ARC Philosophy', a scathing manifesto of artistic hate written by Fred Ross, Chairman of the Art Renewal Center. The text reads like the paranoid ranting of a madman (Or am I just brainwashed?).
On Modern art as freedom of expression:
"Freedom of expression? Ironically, this so-called "freedom" as embodied in Modernism, rather than a form of "expression" in truth became a form of "suppression" and "oppression." Modernism as we know it, ultimately became the most oppressive and restrictive system of thought in all of art history." - Fred Ross
On art education:
"Our children, going supposedly to the finest universities in the world, being taught by professors with Bachelors or Arts, Masters of Arts, Masters of Fine Arts, Masters of Art Education ... even Doctoral degrees, our children instead have been subjected to methodical brain-washing and taught to deny the evidence of their own senses." - Fred Ross
On what modern artists discovered:
"Ladies and gentleman, they proved ... amazing, incredible, and fantastic as it may seem, they proved that the canvas was flat ... flat and very thin ... skinny ... indeed, not even shallow, lacking any depth or meaning whatsoever." -Fred Ross
On the Old Masters:
"And, as far as holding our works up to the old masters, that's what we want to have happen. If we are to accomplish things of true merit and excellence, we must germinate and nurture great masters in the next millennium, too."-Fred Ross
On what a work of art is:
"Just because something causes you to have a feeling of aesthetic beauty does not make it a work of art." -Fred Ross
On abstract art:
"The usual description of a modern "abstract" painting is that it is "a painting about paint itself". Its subject matter is paint, or the formal principles of painting. The first claim is nonsensical: saying a painting is about paint is like saying a poem is about the alphabet. A poem uses the alphabet to represent words, which can in turn be used to convey knowledge or express ideas. The second claim is just as banal. A painting that is "about" its formal principles is, again, like a poem that is about rhyme, about onomatopoeia, or about iambic pentameter. In other words, it is art as a jigsaw puzzle of the lowest order."-Fred Ross
On abstract artists:
"The people who are splashing paint on a canvas in pretty patterns, or brushing it on in aesthetically pleasing color combinations, are not doing anything abstract. They are merely depositing little tangible blobs of paint that do not stand in for anything at all."- Fred Ross
On why modern art is accepted today:
"Let me state in the strongest possible terms that the art history textbooks since the middle of this century are filled with nothing but distortions, half truths and out and out lies in their description of this era. They have failed in their responsibility as historians to report the truth of what occurred as objectively as possible. These texts amount to no less than propaganda brochures for modern art."-Fred Ross
ARC claims that over 200,000 people have viewed the text and they hope that professors and students will read it and be inspired to return to the academic tradition.
Had enough? I have. However, I would suggest that you all read the 'ARC philosophy' just to get an idea of how things once were for non-traditional artists as far as pure hate for their work is concerned.
The negative remarks that Mr. Ross spews upon his website is a dull reflection of the hostility academic traditionalist and their supporters once had for new art of any kind. Most of them became angry over the slightest changes throughout art history.
Never forget that the academic traditionalists were once the majority. However, society changed and with it art changed. In my view the public changed this. The art you see today is the art of the people. What you can do with your brush is no longer dictated by religion or a select few who are in power. It is no longer the art of governments and the wealthy (though they may be the only ones who can afford some of it. ;p )
How can Mr. Ross say that modern artist and their supporters are oppressing academic traditionalists? Do you see people who try to paint like Rembrandt locked up in an insane asylum? (Though it would make a great story.). Do you see them beaten out of town for creating their vision of art? He is naive for even trying to compare it!
How can he say that modern art is nothing more than propaganda? When it is a fact that artists of the past created propaganda for royalty and the church. They were puppets. (I will even go as far as to say that many of the Old Masters were puppets). In a sense, what they were allowed to paint was controlled by who was in charge at the time or who paid the highest fee. Does that sound like artistic expression to you?
Think about it. The religions and leaders that have control in the United States and Europe today may try to censor our work, but they have not been able to do away with it all together. Even Hitler failed at this! Why? Because of the people.
People today have more power than the people who lived when Mr. Ross's heroes were still alive. Thus, the art that is held in high regard today is the art of the people. It is the voice of the people. The public decides what is good art. Perhaps Mr. Ross would not come off so paranoid if he would simply accept this fact.
The state of art today has nothing to do with what the Old Masters might have thought. I appreciate their work, but aside from that they have no rule over what I do as an artist today. (I do sketch from live models, but that is for my own study.) I prefer to call them Old Artists, because that is what they are. They are gone, we are here. True, art today captures the same emotions that the Old Artists embraced, but that is dictated by the human condition. Nothing more. (Artist today convey it in ways that are more pure to the human condition in the sense that their creations do not have to follow a guideline.)
It seems to me that art reflects the society in which the art was created. Art may have been more structured/strict with rules in the past, but so were the governments and way of life of those times. Today, many of us live in governments that are, for the most part, free (compared to the rulers of the past). Thus, our art reflects that? True?
It is all about sociology and the plight of the people. We have seen what happens when a modern governments tries to enforce strict rule over their people. For example, modern artists in Germany were ordered to no longer create 'degenerate art' during Hitler's rise to power. Many switched to a more traditional style of work while creating modern works in secret. Those who continued to create modern art were kicked out of the country, imprisoned, or executed. What does this tell us? More often than not, if the people are oppressed, art is oppressed.
I'll hold my tongue as to where Mr. Ross should move in order to be surrounded by the type of art that he holds dear. There are a few 'good' choices. However, there are more rules to follow as to how art can be created depending on how strict the government is. (Some governments do not allow artists to depict the human form at all.) I wonder if Mr. Ross would accept that?
I would not want to live in a society that embraces the academic tradition over all other forms of art. I know what the implications of that are. In my opinion, Mr. Ross and his supporters are not victims. They are fools.
Take care, Stay true
Brian Sherwin
Friday, October 13, 2006
Thursday, October 12, 2006
Myartspace.com Global Directory
Don't forget to utilize this wonderful networking tool. Add yourself today! ;p
http://globaldirectory.myartspace.com/index.html
http://globaldirectory.myartspace.com/index.html
Monday, October 09, 2006
Art Space Talk: Gareth Botha
Gareth Botha is a young, skilled, and determined digital artist who has gained much acclaim over his recent cover art for Seether (http://www.seether.com/home.asp).Mr. Botha's work can be observed in practically any music store across the United States since the release of Seether's album 'Karma and Effect'. His provocative digital art is eye-catching, to say the least. I'm certain that his success will continue in the near future.
When I first discovered Mr. Botha's art (a few months before the 'Karma and Effect' release) I thought that I was observing work by H.R. Giger. That reveals the depth of Mr. Botha's skill and talent as a digital artist. I can see his work taking many directions in the future.
In my opinion, Mr. Botha's work seems to capture the essence of the struggle between nature and technology. Gareth combines these conflicting forces in a manner that reflects the struggle that we all share between nature and the technological world that we find ourselves in. I find elements of science fiction and aspects of the cyberpunk genre within the context of his images. His work captures a sense of longing for what humankind once had... now perverted by our own creations.
I recently contacted Mr. Botha for an interview. The following text will give you insight into the world of this young artist:
Q. Could you talk a little about your work for Seether. How has it helped your career? How did you feel when you discovered that they accepted your work?
A. "Naturally, after being approached by seether's agent, my initial reaction was to believe that the offer was too good to be true. I suppose it wasn't until I began seeing my artwork on television (commercials on mtv, vh1, comedy central, etc) and on the "top 10" shelves of music stores that I realized the extent of the exposure that one sale had aquired for me. the number of daily hits on my website skyrocketed, and I suddenly began receiving large amounts of emails commenting on my work, and often looking to purchase prints, etc. I even had one guy from the U.K. email me to tell me that he had one of my artworks tattooed across his entire back, which was naturally a huge compliment to me. I was fortunate enough to actually meet up with the band after a show of theirs here in atlanta, and drink a couple beers with them in their tour bus, which was definitely a fun experience."
Q. When did you first discover that art would be an important part of your adult life?
A. "Growing up, I never really had much of an interest in pursuing art. I found art to be beautiful, and I was impressed by those with artistic talent, but I never saw it as a path that I might personally take in my life.
I've always been a shy person, and very withdrawn, so it is only logical that I discovered quite by accident that artistic expressions allowed me to confront my feelings and emotions and portray them to the world better than I ever could verbally."
Q. Could you talk a little about your work for Seether. How has it helped your career? How did you feel when you discovered that they accepted your work?
A. "Naturally, after being approached by seether's agent, my initial reaction was to believe that the offer was too good to be true. I suppose it wasn't until I began seeing my artwork on television (commercials on mtv, vh1, comedy central, etc) and on the "top 10" shelves of music stores that I realized the extent of the exposure that one sale had aquired for me. the number of daily hits on my website skyrocketed, and I suddenly began receiving large amounts of emails commenting on my work, and often looking to purchase prints, etc. I even had one guy from the U.K. email me to tell me that he had one of my artworks tattooed across his entire back, which was naturally a huge compliment to me. I was fortunate enough to actually meet up with the band after a show of theirs here in atlanta, and drink a couple beers with them in their tour bus, which was definitely a fun experience."
Q. When did you first discover that art would be an important part of your adult life?
A. "Growing up, I never really had much of an interest in pursuing art. I found art to be beautiful, and I was impressed by those with artistic talent, but I never saw it as a path that I might personally take in my life.
I've always been a shy person, and very withdrawn, so it is only logical that I discovered quite by accident that artistic expressions allowed me to confront my feelings and emotions and portray them to the world better than I ever could verbally."
Q. How has creating art shaped you professionally and personally?A. "On a personal level, I find that art helps me to be more aware of myself as an individual. being an artist helps to gain an understanding of one's self. through art, I've also come to deeply appreciate the beauty of individuality, which lends itself well to establishing an acceptance of myself, my flaws, my strengths, etc. as an art student, I am constantly surrounded by the creative energy of inspired and motivated people. this helps keep me on my toes, so to speak, in friendly competitive creativity. On a professional level, art has essentially shaped the beginning of my career, which hopefully will continue into the future."
Q. How has society influenced your art? Are there any social implications in your art?
A. "I try to keep my art more intimate, personal to me specifcally, but I would be naive to say that it's uninfluenced by society. as an individual, I am a product of society, and therefore its likely as much a part of my work as it is a part of me."
Q. What are your artistic influences? Has anyone inspired you?
A. "Much of my work acts as an acknowledgement of things that are insignificant, or not particularly "beautiful" -- sticks, weeds, bugs, etc. I guess you could say that i am influenced by the things that would normally go unnoticed."
Q. Tell me a little about your background. Are your past experiences reflected in the work you do today? If so, how?
A. "I grew up in Johannesburg, South Africa -- a city riddled with poverty, violence, and prejudice. Having endured a certain degree of unpleasant experience with such a negative environment, I moved to the united states with my family at the age of fourteen. although I have never had any regrets about this change of environments, I believe the sense of loneliness and solitude present in much of my work can be credited to the loss of the only way of life I knew at such an early age. I also believe that it made me a more independent person.
