Art Space Talk: Christopher Reiger

Growing up on the rural Delmarva Peninsula, Christopher Reiger spent much of his time in pastoral settings, becoming familiar with the local flora and fauna. Whether working alongside his father at field chores, hunting, fishing, or simply playing, he found many of his experiences in the "natural" world similar to those of Lewis Carroll's Alice; Carroll's premise, that "things get curiouser and curiouser," guided Reiger through many an adventure. As an adult, Reiger's love of the outdoors has evolved into a fascination with biology, conservation and behavioral science.

Reiger's current work is informed by the conflict between fact and fiction in natural history and its impact on our species' ever-changing relationship to the biosphere. You can learn about Christopher and his art by visiting his site: www.christopherreiger.com

Brian Sherwin: Christopher, you earned an MFA from the School of Visual Arts in New York City. Who were your mentors? Can you tell our readers about their art department?
Christopher Reiger: I had a great time at SVA, in part because the program was relatively unstructured. This is a plus for those of us who supply our own demands, but I know some fellow students felt more formal guidelines would help.

The most valuable aspects of the SVA program are the location and the community, and I was fortunate to have terrific peers. We often hear that something like 95% of graduate students stop producing artwork within five years of obtaining the degree. With the staggering cost of grad school, and the ensuing debt, that's a scary figure. So connecting to the community is that much more important.

It's true that the friendships and professional relationships formed in graduate school can sustain you through the highs and lows of a life in art. I turn to fellow artists when I really find myself down-and-out in the studio, and the bulk of my close artist friends I met at SVA.

My favorite professors/artists at SVA were David Shirey, Jake Berthot, Jerry Saltz and Jackie Winsor. David is the chair/founder of the program, and he speaks in essays, something I appreciate. As our general vocabularies continue to shrink, folks like David stand out for his elocution and wit.

He's also something of a provocateur, poking us until we challenge our assumptions. I've always loved a good debate, so his class, where we basically sat in a circle and shot the shit, sometimes with a lot of feeling, was enjoyable. Jake gave the best feedback of any artist I've worked with. He called things like he saw them, with no dressing, and although this often made for harsh critique, his insights were invaluable and he radiated a core kindness.

Jackie was also excellent, but she really seemed to enjoy pulling back the protective veneer and exposing the fraud inside, something I think all young artists are terrified of. Her class shook me up for a long while and that's meant as a compliment.

Jerry Saltz is a writer I admire but more importantly his enthusiasm for looking at and contemplating art is almost tangible. It was a treat to spend time with him. Finally, I'm a fan of Gregory Amenoff's paintings, but I never landed in his class, something which still bums me out a bit today.


BS:Your work often deals with the conflict between contemporary humankind and nature. Why has this become a major theme for you?

CR: For years, centuries really, we first-worlders have willfully denied our own Nature, our animal antecedence. We don't seem willing to accept the fact that we are part of the rest of it, all products of star dust, whether you're talking individuals, species, or the solar system. Humans came up through the ranks of evolution like all of our animal brethren, but we don't much like to acknowledge that.

This is a problem the world over, one worsening as globalization carries capitalism to all corners of the world. We're a sadder people for it. As my father often says, the only thing that separates humans from the rest of the animal kingdom is our capacity for denial. The conflict between Nature and contemporary man is one of our own making, an intellectual, defensive construction that we must tear down if we're to sustain our species (and some semblance of biodiversity on the planet).

I was in the grocery store this morning and an older gentleman was talking with a companion about his being incontinent. Several other shoppers looked at the pair with disgust. One woman even tsk-tsked the old guy. If we can't talk openly about our bodily functions, it's no surprise that we edit out most scenes of predation in our wildlife television programs, refuse to accept the history of the pork chop we buy at the supermarket, and cover our ears when reports of genocide come over the wire. We're petrified of ourselves, and no bloody good can come of it.



BS: So it is safe to say that your current work is informed by the conflict between fact and fiction in natural history and its impact on our species' ever-changing relationship to the biosphere?