I had my first interests in art in high school, where i was pursuing the field of technical drawing and draftsmanship, looking to use my drawing skills in a marketable fashion. however, I desperately sought more creativity, which led me to my early pursuits in the fields of graphic design and digital art."Q. If you could pinpoint the characteristics of people who collect your art, what would they be?
A. "I find that the people who are interested in my work are typically fascinated and bewildered by, and can see beauty in, things and ideas that are not traditionally considered beautiful. A reasonable assumption would be that they are not the faint hearted type, to be able to appreciate the often disturbing graphic nature of my work"
Q. Where do you see your art in 10 years? What are your plans?
A. "That's a very difficult question to answer. I find that my art has changed and evolved so much over the past four or five years that I have trouble guessing where it would be next month. although I would like for my art to continue growing, I would also like for it to remain true to its "roots" so to speak, and not venture too far from my style. As for my future plans, I'd like to continue working for the music industry, since digital art lends itself so well to that field."
Q. Discuss one of your pieces. What were you thinking when you created it? What is your artistic process?
A. "This ('Transmuted'.Image below.), I believe, is one of my favorite works that I've done thus far, which is odd, considering it was created in a very different manner than how I normally work. In all honesty, this image itself was two years in the making. the imagery was based on a dream I had two years prior. I maintain to this day that it was the most vividly beautiful dream I've ever had (the image reflects only a small portion of it).
It started out as an initial idea in my mind as the days, weeks, and months went by where I couldn't get the imagery out of my head. eventually, I decided to try to recreate it as accurately as possible. After many failed attempts, I decided to put it aside as a "long term project." eventually I had to force myself to work on it, balancing my fear of the memory fading with time with my worry of not accurately portraying what i remembered."
A. "This ('Transmuted'.Image below.), I believe, is one of my favorite works that I've done thus far, which is odd, considering it was created in a very different manner than how I normally work. In all honesty, this image itself was two years in the making. the imagery was based on a dream I had two years prior. I maintain to this day that it was the most vividly beautiful dream I've ever had (the image reflects only a small portion of it).
It started out as an initial idea in my mind as the days, weeks, and months went by where I couldn't get the imagery out of my head. eventually, I decided to try to recreate it as accurately as possible. After many failed attempts, I decided to put it aside as a "long term project." eventually I had to force myself to work on it, balancing my fear of the memory fading with time with my worry of not accurately portraying what i remembered."
Q. Why did you choose the medium that you use?A. "Although I have been trained in traditional mediums (graphite, charcoal, oil, etc), I choose to work digitally because of the freedom it gives me. Being able to quickly fix mistakes means I am also able to quickly experiment and try new things. This also lets me tweak my work to a higher degree of customization before its finished."
Q. Do you have a degree or do you plan to attend school for art?A. "I am currently working on my bachelor's degree in fine arts, and will most likely be attempting a masters degree after that."
Q. Where can we see more of your art? Are you involved with other websites? Do you have a personal website?
A. "I keep most of my art on my personal website, http://www.cleanwaterart.com/ "
Q. Are you represented by a gallery? If not, do you want to be?
A. "Currently, no, although I have been discussing the possibilities with a gallery in Tennessee recently. I am always interested in such opportunities."
Q. How many pieces have you sold in your career?
A. "Thus far, I've directly sold around 25 to 30 artworks. However, my art has been on the album covers, tshirts, posters, etc, of hundreds of thousands of other products. It still boggles my mind every time I accidentally glance over a rack of cd's at a music store and catch a glimpse of my artwork."
Q. Finally, why do you create art?
A. "I create art, because honestly, I can't see myself doing anything else."
Gareth is currently preparing his myartspace.com gallery. I will post where you can find his art on the site once he is finished. I hope you have enjoyed learning about Mr. Botha and his digital art. Feel free to comment on his work.
Take care, Stay True,
Brian Sherwin
A. "I keep most of my art on my personal website, http://www.cleanwaterart.com/ "
Q. Are you represented by a gallery? If not, do you want to be?
A. "Currently, no, although I have been discussing the possibilities with a gallery in Tennessee recently. I am always interested in such opportunities."
Q. How many pieces have you sold in your career?
A. "Thus far, I've directly sold around 25 to 30 artworks. However, my art has been on the album covers, tshirts, posters, etc, of hundreds of thousands of other products. It still boggles my mind every time I accidentally glance over a rack of cd's at a music store and catch a glimpse of my artwork."
Q. Finally, why do you create art?
A. "I create art, because honestly, I can't see myself doing anything else."
Gareth is currently preparing his myartspace.com gallery. I will post where you can find his art on the site once he is finished. I hope you have enjoyed learning about Mr. Botha and his digital art. Feel free to comment on his work.
Take care, Stay True,
Brian Sherwin
Art Space Talk: Ralph Turturro
I recently interviewed artist Ralph Turturro. I found Mr. Turturro's abstract paintings to be very expressive in nature. He appears to make marks upon the canvas freely. Such precision reveals the experience and seriousness he has for working in this style of painting. His expressive brushwork and use of color have much to reveal to the trained eye. In his paintings I observe a form of 'controlled chaos' that is very alluring. Especially when one places it within the emotional context of society.
Great joy and struggle can be discovered in Mr. Turturro's paintings. In my opinion, one can find great social insight after looking beyond the surface of his paintings. The paintings seem to capture the basics of sadness, happiness, regret, acceptance...etc...
In his work I can see Jackson Pollock, Willem de Koonig, and Cy Twombly staring back at me.
Q. When did you first discover that art would be an important part of your adult life?
A. "I believe it was always present in me and I look back at my life often enough to see that it has been a series of stages of different kinds of sleep walking. I wake from each one a little more aware but it is not until the next time I wake that I realize I had been sleeping up till that point. So I think it might have been the moment after the sleepwalk of college when I had to face the reality of a work a day world that I realized that even though I would have to plunge into this world it would only be to survive and pay the piper but that there was nothing else I could be other than an artist in this life."
A. "I believe it was always present in me and I look back at my life often enough to see that it has been a series of stages of different kinds of sleep walking. I wake from each one a little more aware but it is not until the next time I wake that I realize I had been sleeping up till that point. So I think it might have been the moment after the sleepwalk of college when I had to face the reality of a work a day world that I realized that even though I would have to plunge into this world it would only be to survive and pay the piper but that there was nothing else I could be other than an artist in this life."
Q. How has society influenced your art? Are there any social implications in your art?
A. "Society at large is in there. Yes. My work is my response to the inside and out of my experiences, thoughts, ideas, feelings as i move through this life and time. If you are perceptive you can find society in there. But I do not use any specific or literal societal references except some of my titles. My Tiltes are meant to be poetic. have a cadence, rhythm, sound that stops you, makes you think. They are most often lose associations with the the visuals of the painting and the current book I am reading or music or news program I am listening to. In this way society is always somewhere in my work. The first 4 paintings I painted after 9/11 were titled - 'Zero Gravity' - 'Planes' - 'Objects of Mass' and 'Fall'....You tell me.. might society be in there?"
Q. What are your artistic influences? Has anyone inspired you?
A. "Everyone influences me. My kids, my students, the man on the street that is kind, that is mean. It all goes into the soup, into the process of forgetting everything when you begin and trusting that all that is real and true will be discovered as you work...if you work...
New York school - Abstract _expression - Dada - Cubism - Surealism....Theories of Relativity...are schools of thinking that influence me. Michelangelo, Caravaggio, van Gogh, Matisse, Kandinsky, Pollack, de Kooning, Rothko, Tapies, Twombly, Basquiat, Walker, kiefer...all visual influences... "
A. "Society at large is in there. Yes. My work is my response to the inside and out of my experiences, thoughts, ideas, feelings as i move through this life and time. If you are perceptive you can find society in there. But I do not use any specific or literal societal references except some of my titles. My Tiltes are meant to be poetic. have a cadence, rhythm, sound that stops you, makes you think. They are most often lose associations with the the visuals of the painting and the current book I am reading or music or news program I am listening to. In this way society is always somewhere in my work. The first 4 paintings I painted after 9/11 were titled - 'Zero Gravity' - 'Planes' - 'Objects of Mass' and 'Fall'....You tell me.. might society be in there?"
Q. What are your artistic influences? Has anyone inspired you?
A. "Everyone influences me. My kids, my students, the man on the street that is kind, that is mean. It all goes into the soup, into the process of forgetting everything when you begin and trusting that all that is real and true will be discovered as you work...if you work...
New York school - Abstract _expression - Dada - Cubism - Surealism....Theories of Relativity...are schools of thinking that influence me. Michelangelo, Caravaggio, van Gogh, Matisse, Kandinsky, Pollack, de Kooning, Rothko, Tapies, Twombly, Basquiat, Walker, kiefer...all visual influences... "
Q. Tell me a little about your background. Are your past experiences reflected in the work you do today? If so, how?
A. "I was born in New York, 49years ago, my two earliest memories are - first at 2 yrs. of age; I would pull all the detergents out from under the kitchen sink and make sculptured pies on the living room floor - the second is of a 4 yr. old boy, standing alone in a long empty driveway, watching cats walk in and out of the backyard; the colors were: green - gray, warm black and a very intense Dutch Yellow Light.
I come from a family of artists. My Grandfather painted their living room with murals of Italy. My Uncle Domenick was a painter and a big influence to me. My cousin Joe drives a truck by day and paints at night. My father and uncles are master carpenters. That love Opera and movies. The rest of my family that aren't actors never talk to each other because of one emotional thing or another. Yes My family and past experiences are in there too...just as is everything conscious and unconscious that make up the present day me."
Q. What are you thinking when you create?
A. "The objectives in my work are always the same: to recognize the things that continue to evolve and thrill me in this life such as: balance and imbalance, persisting ambiguities, understatement, open spaces, unresolved endings, continuous questioning, the truths in contradiction, palimpsests, illegible markings, graffiti, old, re-varnished wooden school desks, active, rusting surfaces, worn away names/dates on grave stones, old ships, walls, etc.; to harness these things in the energy of the paint and to trust then that the work expresses who I am and where I am at present."
Q. Why do you create art?
A. "Because it is there waiting for me."
Q. Do you have an upcoming exhibit? If so, where and when?
A. "UP COMING ONE PERSON SHOWNEXT GALLERY at MCNY75 VARICK/ONE HUDSON SQUARE(between Watts and Canal)12TH FL. , N.Y.C. 10013
Less SaidDiscovering the Power of Visual Writing and Texture
NEW PAINTINGS by RALPH TURTURRO
GALLERY HOURSM - SAT. 9AM - 8PMFor Further Info - rtmac57123@yahoo.com607-423-3476 or fran@metropolitan.edu212-343-1234 x - 2209"
A. "I was born in New York, 49years ago, my two earliest memories are - first at 2 yrs. of age; I would pull all the detergents out from under the kitchen sink and make sculptured pies on the living room floor - the second is of a 4 yr. old boy, standing alone in a long empty driveway, watching cats walk in and out of the backyard; the colors were: green - gray, warm black and a very intense Dutch Yellow Light.
I come from a family of artists. My Grandfather painted their living room with murals of Italy. My Uncle Domenick was a painter and a big influence to me. My cousin Joe drives a truck by day and paints at night. My father and uncles are master carpenters. That love Opera and movies. The rest of my family that aren't actors never talk to each other because of one emotional thing or another. Yes My family and past experiences are in there too...just as is everything conscious and unconscious that make up the present day me."