CR: Yes, that is an element of it. So you have the conflict mentioned before, between the reality of being human and our hubris, and then there is the question of the validity of our constructs. I'm very much torn on this count, as I embrace biology. I wear t-shirts with Darwin's picture and I frequent blogs devoted to the sciences. I even work in a neuroscience laboratory for my day job, not as a scientist, mind you, but I enjoy being around the scientists and their experiments. Yet the sciences themselves seem tremendously narrow to me, if only because we've neglected so much sensuous, as in sensed, input in favor of a very particular program of proofs and disproofs.

As a child, the world outside was a playground of the imagination. I grew up on the rural Delmarva Peninsula, and spent a great deal of time outdoors, planting, hunting, fishing, or just playing in the woods, fields and marshes. I anthropomorphized animals and trees and created my own explanations for why this or that event happened. It was a Wonderland, full of magic, truly.

As I aged I was introduced to natural history. Learning facts about wildlife became every bit as exciting as my created stories. I abandoned, in large part, the Wonderland approach in favor of "hard" science. This evolution from enchantment to analysis parallels the history of modern science, the transition out of the Dark Ages, a time of faith, magic, and superstition, into the Enlightenment and the Scientific Revolution.

But today I look around and see a little bit of the magic and the myth creeping back in. I reacted against it initially, but now I embrace as many fantastic beliefs as I do hard facts. This might sound like a conscious irrational choice, and perhaps it is, but it's central to my work.

There's a John Ruskin quote I always defer to. He describes the "broken harmonies of fact and fancy, thought and feeling, truth and faith." In my painting, I'm trying to bridge that divide. The beautiful thing about Ruskin's quote is that it so neatly and poetically describes not just my own search for balance and integrity, but also the contemporary, global dilemma as we move from a period of illusory certitude and universal truth into the labyrinth of post-modern relativism.


BS: Can you tell our readers about your Fractured Eulogies series? What were your motives behind this collection of work? How does it reflect your concern over our mutable conception of nature?

CR: Conceptually, the "Fractured Eulogies" paintings were borne of the fact-fiction divide mentioned before.

BS: Would you say that nature offers a form of spirituality?

CR: Yes, but I also view Nature as the Everything. We're Nature, the meteoroid in the asteroid belt is Nature, this keyboard is Nature. I find spirit in the interconnectivity. Given the the division and the parcelling off of contemporary life, it's easy for me to forget this, but I try to remind myself regularly what a miraculous experience I'm a part of. Painting is part of that meditation.

Having said that, I would also argue that untrammeled Nature, or the Nature Transcendentalists like Thoreau spoke of, allows us to more easily tap into the wonder and awe, or the Sublime. So, yes, a hike in Yellowstone is more "spiritual" in my opinion than my sitting here typing. But, again, that's really a superficial way to divide experience. Which is why I'm a big fan of contradiction. I have to be; I contradict myself all the time. Again, this is something you're not allowed to do in the arenas of politics or science.


BS: Christopher, can you discuss some of the philosophy behind your work... specifically your view 'hysterical transcendentalism'?

CR: We're seeing a lot of changes these days, and at an accelerated pace. Borders seem less and less relevant and, as we homogenize, cultural identities will become indistinct, perhaps for the greater good. But whatever the long term results for civilization or the species, in the short term we'll have heightened anxiety and outright fear. We're trending back into a period of relativism, of superstition and of economic extremes. I think of this moment as the dawn of hysterical transcendentalism.

We're all increasingly uncertain and insecure, and we grab onto hybrid, rickety cosmologies for support. In the so-called First World, for example, we see a lot of science, mysticism and religion being blended with consumerism. We're advancing beyond the culture of celebrity and distraction.

Distraction has become just one more idol in a cabinet of coping mechanisms. Even if the world could use a dose of healthy, moral magic, slippage into a renewed Dark Age is undesirable. Nobody wants warlordism and feudal politics to become the global norm and I worry we're trending that way.

Anyway, this all sounds rather vague and foreboding, but I don't want to give the impression that I'm a doomsayer. The landscapes in the "Hysterical Transcendentalism" series are as much about hope as they are anxiety. On the one hand they depict a melting world, a Nature torn apart and dissolving. But that dissolving is also an opening of the senses, the seepage of magic and mystery back into the picture.

One construct may be deformed, in this case the rational one, but that very deformation is natural and even exciting, wonderful. In a nutshell, these works are about cherishing and celebrating the universality of life in the face of growing uncertainty. In this regard they are reactionary, though not necessarily in the placard-protest sense of the word.