Q. What are you thinking when you create?
A. "The objectives in my work are always the same: to recognize the things that continue to evolve and thrill me in this life such as: balance and imbalance, persisting ambiguities, understatement, open spaces, unresolved endings, continuous questioning, the truths in contradiction, palimpsests, illegible markings, graffiti, old, re-varnished wooden school desks, active, rusting surfaces, worn away names/dates on grave stones, old ships, walls, etc.; to harness these things in the energy of the paint and to trust then that the work expresses who I am and where I am at present."
Q. What is your artistic process?
A. "Painting is something that continues to fill me with wonder and awe. It is a process not unlike like being an archeologist discovering found objects that send you reeling back and forth through time. Everyday it brings you closer to your mortality; demands that you face yourself for better or for worse; teaches you to accept and cherish loss as an indelible element of time; the unmitigated truth of it as well as its horror and its beauty."
Q. Do you have a degree or do you plan to attend school for art?
A. "I have several degrees. University of Wisconsin at Madison - on Football scholarship ( only badger that was an Art major) did my Masters at Pratt in Brooklyn and attended Post Graduate classes for Teaching degree at Queens and Brooklyn College respectively. I have been painting for 30 years."
Q. Where can we see more of your art?
A. http://www.ralphturturro.com/
http://www.chamotgallery.com/gallery/2Dart/turturro.htm
A. "Painting is something that continues to fill me with wonder and awe. It is a process not unlike like being an archeologist discovering found objects that send you reeling back and forth through time. Everyday it brings you closer to your mortality; demands that you face yourself for better or for worse; teaches you to accept and cherish loss as an indelible element of time; the unmitigated truth of it as well as its horror and its beauty."
Q. Do you have a degree or do you plan to attend school for art?
A. "I have several degrees. University of Wisconsin at Madison - on Football scholarship ( only badger that was an Art major) did my Masters at Pratt in Brooklyn and attended Post Graduate classes for Teaching degree at Queens and Brooklyn College respectively. I have been painting for 30 years."
Q. Where can we see more of your art?
A. http://www.ralphturturro.com/
http://www.chamotgallery.com/gallery/2Dart/turturro.htm
Q. Why do you create art?A. "Because it is there waiting for me."
Q. Do you have an upcoming exhibit? If so, where and when?
A. "UP COMING ONE PERSON SHOWNEXT GALLERY at MCNY75 VARICK/ONE HUDSON SQUARE(between Watts and Canal)12TH FL. , N.Y.C. 10013
Less SaidDiscovering the Power of Visual Writing and Texture
NEW PAINTINGS by RALPH TURTURRO
GALLERY HOURSM - SAT. 9AM - 8PMFor Further Info - rtmac57123@yahoo.com607-423-3476 or fran@metropolitan.edu212-343-1234 x - 2209"
I hope that you have enjoyed my interview with Ralph Turturro. To find Mr. Turturro's art simply type RTMAC below 'Find by Login Name or Name' on myartspace.com and click 'FIND'.
Take care, Stay true,
Brian Sherwin
Take care, Stay true,
Brian Sherwin
Sunday, October 08, 2006
Does Your Personality Sell Paintings?
Is the artists image just as important as the work he or she creates?
We all know of the image of the eccentric, lunatic, or brooding artist. These stereotypes are made popular in film and novels. My question is, does it pay to have a persona or to be who you are? Is your personality included in the package when you sell a piece? I've asked myself these questions before, but a recent exhibit made them fresh in my mind.
I met a painter during a large group exhibit I attended recently. I noticed her the second I entered the large exhibit room. She was talking with a group of patrons who had crowded around her work. Other artists who were exhibiting with her seemed to be shadowed by the chaotic light that sprang from the energy of her performance. Was she faking? Was it all an act? Was this real? I felt compelled to observe her display.
Her eyes seemed to be wide and wild while she laughed loudly at practically everything that was said to her by her viewers. Some of them returned her gestures while others seemed to be startled. The only pause in communication came in the form of a shy curator bumping through the crowd in order to place red stickers near the paintings that were sold. During this entire process curious observers, such as myself, remained in the artists presence. She held her audience.
This went on for over twenty minutes from the time I had entered the gallery. This artist had captivated her audience by her wild charm, eccentric nature, and provocative choice of discussion. She did all of this while making sudden movements that made her appear to have some sort of affliction. This display, along with her bright red dress, seemed to be a focal point for everyone who entered the building.
Eventually I broke from the crowd in order to observe the work of the other exhibiting artists. The rest of the exhibit seemed 'dead' compared to the area where the 'crazy woman in the bright red dress' (As one person defined her.) was still putting on an exhibit of her own. The other artists had not sold any paintings!
The other artists stood around as if they were bored or angry. A few of them ate snacks while discussing studio space and the price of materials. It was at this point that I started to ask myself about how the personality of the artist correlates with the sell of work. Do viewers expect to see a 'show of personality' along with the show of work? Did ranting and raving help the woman in red to sell her art? A number of questions popped into my mind.
The others did seem rather dull when compared to her. Most of them did not attempt to approach anyone who walked near their paintings. The few that did passed out 'business cards' instead of actually talking about their art. A livewire personality seemed to do more for the woman in red than 100 business cards could ever do.
What puzzled me the most was the fact that the woman in the red dress was not the most skilled artist present nor was she the most known. There were other artists there who had already made names for themselves in the community. Not only were they far more skilled than the woman in red, but they also had established buyers. However, their patrons flocked toward the woman in the red dress while they stood with their arms crossed.
I stood outside after the exhibit had closed with a few of my art-related friends. We discussed various art topics. The woman in red left the gallery as my friends and I conversed. She came up and listened to us for several minutes. The wild spark of personality that she had displayed during gallery hours seemed to have left her.
She did not seem to speak in the same tone. In fact, her behavior was the complete opposite of how she had been during the exhibit. She was no longer wild and loud. Instead, she seemed shy. She hardly spoke a word and her actions were very reserved.
I noticed that there were a number of discarded artist business cards on the ground as the woman in the red dress walked away. Maybe those artists should rely on their force of personality (or invent one) rather than relying on tiny slips of paper to sell their art.
Do you think this artist was putting on a 'show' in order to attract potential buyers? After all, she no longer made the sudden movements or wild open stares when she talked to me outside of the exhibit. Would the other artists had sold more if they had used a 'persona' as well (If indeed she was putting on some form of act)?
How common do you think this practice is? Can you think of any well-known artists who are 'not what they seem'? Have you observed similar situations personally? Do you roleplay during your exhibits? Do you think some of the more famous artists may have put on 'fronts' as well? Does it matter? Is it just part of the creative process? Should we expect our personality and art to be sold as a combined package? Discuss.
Take care, Stay true,
Brian Sherwin
We all know of the image of the eccentric, lunatic, or brooding artist. These stereotypes are made popular in film and novels. My question is, does it pay to have a persona or to be who you are? Is your personality included in the package when you sell a piece? I've asked myself these questions before, but a recent exhibit made them fresh in my mind.
I met a painter during a large group exhibit I attended recently. I noticed her the second I entered the large exhibit room. She was talking with a group of patrons who had crowded around her work. Other artists who were exhibiting with her seemed to be shadowed by the chaotic light that sprang from the energy of her performance. Was she faking? Was it all an act? Was this real? I felt compelled to observe her display.
Her eyes seemed to be wide and wild while she laughed loudly at practically everything that was said to her by her viewers. Some of them returned her gestures while others seemed to be startled. The only pause in communication came in the form of a shy curator bumping through the crowd in order to place red stickers near the paintings that were sold. During this entire process curious observers, such as myself, remained in the artists presence. She held her audience.
This went on for over twenty minutes from the time I had entered the gallery. This artist had captivated her audience by her wild charm, eccentric nature, and provocative choice of discussion. She did all of this while making sudden movements that made her appear to have some sort of affliction. This display, along with her bright red dress, seemed to be a focal point for everyone who entered the building.
Eventually I broke from the crowd in order to observe the work of the other exhibiting artists. The rest of the exhibit seemed 'dead' compared to the area where the 'crazy woman in the bright red dress' (As one person defined her.) was still putting on an exhibit of her own. The other artists had not sold any paintings!
The other artists stood around as if they were bored or angry. A few of them ate snacks while discussing studio space and the price of materials. It was at this point that I started to ask myself about how the personality of the artist correlates with the sell of work. Do viewers expect to see a 'show of personality' along with the show of work? Did ranting and raving help the woman in red to sell her art? A number of questions popped into my mind.
The others did seem rather dull when compared to her. Most of them did not attempt to approach anyone who walked near their paintings. The few that did passed out 'business cards' instead of actually talking about their art. A livewire personality seemed to do more for the woman in red than 100 business cards could ever do.
What puzzled me the most was the fact that the woman in the red dress was not the most skilled artist present nor was she the most known. There were other artists there who had already made names for themselves in the community. Not only were they far more skilled than the woman in red, but they also had established buyers. However, their patrons flocked toward the woman in the red dress while they stood with their arms crossed.
I stood outside after the exhibit had closed with a few of my art-related friends. We discussed various art topics. The woman in red left the gallery as my friends and I conversed. She came up and listened to us for several minutes. The wild spark of personality that she had displayed during gallery hours seemed to have left her.
She did not seem to speak in the same tone. In fact, her behavior was the complete opposite of how she had been during the exhibit. She was no longer wild and loud. Instead, she seemed shy. She hardly spoke a word and her actions were very reserved.
I noticed that there were a number of discarded artist business cards on the ground as the woman in the red dress walked away. Maybe those artists should rely on their force of personality (or invent one) rather than relying on tiny slips of paper to sell their art.
Do you think this artist was putting on a 'show' in order to attract potential buyers? After all, she no longer made the sudden movements or wild open stares when she talked to me outside of the exhibit. Would the other artists had sold more if they had used a 'persona' as well (If indeed she was putting on some form of act)?
How common do you think this practice is? Can you think of any well-known artists who are 'not what they seem'? Have you observed similar situations personally? Do you roleplay during your exhibits? Do you think some of the more famous artists may have put on 'fronts' as well? Does it matter? Is it just part of the creative process? Should we expect our personality and art to be sold as a combined package? Discuss.
Take care, Stay true,
Brian Sherwin
Turner Prize Finalist for 2006
An exhibition of the Turner Prize Finalist for 2006 began on the 3rd of October. The finalist will be showing at the Tate gallery in Britain until the 14th of January. The four artists include Phil Collins, Tomma Abts, Rebecca Warren, and Mark Titchner. There's 40,000 pounds up for grabs between them, with the winner receiving 25,000 pounds. The winner will be announced on the 4th of December, 2006.
The Turner Prize is an annual prize given to a British artist who is under 50 years of age. The prize, which began in 1984, is named after the painter J.M.W Turner and is organized by the Tate. The prize remains to be one of the United Kingdom's most publicised art awards and is known for drawing a great deal of controversy. For example, Artists Damien Hirst (The Shark) and Tracey Emin (My Bed) have both been been exhibited in the past.
The Turner Prize has been opposed by British artists who agree with the views of Stuckism, an art movement that was founded in 1999 in Britain by Billy Childish and Charles Thomson to promote figurative painting in opposition to conceptual art. It has also been blasted by critics in the media.
Critic Jonathan Jones has stated that the, "Turner Prize art is based on a formula where something looks startling at first and then turns out to be expressing some kind of banal idea, which somebody will be sure to tell you about. The ideas are never important or even really ideas, more notions, like the notions in advertising. Nobody pursues them anyway, because there's nothing there to pursue."
Many feel that the Turner Prize favors a minority of artists and does not represent the 'best art' that the British art community has to offer. Some have even made the charge that the Turner Prize is corrupt with the wealth and power of famous art collectors who dictate what art is accepted.
In 2002 culture minister Kim Howells pinned the following statement to a board in a room specially-designated for visitors' comments. "If this is the best British artists can produce then British art is lost. It is cold mechanical, conceptual bullshit. Kim Howells. P.S. The attempts at conceptualisation are particularly pathetic and symptomatic of a lack of conviction" His stance was approved by the government, who saw it as a popular one.
Here are the finalist:
http://www.tate.org.uk/britain/turnerprize/2006/tommaabts.htm
http://www.tate.org.uk/britain/turnerprize/2006/philcollins.htm
http://www.tate.org.uk/britain/turnerprize/2006/marktitchner.htm
http://www.tate.org.uk/britain/turnerprize/2006/rebeccawarren.htm
It seems that the controversy over the Turner Prize will continue. What do you think about this award? What about the finalist? Is the prize nothing more than a commercial tool? Does it matter if it is?
Take care, Stay true,
Brian Sherwin
The Turner Prize is an annual prize given to a British artist who is under 50 years of age. The prize, which began in 1984, is named after the painter J.M.W Turner and is organized by the Tate. The prize remains to be one of the United Kingdom's most publicised art awards and is known for drawing a great deal of controversy. For example, Artists Damien Hirst (The Shark) and Tracey Emin (My Bed) have both been been exhibited in the past.
The Turner Prize has been opposed by British artists who agree with the views of Stuckism, an art movement that was founded in 1999 in Britain by Billy Childish and Charles Thomson to promote figurative painting in opposition to conceptual art. It has also been blasted by critics in the media.
Critic Jonathan Jones has stated that the, "Turner Prize art is based on a formula where something looks startling at first and then turns out to be expressing some kind of banal idea, which somebody will be sure to tell you about. The ideas are never important or even really ideas, more notions, like the notions in advertising. Nobody pursues them anyway, because there's nothing there to pursue."
Many feel that the Turner Prize favors a minority of artists and does not represent the 'best art' that the British art community has to offer. Some have even made the charge that the Turner Prize is corrupt with the wealth and power of famous art collectors who dictate what art is accepted.
In 2002 culture minister Kim Howells pinned the following statement to a board in a room specially-designated for visitors' comments. "If this is the best British artists can produce then British art is lost. It is cold mechanical, conceptual bullshit. Kim Howells. P.S. The attempts at conceptualisation are particularly pathetic and symptomatic of a lack of conviction" His stance was approved by the government, who saw it as a popular one.
Here are the finalist:
http://www.tate.org.uk/britain/turnerprize/2006/tommaabts.htm
http://www.tate.org.uk/britain/turnerprize/2006/philcollins.htm
http://www.tate.org.uk/britain/turnerprize/2006/marktitchner.htm
http://www.tate.org.uk/britain/turnerprize/2006/rebeccawarren.htm
It seems that the controversy over the Turner Prize will continue. What do you think about this award? What about the finalist? Is the prize nothing more than a commercial tool? Does it matter if it is?
Take care, Stay true,
Brian Sherwin
Friday, October 06, 2006
A Call to Every Artist, Art Collector, and Art Dealer
Are you represented by a gallery? Do you own or co-manage a gallery? Do you have any exhibits of your work coming in the near future? Do you have an oustanding art collection of works by aspiring artists? Would you like to have a blog entry about your gallery, exhibit, or collection? Do you have photos from recent exhibits? Contact me if you answered yes to any of these questions and would like to have an entry posted about your work, collection, or gallery. balhatain@catmacart.com
My goal is to give myartspace.com members as much exposure as possible.
Take care, Stay true,
Brian Sherwin
My goal is to give myartspace.com members as much exposure as possible.
Take care, Stay true,
Brian Sherwin
Thursday, October 05, 2006
Art Space Talk: Tadashi Terada
The interview with Tadashi Terada was an interesting experience. Translators had to be used. Learning more about this talented artist from Japan was well worth the struggle. This was Mr. Terada's response after being asked about his art. (To find Mr. Terada's art simply type Tadashi below 'Find by Login Name or Name' on myartspace.com and click 'FIND'.)
"I am not a professional artist. My present work is on Environmental Impact Assessment. I investigate nature of the four seasons.
My mind changes when I lived in the deep in the forest alone all by myself in long time. Surrounded by the forest, I feel myself getting purer and purer. Probably I think that my art was created by something powerful that I got from the place. In this process, I feel a like bulb lit up inside me every time.
"*Wood work & Digital work.
My creative foundation is wabi-sabi(the beauties of simplicity and tranquility) in Japanese arts.
The materials for my art, I collect in the autumn forests, walking my dog. My arts I have introduced here are always accidentally created with my own hands. What I feel from one twig I pick up compels me to find other parts and assemble them into my creation. Therefore, all those parts retain their own silhouettes exactly as they are.
Once my creation begins, it is finished in an amazing instant. The distinctive shapes of my materials inspire my creative desire. Perhaps the end will never ever come.
I assemble things natural into my arts. I greatly value the very shapes of those things. My creation goes along with my dialog with those materials, which just resembles "Force" of Yoda in Star Wars. It is also just like "Ki"(mind-power) in Japan, which I most treasure in my creation."
- Tadashi Terada
I found Mr. Terada's wabi-sabi gallery on myartspace.com to be of great interest. Tadashi uses his skills in woodworking to create figures that capture the essence of nature. In a sense, he allows this essence to consume him. The Wabi-Sabi figures are the byproduct of this bond between the artist and nature. They truly capture the spirt of this force.
What I enjoy most about Mr. Terada's art is that he uses aspects of his cultural heritage within the context of his work. His digital images, which can be observed in his 'arhat' gallery on myartspace.com, are a wonderful combination of the use of new technology and the rich tradition of his cultural background.
This interview reveals the lengths that the staff at myartspace.com will go to serve every artist no matter where they are from. It took several days of communication with Mr. Terada to put this interview together for our readers. I we will alway try our best! Please understand that there may be errors in the translation.
More of Mr. Terada's work can be observed at http://members.jcom.home.ne.jp/pekemaru/
Take care, Stay true,
Brian Sherwin
"I am not a professional artist. My present work is on Environmental Impact Assessment. I investigate nature of the four seasons.My mind changes when I lived in the deep in the forest alone all by myself in long time. Surrounded by the forest, I feel myself getting purer and purer. Probably I think that my art was created by something powerful that I got from the place. In this process, I feel a like bulb lit up inside me every time.
"*Wood work & Digital work.
My creative foundation is wabi-sabi(the beauties of simplicity and tranquility) in Japanese arts.
The materials for my art, I collect in the autumn forests, walking my dog. My arts I have introduced here are always accidentally created with my own hands. What I feel from one twig I pick up compels me to find other parts and assemble them into my creation. Therefore, all those parts retain their own silhouettes exactly as they are.
Once my creation begins, it is finished in an amazing instant. The distinctive shapes of my materials inspire my creative desire. Perhaps the end will never ever come.
I assemble things natural into my arts. I greatly value the very shapes of those things. My creation goes along with my dialog with those materials, which just resembles "Force" of Yoda in Star Wars. It is also just like "Ki"(mind-power) in Japan, which I most treasure in my creation."
- Tadashi Terada
I found Mr. Terada's wabi-sabi gallery on myartspace.com to be of great interest. Tadashi uses his skills in woodworking to create figures that capture the essence of nature. In a sense, he allows this essence to consume him. The Wabi-Sabi figures are the byproduct of this bond between the artist and nature. They truly capture the spirt of this force.
What I enjoy most about Mr. Terada's art is that he uses aspects of his cultural heritage within the context of his work. His digital images, which can be observed in his 'arhat' gallery on myartspace.com, are a wonderful combination of the use of new technology and the rich tradition of his cultural background.
This interview reveals the lengths that the staff at myartspace.com will go to serve every artist no matter where they are from. It took several days of communication with Mr. Terada to put this interview together for our readers. I we will alway try our best! Please understand that there may be errors in the translation.
More of Mr. Terada's work can be observed at http://members.jcom.home.ne.jp/pekemaru/
Take care, Stay true,
Brian Sherwin
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
Paintings by Adolf Hitler Auctioned
An auction of paintings attributed to the German dictator Adolf Hitler was recently held. Bidders from around the world entered the Jefferys auctioneer's premises in Cornwall in the hopes of purchasing one of the pieces. The paintings, which were found in an attic, sold for very high prices. (21 paintings were sold.)
There has been much controversy over the issue of Adolf Hitler and his art. Some feel that art played a major role in his bitterness (due to his failure to 'make it' as an artist himself.)and that it helped him to plan his rise to power. Others feel that his art took a back-burner and that it did not play a role in the decisions he made during his rule over Germany. However, auctions of his work are not the only source of this debate.
A firestorm of debate occured when the movie "Max" (2002) was released in theatres. The movie was loosely based on Hitlers struggle as an aspiring artist and touted the slogan 'Art + Politics = Power'. The film depicted Hitler in a very 'human' manner which caused the film to recieve much critisim since history views him as a 'monster'.
Many feared that people would have sympathy for Hitler upon viewing the film. Thus, the debate over the importance of his art, in regards to his actions, was further fueled.
I recently contacted Dr. Robert Kunath, a professor of history, about this very issue. The following is some highlights of that discussion. Dr. Kunath tried to explain how Hitler's views on art may have played a role in how he designed his rule.
"I've done a good deal of work on the subject of how the Nazis understood art. Hitler's own art was pretty mediocre and the interest in it today is because he produced it, not because it is regarded as especially impressive. Indeed, Hitler himself said that his artistic talent really wasn't in painting, but rather in architecture.
Hitler's architecture was gargantuan, and not to the modern taste, but he did have a certain talent for organizing shapes in space. The best evidence of that is the massive Nazi rallies, which Hitler planned meticulously. In that sense, I think Hitler did see art as a vital force in politics.
The first major building project begun after Hitler came to power was the "House of German Art" in Munich, and the speech he gave there lays out an artistic program in some detail. There was also the Nazi's sustained effort to wipe out modern art in Germany.
Hitler's primary political vision was based in racism, but he also believed that the best proof of racial superiority was cultural excellence. Hitler defined that cultural excellence by the standards of the past, so he wanted buildings in the Greco-Roman style, and paintings following in the tradition of the old masters and the 19th century genre painters.
There's a pretty good documentary about art in Hitler's political world-view: it's called "The Architecture of Doom" and it makes some very interesting connections between Hitler's vision of art and his plans for conquest and mass murder. I think the movie (Max) is wrong to suggest that art was a driving force of Hitler's ideology--Darwinian racism was the foundation--but art was an important component.