BS: Your biomorphic landscape paintings are often very colorful, reactionary works. These works have been considered to be both foreboding and joyous by viewers. Is it one of your goals to have people question their perceptions by viewing these paintings?

CR: Yes, definitely. And to question where those perceptions came from.
It's always interesting to hear what various viewers have to say about paintings in this series. For example, one person might be made uncomfortable by a painting while another finds the same picture somber and moving. Good. Nature is ambivalent. I try to make these paintings reflect that. That's why they vacillate between foreboding and joyous. How the works are read greatly depends on the mood or spirit of the viewer.

BS: You have been known to work on soaked and stretched Arches paper. You use many media on one surface- preferring watercolor, sumi inks, acrylic and graphite. From that point you stack images much as one would do when doodling in the margins of notebook. Can you go further into detail about your artistic practice?

CR: The "Hysterical Transcendentalism" and "Fractured Eulogies" series are both on soaked and stretched Arches paper, although the more recent works - most of the "H.T." body - I remove from the support when they are completed. They're framed, displayed under UV-resistant plexi. I think the mode of display should be dictated by the piece or series and the "Hysterical Transcendentalism" works, with all that saturated color and the riffs on traditional landscape, do better with a frame. The "Fractured Eulogies," on the other hand, are often so open that they should breathe at the edge, and a frame isn't needed.

As for the image stacking, I don't really do that anymore. The "Fractured Eulogies" certainly involved a lot of it, though. In fact, a curator at The Drawing Center in SoHo dismissed the work as the scribblings of a high school stoner. Those works were very much about unconscious connection, trying to marry the rational, scientific world of quantifying and measuring - hence all the rulers, slash marks, graphs and the like - to the world of magic and wonder, particularly with respect to scale and natural processes like sedimentation, decomposition and erosion.

I liked juxtaposing those ideas with "pop" colors and a graphic line.

Those works made themselves, and I was along for the ride. The process just lost its appeal for me over time. Perhaps I'll revisit it, but I'm not feeling it right now. For now, the "Hysterical Transcendentalism" approach is more exciting and, although the materials are the same, the process is very different, much more involved and thought out.

BS: Finally, where do you see your work going in the near future?

CR: I like to have at least one side experiment going at all times, and although I'm eagerly continuing with the "Hysterical Transcendentalism" paintings, I'm also playing around with map collages and other ways of approaching the same concepts. I've no idea where these will go or if they'll come to fruition at all. Most of the side-projects are abandoned or destroyed, but what matters is the playing itself.

The artwork aside, I'll continue with the writing for Hungry Hyaena and other spots online. I'd like to start inviting guest writers to contribute to HH. Perhaps that conversation could lead to the formation of a collective? I'm very interested in finding a core group of thoughtful, intellectually engaged artists, not necessarily like-minded, but exploring similar territory, with which to have regular dialogue.

The Internet makes that easy, which is another reason why MyArtSpace is a helpful resource, and I have my eye on several artists scattered around the globe. An international collective seems particularly interesting to me, especially if I could find artists in developing countries to participate. We'll see what happens. Thanks again, Brian.

I hope that you have enjoyed my interview with Christopher Reiger. You can observe his myartspace.com gallery below.

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin

Comparing Internet Art to Art Since 1960

Now that I’m in school mode again I’ve been studying up on my art history. I’ve gone back to basics, returning to the Thames & Hudson “World of Art” series to try and get a broader understanding of recent art practices. I really like the no nonsense format of these Thames & Hudson books; the short length and survey style tends to reel in the art theory hyperbole and get to the point. For example, Michael Archer’s one paragraph sum-up (no diagrams!) of Rosalind Krauss’s “Sculpture in the Expanded Field” on pgs. 96 - 97 of Art Since 1960 is breathtaking. Way to go, dude!

In Art Since 1960 this brevity keeps things moving and gives the reader a real sense of progression through a period of art history usually viewed as hopelessly complicated. Personally, I found it really refreshing to get a linear narrative of recent art, without all the “end of history/postmodernism” talk that usually muddies the waters of contemporary art history. I mean, a pretty convincing linear narrative can be constructed from the past 40 years of art making. For instance, although Sherrie Levine’s photos might signal the theoretical “death of originality,” her work wouldn’t have been possible without the photo/text conceptualism of the 70’s. Like, although history or our experience of reality isn’t objective, the (North American/European) art world’s characterizations of “art” have unfolded in a well-documented and somewhat coherent manner, right? Blasphemy!!!