One book that you might find useful on this subject is Frederick Spotts' _Hitler and the Power of Aesthetics_, which considers both Hitler's art and his views on the power of art in politics and society. There's also a very good article by O. K. Werckmeister called _Hitler the Artist_ in the magazine _Critical Inquiry_ . There has also been a lot written about Hitler and music--his love of Wagner, for example, which is very interesting because Wagner was a true musical genius, and also a poisonous hater of Jews." - Dr. Robert Kunath
So as you can observe, there are a lot of opinions about Hitler and his art. Does it really matter if we know just how art may have played a role in his wave of destruction? Is it important so that we may have a better understanding of how one man could cause so much strife? Should Hitler be observed for his human-side within the context of his monster-like actions? Does it matter? What do you think about his artwork recieving so much money when many talented artists of greater skill can barely sell one painting? Discuss.
Take care, Stay true,
Brian Sherwin
There has been much controversy over the issue of Adolf Hitler and his art. Some feel that art played a major role in his bitterness (due to his failure to 'make it' as an artist himself.)and that it helped him to plan his rise to power. Others feel that his art took a back-burner and that it did not play a role in the decisions he made during his rule over Germany. However, auctions of his work are not the only source of this debate.
A firestorm of debate occured when the movie "Max" (2002) was released in theatres. The movie was loosely based on Hitlers struggle as an aspiring artist and touted the slogan 'Art + Politics = Power'. The film depicted Hitler in a very 'human' manner which caused the film to recieve much critisim since history views him as a 'monster'.
Many feared that people would have sympathy for Hitler upon viewing the film. Thus, the debate over the importance of his art, in regards to his actions, was further fueled.
I recently contacted Dr. Robert Kunath, a professor of history, about this very issue. The following is some highlights of that discussion. Dr. Kunath tried to explain how Hitler's views on art may have played a role in how he designed his rule.
"I've done a good deal of work on the subject of how the Nazis understood art. Hitler's own art was pretty mediocre and the interest in it today is because he produced it, not because it is regarded as especially impressive. Indeed, Hitler himself said that his artistic talent really wasn't in painting, but rather in architecture.
Hitler's architecture was gargantuan, and not to the modern taste, but he did have a certain talent for organizing shapes in space. The best evidence of that is the massive Nazi rallies, which Hitler planned meticulously. In that sense, I think Hitler did see art as a vital force in politics.
The first major building project begun after Hitler came to power was the "House of German Art" in Munich, and the speech he gave there lays out an artistic program in some detail. There was also the Nazi's sustained effort to wipe out modern art in Germany.
Hitler's primary political vision was based in racism, but he also believed that the best proof of racial superiority was cultural excellence. Hitler defined that cultural excellence by the standards of the past, so he wanted buildings in the Greco-Roman style, and paintings following in the tradition of the old masters and the 19th century genre painters.
There's a pretty good documentary about art in Hitler's political world-view: it's called "The Architecture of Doom" and it makes some very interesting connections between Hitler's vision of art and his plans for conquest and mass murder. I think the movie (Max) is wrong to suggest that art was a driving force of Hitler's ideology--Darwinian racism was the foundation--but art was an important component.
One book that you might find useful on this subject is Frederick Spotts' _Hitler and the Power of Aesthetics_, which considers both Hitler's art and his views on the power of art in politics and society. There's also a very good article by O. K. Werckmeister called _Hitler the Artist_ in the magazine _Critical Inquiry_ . There has also been a lot written about Hitler and music--his love of Wagner, for example, which is very interesting because Wagner was a true musical genius, and also a poisonous hater of Jews." - Dr. Robert Kunath
So as you can observe, there are a lot of opinions about Hitler and his art. Does it really matter if we know just how art may have played a role in his wave of destruction? Is it important so that we may have a better understanding of how one man could cause so much strife? Should Hitler be observed for his human-side within the context of his monster-like actions? Does it matter? What do you think about his artwork recieving so much money when many talented artists of greater skill can barely sell one painting? Discuss.
Take care, Stay true,
Brian Sherwin
Charles Saatchi Interviewed by The Guardian
Charles Saatchi, a world famous art collector, was recently interviewed by The Guardian newspaper. Saatchi has made many young artists famous simply by collecting their works. He is one of the biggest names in the 'art world'. The interview offers a great deal of insight into his views about life and art. This was a very rare event since Sattchi is rarely interviewed.The full interview can be seen here.
What do you think about his views on art? What do you think about the power he has in the art world? I want your opinions.
Take care, Stay true,
Brian Sherwin
What do you think about his views on art? What do you think about the power he has in the art world? I want your opinions.
Take care, Stay true,
Brian Sherwin
Tuesday, October 03, 2006
Art Space Talk: Jave Gakumei Yoshimoto
The first myartspace.com blog interview has been conducted. I interviewed Jave Gakumei Yoshimoto by sending him various questions about his background, style, and medium. I find Mr.Yoshimoto to be an artist of considerable talent.What I find most interesting about his work is the fact that he uses common objects as his 'canvas'. Jave Gakumei has created images on hats, mirrors, benches, bottles, surf boards, guitars, desk tops... you name it and Jave Gakumei has probably used it. This makes his work very accessible to the public since they are painted on every-day objects. However, these works also take on a deeper meaning in that they ask questions about society (as you will discover when you read his own words.).
Mr. Yoshimoto's art does not stop with painting. He has also created what he calls 'Cheese and Cracker Books'. Mr.Yoshimoto's 'Cheese and Cracker Books' are an interesting blend of text and... well... cheese. I found this use of two common items to be humorous. They reminded me that art can be fun. However, there is also a cutting sarcasm to these works.
After the humor of the pieces left me I started to observe the deeper meaning of what the combined items might suggest. As I observed the 'Cheese and Cracker Books' I asked myself, "Just how important are common objects in my life?". When we look at a piece of cheese we don't see anything aside from a piece of cheese. The same thought goes for a book or binder. We only see them as they are. When the two are combined they come off looking rather silly... which made me question just how important all of the items we use in a day are. It reminded me that we can all be a bit superficial even when it comes to the most simple items.
I think Mr. Yoshimoto best sums up his life, art, and career ambitions in his own words. The following is his response to a series of question I sent him via email.(Do a search for Jave Gakumei Yoshimoto or simply Yoshimoto on myartspace.com to observe his galleries. Enjoy.)
"I was originally born in Tokyo, Japan to a single mother. I immigrated to the states at the age of 9 and I have been residing mostly in California until my recent move to Chicago for graduate school. As with most children, I began drawing for the sake of having fun, but I've always known that I wanted to be an artist one way or another.
Art unconsciously have become my way of sublimation. As with most adolescents, I was going through a struggling phase, and I've had numerous family issues with my mother.. My mother whom I later found out to be schizophrenic suffered from auditory and visual hallucinations, and she has had major issues with anger. I've been a victim of domestic violence by her, and I finally left home at the age of 17. This forced me to drop out of high school, and I've lived in large wooden crates behind an elementary school during the winter nights of San Francisco.
Fortunately my homeless stint was rather short. I was on the streets for about 3 weeks until my grandfather took me in under his wings. I eventually returned to a secondary high school doing independent studies to get my high school degree. At this point, my work found a direction- I was rather curious about collages and subliminal messages. Frida Kahlo and Salvador Dali along with M.C. Escher were my very first artistic influences.
At that time I did not have any formal artistic education and would have been categorized as "outsider artist".
Old habits die hard. I still had internal issues with my emotions and I needed to satisfy my internal cry. One way of doing that was to break the law for my personal thrill. The initial fear prior to doing the act, and the thrill of success was something I truly thrived on. However, I did not wise up in time, and found myself behind bars before long. Ironically, the warrant for my arrest came out on my 22nd birthday- almost exactly ten years ago.
I was released and worked dead end jobs. After years of working in this hopeless state, I finally decided that I needed to get my act together, so I returned to school. I started to take some art classes at local community college and began incorporating texts into images. "Eyescape Miscegenation" in particular is composed of hundreds of words expressing my frustration towards art academia, and how I identified myself as an artist.
When I received my associates, I joined the U.S. Army reserves. There was one particular M.O.S. (Military Occupational Specialty) which is the military job that caught my eye. It was a job entitled "Multimedia Illustrator", and I signed up without hesitation. During my basic training (boot camp), 9/11 had happened. It was quite an eye opening and shocking experience. In my advanced individual training, I worked hard to be the best artist in the class. We worked with traditional media such as graphite, pastel, watercolor, and worked in digital media such as photoshop, illustrator, pagemaker, powerpoint, and dreamweaver. I was paid by the army to learn this so I couldn't have been more excited. I graduated in early 2002 with Distinguished honors, and received Honorable mention award in the 2002 Military Graphics competition for my work "razorburn".
Next came the conceptual phase of my artistic development. I went to my undergraduate studies at the University of California Santa Barbara, and showed my work proudly and eagerly. I was told my work was crap, and that I made works that were shallow and I objectified women. I had to abandon my old "style" and was searching for my new niche. It came in the form of an internet conversation.
Over the course of time, I befriended an anonymous acquaintance simply known as "Sarah" over AOL instant messenger. She apparently was well funded, and graciously gave me a grant of $100 for an idea I had. My idea was that I wanted to paint a portrait of a musician on a guitar, and the money funded that project fully. What came later was years of painting on non traditional surfaces and found objects. I began to think about what image or narrative would succeed on each of the surface that I painted on. Such as the symbolism behind a bench. Does it merely seat the people at parks and those waiting for the bus? Or does it serve as a bed for those who have no homes? What are the major attitude towards homelessness? My work "Averted eyes" served as a commentary of the public about how we avoid and ignore the homeless citizens. I began to take interest in these social issues and current events, and incorporated them into my artwork.
My then professor Jane Callister was my largent influence and mentor. She noticed of my interest in social issues, and caring for the members in the community. Since I founded a local gallery for students and served as a curator, she suggested that I try applying to art therapy for graduate studies. Which led me to my current residence here in Chicago, Illinois.
Art therapy is a field generally misunderstood. However, I was excited to learn a whole new aspect of art and the purpose it served. All the years leading up to where I am now, I've felt that the art world consisted of individuals who are extremely opinionated and sometimes give inconsiderate and even harmful remarks towards growing artists. With curators, collectors, dealers, and critics all saying what works and what sells, how is an artist supposed to truly nurture their own artist's identity, intuition and creativity? Can an artist exist in this world without being bogged down by these other individuals?
My current studies have provided that insight and I found myself working with schizophrenic adults and adolescents who needs the space, attention and witness to nurture their creativity. The concept of creating safe space, providing encouragement, without the punishment of critique or judgment allow these individuals as well as myself, to grow. While my artist's identity have been currently put aside for these individuals, the lesson I've learned has been invaluable. My studies have also allowed me to make peace with my mother before her passing this year.
My artmaking have currently evolved to a more of a humours and sarcastic series of work. Sometimes I just need to amuse myself and laugh at life. My "3 foot bacon" and "cheese and cracker book" are perfect testimonies to that.
I currently plan on applying to MFA programs for next fall. I should by then have received my Masters in Art Therapy from here at the School of Art Institute of Chicago. I'm interested in going somewhere with a University setting rather than an art institution simply because I believe there would be more resources I can access. I would like to work with musicians and scientists to test my theory about translating verbal tone into musical harmony that will then be converted into color. With such process, I am hoping that I will be able to truly share an experience and understanding into a person's mind.
Lastly, I find that the art world is focused strongly on the conceptual world. I believe the heiarchy of the "high art" and the critics would eventually collapse, giving way to a new art movement. The "stuckists" that started in England seems to be the closest thing to that, focusing back into figurative paintings. I hope that whatever happens, great conceptual ideas will remain with aesthetically successful works (whether it be ridiculously ugly or beautiful, a successful peace should garner strong reactions).
My friend once said "art making is an egocentric act." I want to prove him wrong. I'm out to prove that art is a hammer that shapes society and not merely a personal mirror that reflects it" - Jave Gakumei Yoshimoto
Feel free to critique or discuss Mr. Yoshimoto's art. Thanks for reading.
Take care, Stay true,
Brian Sherwin
Monday, October 02, 2006
The Success of 'Celebrity' Painters: Merit or Fame.
I remember having a few conversations about celebrity art during my college years. My studio friends and I would debate about the artistic merit of these individuals and their art while working on our own paintings.
Three painters seemed to be targeted the most: John Mellencamp, Marilyn Manson, and Paul McCartney. Many of these debates developed into heated discussions since some of the students involved were die-hard fans of these musicians. Thus, I decided to post an entry about this issue to see how you all respond.
What do John Mellencamp, Marilyn Manson, and Paul McCartney have in common? Well, aside from all being famous musicians they have also each received acclaim for their painting endeavors. What else do they have in common? They all have said, in one form or the other, that they do not want to be known as 'celebrity painters'.
The three have all stated that they never intended to exhibit their work. In other words, they did not want their musical fame to buy them a free ticket into the art world. A noble gesture. However, they have all increased their fortune by selling prints and art books since making those humble remarks (Each has donated to charity from the proceeds.).
What do you think about these painters? Does their musical background warrant the acclaim that their visual art has attained or is their artistic merit paving the way for their painting success? Can enough fame and money establish you as an artist? Is it fair to painters who have painted for decades with little to no recognition? (As the saying goes, "Life is not fair.")
Mellencamp is known for leaving cowboy boot prints on his paintings (he began oil painting in 1988.), Manson has been called an "accomplished watercolor painter", and Paul McCartney, who once studied under Willem de Koonig, has had packed exhibits in Germany and England (He has painted privately for over 17 years.). All have had major exhibits even though their artistic ability was not well documented until the works surfaced due to the interest of their friends and family.
How many artists do you know who have went from total obscurity as painters to the spot-light in such a short time? Is it wrong for celebrity status to play such a role in success of a painter? What about the countless numbers of artists who are equally talented, but lack that 'celebrity force'?
Just for your information: An average Mellecamp print sells for about $500, McCartney prints sells for $1,750, and Manson's paintings have sold for over $5,000 a piece. Each painter has released books displaying their art images (around $40 each.).
Do you think they deserve these prices? After all, an artist off the street could never expect to receive such a payment for prints or art books, right? What do you think about this? Does it help or hurt the 'art world'? Does their success help or hurt other painters who have yet to become established in the art world?
Here are some quotes from the painters:
"I wasn't intending for any of these pieces to be for anybody but myself or the friends that I did portraits of and would give as gifts. I never intended to show them, much less sell them, until several years of paintings built up. And when people would come to my house, they would urge me to show people my art.
So I took the step and I did it, and I've been quite proud of and surprised by the support and interest, especially from younger fans who may not have gotten into art at such an early age. Maybe this will encourage them to take a look at other things." - Marilyn Manson
"People who paint, including myself, get to a point where a bit of angst comes in. If you're doing it for a living, it's worth it to suffer those slings and arrows. If I was going to paint for my own fun, that was one thing I had to avoid." - Paul McCartney
"I realize that there are probably hundreds of people who deserve to have a book of their paintings published before I do, but because of my celebrity I've been given this great opportunity to show off my 'hobby' and, in turn, make money for charity. It isn't about how great I think I am at paining or music, but rather a reminder to people how great it can feel to just try." - John Mellencamp
Take care, Stay true,
Brian Sherwin
Three painters seemed to be targeted the most: John Mellencamp, Marilyn Manson, and Paul McCartney. Many of these debates developed into heated discussions since some of the students involved were die-hard fans of these musicians. Thus, I decided to post an entry about this issue to see how you all respond.
What do John Mellencamp, Marilyn Manson, and Paul McCartney have in common? Well, aside from all being famous musicians they have also each received acclaim for their painting endeavors. What else do they have in common? They all have said, in one form or the other, that they do not want to be known as 'celebrity painters'.
The three have all stated that they never intended to exhibit their work. In other words, they did not want their musical fame to buy them a free ticket into the art world. A noble gesture. However, they have all increased their fortune by selling prints and art books since making those humble remarks (Each has donated to charity from the proceeds.).
What do you think about these painters? Does their musical background warrant the acclaim that their visual art has attained or is their artistic merit paving the way for their painting success? Can enough fame and money establish you as an artist? Is it fair to painters who have painted for decades with little to no recognition? (As the saying goes, "Life is not fair.")
Mellencamp is known for leaving cowboy boot prints on his paintings (he began oil painting in 1988.), Manson has been called an "accomplished watercolor painter", and Paul McCartney, who once studied under Willem de Koonig, has had packed exhibits in Germany and England (He has painted privately for over 17 years.). All have had major exhibits even though their artistic ability was not well documented until the works surfaced due to the interest of their friends and family.
How many artists do you know who have went from total obscurity as painters to the spot-light in such a short time? Is it wrong for celebrity status to play such a role in success of a painter? What about the countless numbers of artists who are equally talented, but lack that 'celebrity force'?
Just for your information: An average Mellecamp print sells for about $500, McCartney prints sells for $1,750, and Manson's paintings have sold for over $5,000 a piece. Each painter has released books displaying their art images (around $40 each.).
Do you think they deserve these prices? After all, an artist off the street could never expect to receive such a payment for prints or art books, right? What do you think about this? Does it help or hurt the 'art world'? Does their success help or hurt other painters who have yet to become established in the art world?
Here are some quotes from the painters:
"I wasn't intending for any of these pieces to be for anybody but myself or the friends that I did portraits of and would give as gifts. I never intended to show them, much less sell them, until several years of paintings built up. And when people would come to my house, they would urge me to show people my art.
So I took the step and I did it, and I've been quite proud of and surprised by the support and interest, especially from younger fans who may not have gotten into art at such an early age. Maybe this will encourage them to take a look at other things." - Marilyn Manson
"People who paint, including myself, get to a point where a bit of angst comes in. If you're doing it for a living, it's worth it to suffer those slings and arrows. If I was going to paint for my own fun, that was one thing I had to avoid." - Paul McCartney
"I realize that there are probably hundreds of people who deserve to have a book of their paintings published before I do, but because of my celebrity I've been given this great opportunity to show off my 'hobby' and, in turn, make money for charity. It isn't about how great I think I am at paining or music, but rather a reminder to people how great it can feel to just try." - John Mellencamp
Take care, Stay true,
Brian Sherwin
Sunday, October 01, 2006
Controversial Artists: Some famous, some not.
I warn you that some of these artists make very graphic images.
1. Joel Peter-Witkin - Known for his use of cadavers (or parts of them.) in his photography work. I warn you that his work is VERY graphic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joel-Peter_Witkin
2. Andres Serrano - Best known for 'Piss Christ' - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andres_Serrano
3. Damien Hirst- 'The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living' - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damien_Hirst
4. Tracey Emin - 'Everyone I have Ever Slept With' - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tracey_Emin
5.Pete Doherty - Former singer who is now painting with his own blood. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Doherty
6.Marcel Duchamp- May have been the first artist to use semen in his art. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcel_Duchamp
7. Marc Quinn - Has used frozen blood. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Quinn
8. Lennie Lee - Is known to use urine, vomit, and fecal matter. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lennie_Lee
9. Chris Ofili - Used elephant dung. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Ofili
10. Gilbert & George -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilbert_and_George
1. Joel Peter-Witkin - Known for his use of cadavers (or parts of them.) in his photography work. I warn you that his work is VERY graphic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joel-Peter_Witkin
2. Andres Serrano - Best known for 'Piss Christ' - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andres_Serrano
3. Damien Hirst- 'The Physical Impossibility of Death in the Mind of Someone Living' - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damien_Hirst
4. Tracey Emin - 'Everyone I have Ever Slept With' - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tracey_Emin
5.Pete Doherty - Former singer who is now painting with his own blood. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Doherty
6.Marcel Duchamp- May have been the first artist to use semen in his art. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcel_Duchamp
7. Marc Quinn - Has used frozen blood. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Quinn
8. Lennie Lee - Is known to use urine, vomit, and fecal matter. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lennie_Lee
9. Chris Ofili - Used elephant dung. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Ofili
10. Gilbert & George -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilbert_and_George
Saturday, September 30, 2006
CALL TO ARTISTS: An Introduction.
I want to give my personal welcome to artists of every style, medium and background to post a link to their personal art website. Feel free to introduce yourself and link your myartspace.com gallery as well. This is my 'hats off' to the many members of our community. Together we can make this blog an inclusive environment for each member who is willing to participate.
Comment on the galleries that are posted and expect others to comment on your gallery as well. This is an opportunity for us to see what our community has to offer and to talk about where we are going with our art. Please list any influences you may have or anything else that pertains to your work. How long have you worked? What are your artistic goals?
Sure, we may discuss some red-hot topics, but in the end we form connections that are positive as far as our development as artists is concerned. (It is important to think about every aspect of art).I can't promise that we will always have an amicable environment on the blog, but I can promise that there will always be new information and artists to challenge our way of thinking.My goal is for the blog to be mix of intellectual challenge and fun.
Take care, Stay true,
Brian Sherwin
Comment on the galleries that are posted and expect others to comment on your gallery as well. This is an opportunity for us to see what our community has to offer and to talk about where we are going with our art. Please list any influences you may have or anything else that pertains to your work. How long have you worked? What are your artistic goals?
Sure, we may discuss some red-hot topics, but in the end we form connections that are positive as far as our development as artists is concerned. (It is important to think about every aspect of art).I can't promise that we will always have an amicable environment on the blog, but I can promise that there will always be new information and artists to challenge our way of thinking.My goal is for the blog to be mix of intellectual challenge and fun.
Take care, Stay true,
Brian Sherwin
Friday, September 29, 2006
Higher Education in Art: Does The MFA Make You a "Better" Artist?
Through the years I have spoken with many artists who seemed disgruntled about having not earned a Master of Fines Arts degree. Many of them feel that their art careers have suffered since they never obtained a higher education in art. They often complained about artists who have earned an MFA when we conversed about this issue.
It was common for them to claim that artists who have an MFA are treated "better" because of the degree they hold. What do you think about this issue? Does a degree in art make someone a better artist? Does it 'pay' to earn an MFA? Do you think people favor artists who have an educational background in art? Should they even consider it when considering the value of the artist as a whole? Have you ever experienced anything negative in your art career due to not having a degree? (Or having one?)
Once, over several cups of coffee at a cafe, a fellow painter ranted for over an hour about the "elitist mentality of galleries and museums". He ranted, "They only value the degree you hold... not what you are doing with your art!" (Needless to say, I made him pay for the coffee after enduring his lecture.). This associate felt that "untalented hacks" were being chosen over him simply because of their degree.
How true is his experience? Could he have just been paranoid or trying to find an excuse for his failure? Has it happened to you? I'm sure we all have examples of it, but do you think it is a widespread problem? If it is, are these professionals wrong for 'raising the bar' as to who they accept and who they turn away? Are the professionals making a grave error as to who they select for representation? (Remember, there have been many famous artists who never attended a school of art).
I highly doubt that every museum/gallery decides the art they are willing to represent on a degree alone. However, I can see why an inexperienced collector would choose an artist who has an MFA over an artist who does not. Our society values higher education so it may be easy for someone new to art collecting to think that only artists with a degree are worth investing in. After all, when you need something fixed do you call the guy down the street or do you call the certified repairman?
In truth, Average Joe down the street may have more experience and knowledge of the repairs needed, but the certification gives the other guy a sense of credibility. It gives the customer the feeling that he is getting what he paid for. Is this fair? Not necessarily, but how can you change the mindset of the general population? How can you make them feel secure in their purchase when their security is often rooted in the credentials that you have?
This topic is a two-sided coin. I've also spoken with artists who are unhappy with the MFA they have earned. Some have stated that the degree is, "Nothing but a waste of money." or that they could have "learned all of this on my own.". A few have even claimed that the MFA "Held" them back as artists. They felt that the art they do would have been better accepted by others outside of academia had they been 'outsider artists'.
How ironic... some of the haves and the have-nots both feel "held back' over the same degree, but for different reasons.What do you think about this? Do you think an MFA degree is a necessity in regards to having a successful career in art? Do you think it is just a piece of paper that brings with it much debt?
Take care, Stay true,
Brian Sherwin
It was common for them to claim that artists who have an MFA are treated "better" because of the degree they hold. What do you think about this issue? Does a degree in art make someone a better artist? Does it 'pay' to earn an MFA? Do you think people favor artists who have an educational background in art? Should they even consider it when considering the value of the artist as a whole? Have you ever experienced anything negative in your art career due to not having a degree? (Or having one?)
Once, over several cups of coffee at a cafe, a fellow painter ranted for over an hour about the "elitist mentality of galleries and museums". He ranted, "They only value the degree you hold... not what you are doing with your art!" (Needless to say, I made him pay for the coffee after enduring his lecture.). This associate felt that "untalented hacks" were being chosen over him simply because of their degree.
How true is his experience? Could he have just been paranoid or trying to find an excuse for his failure? Has it happened to you? I'm sure we all have examples of it, but do you think it is a widespread problem? If it is, are these professionals wrong for 'raising the bar' as to who they accept and who they turn away? Are the professionals making a grave error as to who they select for representation? (Remember, there have been many famous artists who never attended a school of art).
I highly doubt that every museum/gallery decides the art they are willing to represent on a degree alone. However, I can see why an inexperienced collector would choose an artist who has an MFA over an artist who does not. Our society values higher education so it may be easy for someone new to art collecting to think that only artists with a degree are worth investing in. After all, when you need something fixed do you call the guy down the street or do you call the certified repairman?
In truth, Average Joe down the street may have more experience and knowledge of the repairs needed, but the certification gives the other guy a sense of credibility. It gives the customer the feeling that he is getting what he paid for. Is this fair? Not necessarily, but how can you change the mindset of the general population? How can you make them feel secure in their purchase when their security is often rooted in the credentials that you have?
This topic is a two-sided coin. I've also spoken with artists who are unhappy with the MFA they have earned. Some have stated that the degree is, "Nothing but a waste of money." or that they could have "learned all of this on my own.". A few have even claimed that the MFA "Held" them back as artists. They felt that the art they do would have been better accepted by others outside of academia had they been 'outsider artists'.
How ironic... some of the haves and the have-nots both feel "held back' over the same degree, but for different reasons.What do you think about this? Do you think an MFA degree is a necessity in regards to having a successful career in art? Do you think it is just a piece of paper that brings with it much debt?
Take care, Stay true,
Brian Sherwin
Thursday, September 28, 2006
The Material of Controversy: Is the worth of our art decided by the materials we use?
What makes a work of art controversial? What gives a painting 'shock value'? A realistic painting of the Madonna with Christ done in oil paint is deemed beautiful, but a piece of similar quality and intricacy is deemed worthless by many if it is done in blood. If said piece is done with HIV infected blood (Which some artists have used as a medium) it is deemed horrible or downright blasphemous.
The HIV image would be labeled as 'shock' art by many with an end result of the artist not being taken seriously. Yet the images were both created by artists who share a close level of skill and natural talent. The two artists may even share an equal interest in exploring their artistic potential, process, and method. However, the oil painter will be accepted over the other and the 'loser' will be deemed untalented or unskilled.
Based on this observation, it would seem that the materials alone decided the fate of the painting. Do the materials we use really matter as to how our work should be valued?
Many would say, ""Why use THAT to create a work of art!" when observing the various materials used by artists in the last fifty years alone. Well, why not use IT and everything else? Is it a crime to experiment with materials? Why do so many seem to fear this form of change? After all, the goal of many artists is to learn what works and what does not. To some it is a form of science.
It can be said that such experimentation is the heart and soul of the 'art world'. The art world would become stagnate if artists did not work in new ways to express their vision. If it were not for this spirit of experimentation we would all still be locked in the cell of the academic tradition.
It is my opinion that the more these artists are censored by the public and rejected by their peers, the more the art world will be restricted before everything is said and done. And to think, much of it has to do with the materials these artists use... nothing more.
Why label a painter as a 'shock artist' just because he or she decides to explore the potential of a rarely used medium in order to convey a visual message? Would the same painting be enjoyed by the viewer had it been painted in a traditional manner? Remember, the artist may not wish to shock anyone. Shock may be the furthest thing from his mind. Yet he is labeled because of his choice of medium and his career directive is set in stone based on mere assumptions of what his intentions are.
Think of the 'shock artist' that disgusts you the most. Is the artist Damien Hirst? Perhaps the artist is Tracey Emin? How about Nobuyoshi Araki? Many people find these artists to be 'shocking'. Have you ever bothered to read what the artist has written about his or her work? Does the artist truly mean to shock others... or are you just shocked by the materials that he or she has chosen?
These artists may be representing a clearer image of our reality than any traditional artist. Perhaps that is why their work, and the way they present it by using unorthodox materials, is loathed or feared. Perhaps these works are to 'real' for many of us to deal with.
While you ponder this question think about how our world has changed. Some of your interests would be considered shocking by your great grandparents, true? Does that mean you should stop researching or exploring them? Is your answer "no"? If so, why should these artists stop creating?
Take care, Stay true
Brian Sherwin
The HIV image would be labeled as 'shock' art by many with an end result of the artist not being taken seriously. Yet the images were both created by artists who share a close level of skill and natural talent. The two artists may even share an equal interest in exploring their artistic potential, process, and method. However, the oil painter will be accepted over the other and the 'loser' will be deemed untalented or unskilled.
Based on this observation, it would seem that the materials alone decided the fate of the painting. Do the materials we use really matter as to how our work should be valued?
Many would say, ""Why use THAT to create a work of art!" when observing the various materials used by artists in the last fifty years alone. Well, why not use IT and everything else? Is it a crime to experiment with materials? Why do so many seem to fear this form of change? After all, the goal of many artists is to learn what works and what does not. To some it is a form of science.
It can be said that such experimentation is the heart and soul of the 'art world'. The art world would become stagnate if artists did not work in new ways to express their vision. If it were not for this spirit of experimentation we would all still be locked in the cell of the academic tradition.
It is my opinion that the more these artists are censored by the public and rejected by their peers, the more the art world will be restricted before everything is said and done. And to think, much of it has to do with the materials these artists use... nothing more.
Why label a painter as a 'shock artist' just because he or she decides to explore the potential of a rarely used medium in order to convey a visual message? Would the same painting be enjoyed by the viewer had it been painted in a traditional manner? Remember, the artist may not wish to shock anyone. Shock may be the furthest thing from his mind. Yet he is labeled because of his choice of medium and his career directive is set in stone based on mere assumptions of what his intentions are.
Think of the 'shock artist' that disgusts you the most. Is the artist Damien Hirst? Perhaps the artist is Tracey Emin? How about Nobuyoshi Araki? Many people find these artists to be 'shocking'. Have you ever bothered to read what the artist has written about his or her work? Does the artist truly mean to shock others... or are you just shocked by the materials that he or she has chosen?
These artists may be representing a clearer image of our reality than any traditional artist. Perhaps that is why their work, and the way they present it by using unorthodox materials, is loathed or feared. Perhaps these works are to 'real' for many of us to deal with.
While you ponder this question think about how our world has changed. Some of your interests would be considered shocking by your great grandparents, true? Does that mean you should stop researching or exploring them? Is your answer "no"? If so, why should these artists stop creating?
Take care, Stay true
Brian Sherwin
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
Vanity Publications: Is the cost of being accepted worth the cost of your art career if you are accepted?
I'm certain that at one point in every artists life he or she will be tempted (or will know someone who has.) to order and submit work to some $19.95 publication claiming to be on the 'cutting edge' of artistic publications. Publications like this offer artists the chance to have their work 'recognized nationally by art critics and collectors.' simply by submitting artwork. They often claim to be the perfect PR move for aspiring artists. What you read may sound good, but the end result may be very bad for your career as an artist.
Imagine, you are surfing the net and you discover a site about having your work published. The company offers you the chance to have your work displayed in the book with other talented artists. All you have to do is submit your work and you may be selected for the publication. Seems like a good PR move, right? WRONG.
A few days later you receive an email stating that your image has been selected. Your heart stops with excitement. After calming down you joyfully order a dozen copies for your friends, family, and one for yourself. You think about all of the people who will finally see your work.
"Will I become famous", "Will this help me obtain that grant?", "Maybe that MFA program will take me seriously now.", "Gallery representation is knocking on my door!"... thought after thought crosses your mind. Your work is finally going to be published! You go to bed after telling all of the people close to you (and a few you don't like... for bragging rights.) about your achievement. You dream of becoming an 'art star' over night after the publication is released. Sweet dreams? I can tell you right now (based on the experiences of some of my artist friends) that they are not made of this!
A couple of months pass and you finally receive your copies of the publication. Excited, you rip open the box containing the books and anxiously tear away the plastic wrapping from the first book you grab. You can't wait to see your artwork and the work of all the other talented artists represented in the publication. Horror strikes!
You discover that the book contains page after page of mediocre artwork. You turn the page and focus on a picture of a stick man riding a stick horse followed by a picture of a snowman dancing with a dog. You discover your own image on the opposite page as you stray away from the absurd images. You question yourself, "Talented artists... fine art?" as the phone rings. It is one of your friends calling. He wants his copy of the book. Did you make a mistake? Yes. The question is, do you know how big of a mistake you may have made. One thing is for certain, this mistake could cost you far more than $19.95.
These types of books are nothing more than vanity publications. They target aspiring artists who are hoping to bypass the 'grit' of the art business in order to 'make it big'. These companies prey on the dreams of creative individuals.The artist submits, gains acceptance, and orders a dozen copies. The catch is that everyone who submits will most likely get accepted. There may be a hundred different versions of the same publication created, each containing art by different artists. The company has long since cashed your check by the time you find out that the publication is not what it was represented to be. (That is where their 'fine print' comes into play.)
True, the book is about artists and their art, the company did not lie about that, but the caliber of the artists published can vary greatly. A serious artist would most likely not want his or her art shown in the same context as others who may be mere 'hobby painters'. The negative side of having your work in a vanity publication is that your art may be devalued by those who observe your work alongside art that is of a lesser quality. Once the book is printed your ill decision is documented for all to see (I've seen these books sold at art fairs and on library shelves.). The damage can haunt your career as an artist for years or become a rather nasty inside joke. Good PR move? Nope.
There are smart choices an artist can make before falling into the vanity publication trap. Online galleries, like those supported by myartspace.com, are good PR moves for any serious artist. True, the artists on any art site may have different levels of skill and talent, but each individual is represented by his or her own gallery. They are not all lumped into one solid shell like vanity publications tend to do.
Unlike vanity publications, an online gallery offers the individual artist to stick out rather than being represented as having equal skill and merit. The artist is not represented by every other artist upon the site. He or she is represented by his or her own personal space. Your online gallery is a representation of you alone. Vanity publications represent everyone as a whole (regardless of skill or merit), which has an end result of misrepresenting talented artists to whomever picks up a copy of the book.
A little PR can go a long way, but if done in the wrong manner it can make an artist seem desperate. However, I understand that our need for being "seen" sometimes clouds our decision making and choices. Thus, I will stress that the best way to be "seen" is to maintain an online gallery (Like the galleries we have on myartspace.com). Being involved with your online gallery is a far better PR move than relying on any form of vanity publication.
Allow me to be frank, do you want to be a coffee-table memory or a successful artist? These publishers can be the lemon-car dealers of the art world! Remember, famous artists of the past did not pay to be included into vanity publications. They put their work out for people to see. Today we have the option of putting our work out for thousands to see daily on an online gallery. Take advantage of it.
Take care, Stay true,
Brian Sherwin.
Imagine, you are surfing the net and you discover a site about having your work published. The company offers you the chance to have your work displayed in the book with other talented artists. All you have to do is submit your work and you may be selected for the publication. Seems like a good PR move, right? WRONG.
A few days later you receive an email stating that your image has been selected. Your heart stops with excitement. After calming down you joyfully order a dozen copies for your friends, family, and one for yourself. You think about all of the people who will finally see your work.
"Will I become famous", "Will this help me obtain that grant?", "Maybe that MFA program will take me seriously now.", "Gallery representation is knocking on my door!"... thought after thought crosses your mind. Your work is finally going to be published! You go to bed after telling all of the people close to you (and a few you don't like... for bragging rights.) about your achievement. You dream of becoming an 'art star' over night after the publication is released. Sweet dreams? I can tell you right now (based on the experiences of some of my artist friends) that they are not made of this!
A couple of months pass and you finally receive your copies of the publication. Excited, you rip open the box containing the books and anxiously tear away the plastic wrapping from the first book you grab. You can't wait to see your artwork and the work of all the other talented artists represented in the publication. Horror strikes!
You discover that the book contains page after page of mediocre artwork. You turn the page and focus on a picture of a stick man riding a stick horse followed by a picture of a snowman dancing with a dog. You discover your own image on the opposite page as you stray away from the absurd images. You question yourself, "Talented artists... fine art?" as the phone rings. It is one of your friends calling. He wants his copy of the book. Did you make a mistake? Yes. The question is, do you know how big of a mistake you may have made. One thing is for certain, this mistake could cost you far more than $19.95.
These types of books are nothing more than vanity publications. They target aspiring artists who are hoping to bypass the 'grit' of the art business in order to 'make it big'. These companies prey on the dreams of creative individuals.The artist submits, gains acceptance, and orders a dozen copies. The catch is that everyone who submits will most likely get accepted. There may be a hundred different versions of the same publication created, each containing art by different artists. The company has long since cashed your check by the time you find out that the publication is not what it was represented to be. (That is where their 'fine print' comes into play.)
True, the book is about artists and their art, the company did not lie about that, but the caliber of the artists published can vary greatly. A serious artist would most likely not want his or her art shown in the same context as others who may be mere 'hobby painters'. The negative side of having your work in a vanity publication is that your art may be devalued by those who observe your work alongside art that is of a lesser quality. Once the book is printed your ill decision is documented for all to see (I've seen these books sold at art fairs and on library shelves.). The damage can haunt your career as an artist for years or become a rather nasty inside joke. Good PR move? Nope.
There are smart choices an artist can make before falling into the vanity publication trap. Online galleries, like those supported by myartspace.com, are good PR moves for any serious artist. True, the artists on any art site may have different levels of skill and talent, but each individual is represented by his or her own gallery. They are not all lumped into one solid shell like vanity publications tend to do.
Unlike vanity publications, an online gallery offers the individual artist to stick out rather than being represented as having equal skill and merit. The artist is not represented by every other artist upon the site. He or she is represented by his or her own personal space. Your online gallery is a representation of you alone. Vanity publications represent everyone as a whole (regardless of skill or merit), which has an end result of misrepresenting talented artists to whomever picks up a copy of the book.
A little PR can go a long way, but if done in the wrong manner it can make an artist seem desperate. However, I understand that our need for being "seen" sometimes clouds our decision making and choices. Thus, I will stress that the best way to be "seen" is to maintain an online gallery (Like the galleries we have on myartspace.com). Being involved with your online gallery is a far better PR move than relying on any form of vanity publication.
Allow me to be frank, do you want to be a coffee-table memory or a successful artist? These publishers can be the lemon-car dealers of the art world! Remember, famous artists of the past did not pay to be included into vanity publications. They put their work out for people to see. Today we have the option of putting our work out for thousands to see daily on an online gallery. Take advantage of it.
Take care, Stay true,
Brian Sherwin.
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
What Is Acceptable Art: A Question Every Artist Should Ask.
What is acceptable art? This has been a question asked by every art observer since the time art was first appreciated for aesthetic value. Through the centuries certain artists and their styles have been embraced or rejected by their peers. We will all face this at some point in our art career.
More often than not, an artist who is rejected by his or her generation (Vincent Van Gogh, Egon Schiele, George Grosz) will be widely accepted by a future generation. Think about the controversial artists of our time. Will they be widely accepted tomorrow? Should we, as artists, accept them today?
It seems that many artists are just as guilty as the public in regards to judging the value of certain artists who work in a radical manner. It is an 'at least the finger is pointed at them' mentality' which, in my opinion, has an end result of hurting every artist.
The truth of the matter is that many artists are held back if the general public is adamantly against their work. Their peers, within the context of the art world, rarely show them support out of fear of being 'fingered'. When will we unite to support those who have been thrown out on the edge? When will we start to point back?
It often seems that the controversial artist walks alone as if he or she has the plague. Should we give them support when this breed of censorship occurs? How safe are we in the future if a few are allowed to be persecuted for their art today. As for myself, I would rather not play Russian roulette as to what art is acceptable and what art is not. I know that a hundred years ago my work would have been seen in a negative light by most of the public. Thus, I will be tolerant of all art today.
Remember that at one time Picasso was seen as a disgrace to the popular concept of art, George Grosz was observed as being a 'butcher' rather than a painter, and Vincent Van Gogh was only accepted by a select few within his inner circle. Now these artists are famous the world over. Let us not allow artists of our time to be denied their chance at success due to our own perception of what art should be. After all, the next artist that is held back may be you.
My opinion is that making rash decisions about what is acceptable in the art world is like stomping on the lungs of creation. The advancement of art, no matter how refined or brutal, should be allowed to breathe. Anything less than this will lead to the suffocation of expression as a whole. Think about this the next time you write a fellow artist off as a hack or perverted lunatic.
What is acceptable art?... All art?... Good and bad? Does the process alone give value to the worth of the work? Does the dedication of the artist make the art acceptable no matter what the subject matter or materials used? Would Picasso's "Guernica" not have the same message and fame had he mixed blood in his paints? Would Léonard de Vinci's "Mona Lisa" be so respected had he used traces of feces? Would Andres Serrano's "Piss Christ" been so infamous had he used dye? Think about this and feel free to respond.
Take care, Stay true,
Brian Sherwin.
More often than not, an artist who is rejected by his or her generation (Vincent Van Gogh, Egon Schiele, George Grosz) will be widely accepted by a future generation. Think about the controversial artists of our time. Will they be widely accepted tomorrow? Should we, as artists, accept them today?
It seems that many artists are just as guilty as the public in regards to judging the value of certain artists who work in a radical manner. It is an 'at least the finger is pointed at them' mentality' which, in my opinion, has an end result of hurting every artist.
The truth of the matter is that many artists are held back if the general public is adamantly against their work. Their peers, within the context of the art world, rarely show them support out of fear of being 'fingered'. When will we unite to support those who have been thrown out on the edge? When will we start to point back?
It often seems that the controversial artist walks alone as if he or she has the plague. Should we give them support when this breed of censorship occurs? How safe are we in the future if a few are allowed to be persecuted for their art today. As for myself, I would rather not play Russian roulette as to what art is acceptable and what art is not. I know that a hundred years ago my work would have been seen in a negative light by most of the public. Thus, I will be tolerant of all art today.
Remember that at one time Picasso was seen as a disgrace to the popular concept of art, George Grosz was observed as being a 'butcher' rather than a painter, and Vincent Van Gogh was only accepted by a select few within his inner circle. Now these artists are famous the world over. Let us not allow artists of our time to be denied their chance at success due to our own perception of what art should be. After all, the next artist that is held back may be you.
My opinion is that making rash decisions about what is acceptable in the art world is like stomping on the lungs of creation. The advancement of art, no matter how refined or brutal, should be allowed to breathe. Anything less than this will lead to the suffocation of expression as a whole. Think about this the next time you write a fellow artist off as a hack or perverted lunatic.
What is acceptable art?... All art?... Good and bad? Does the process alone give value to the worth of the work? Does the dedication of the artist make the art acceptable no matter what the subject matter or materials used? Would Picasso's "Guernica" not have the same message and fame had he mixed blood in his paints? Would Léonard de Vinci's "Mona Lisa" be so respected had he used traces of feces? Would Andres Serrano's "Piss Christ" been so infamous had he used dye? Think about this and feel free to respond.
Take care, Stay true,
Brian Sherwin.
Monday, September 25, 2006
New contributor to the myartspace blog
I wanted to welcome on board Brian Sherwin (aka "balhatain") to the myartspace blog. Brian is a member of the myartspace community and an aspiring artist from Illinois. He graduated from Illinois College in 2003 and plans on entering an MFA program at Goddard College in the future. He's been an active artist for the past 12 years and began his drawing work at age 3. He has interesting insights into the art world and he is a welcome addition to our team.
Monday, August 28, 2006
myartspace.tv
myartspace.tv will be an adjunct site for the myartspace community. The site is intended for hosting art video podcasts, new forms of video art, and interesting video content. This fall, when myartspace rolls out new art podcasting capability, this site should become very active.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)