Anyways, in my reading I also went through Rachel Greene’s Internet Art, a survey of the past 15 years of online creativity. It’s pretty good, although kinda pretentious. Like where Art Since 1960 covered 40 years of massive change in 200 or so pages, Internet Art covers its 15 years in the same space. This creates some awkward equivalencies between the two texts, like when you compare (the excellent) Alighiero e Boetti’s name check in Art Since 1960 to the pages upon pages devoted to net artist Heath Bunting or the similar amounts of space devoted to Michael Fried’s brilliant “Art and Objecthood” and Wayne Bremser’s jokey essay on the similarities between Cremaster 3 and the video game Donkey Kong. These discrepancies might point towards a lack of critical perspective in Greene’s text, the “emerging” nature of internet art and its short list of quality work and criticism, and/or a need to fill out this Thames & Hudson book to the standard length. Whatever the reason, the brevity and clear trajectory achieved by Archer in Art Since 1960 is not present in Internet Art.

Nevertheless, Internet Art is an interesting read and made me see my usual concerns (What’s art? What’s innovative?) in a new light. Like, although there is no question that many of the projects in Internet Art are innovative, I took issue with people classifying some of these works as art. For example, in the last chapter entitled “Art for Networks” Greene outlines several works which are freely distributed visual maps documenting relationships between powerful institutions (financial, religious, political, etc.). Greene (via Brian Holmes) classifies the projects as art because they anticipate the eventual dismantling of these relationships through activism and “tactical media” (181-182). In this case, Greene assumes viewers will use the maps for the “good” (i.e. the destruction of capitalism) even though this information is also now available to more conservative concerns including the target institutions themselves (who are, no doubt, also online). I don’t want to get into an argument about the paradoxes of political activism here, but I do think that when work is classified as art its form better live up to its stated intentions.

And why do we have drag “art” into this argument anyway? I have no problem calling this work interesting and exciting activism, “tactical media,” whatever, but it doesn’t seem like art to me. Maybe it’s a readymade, but that’s the best I’ve got. I mean, why don’t the "artists" call this stuff political activism? Why consign it to the nebulous and politically neutered realm of “energy potential[s]” and “signs pointing to a territory that cannot yet be fully signified” (182)?

I’d track this misunderstanding back to online art’s (mis)reading of artists like Hans Haake and Marcel Duchamp, but whatever. I suspect it also has something to do with the money and institutionalized separation the art world bestows (“I can be pretty abnormal without having to isolatedly receive society’s contempt or punishments.” – Lucas Samaras), but whatever. In the end, I think my rejection of “art” works like these is due to my hesitation to jettison names like Picasso, DeKooning, and Nauman (all absent from Internet Art’s index) from our understanding of contemporary art. But, let’s face it, when Thames & Hudson says it’s art, it’s art. So, face your destiny and read these books. Like I said, they’re pretty good.

Art Space News: Controversial Sculpture of Pope is Pulled From Exhibit

Organizers of an exhibition on the relationship between homosexuality and art said Wednesday they were removing a controversial sculpture depicting Pope Benedict in drag. The sculpture has caused public outcry. However, the censorship of the piece has also caused a stir.

The sculpture, titled "Miss Kitty" by Paolo Schmidlin, portrays the Pope wearing nothing but thigh-high stockings, a pair of panties and a stole.The sculpture, which is adorned with a blonde bob wig, offended the Catholic Anti-Defamation League, which threatened to seek charges against the organizers and exhibit promoters for defaming a head of state.

The exhibit in Milan, Italy, drew harsh protest from the Catholic Anti-Defamation League and others who found the sculpture of the Pope in drag to be unacceptable. In an official statement, the Catholic Anti-Defamation League declared that the controversial sculpture is a "vulgar offence against Christ's vicar and the feelings of Roman Catholics,". However, others have stated the censorship of the sculpture is another example of "Organized religion dictating the role of art." and that "This type of censorship should not be happening in 2007!".

Eugenio Viola, the curator of the exhibit, has postponed the opening by three days and is in the process of reprinting exhibit catalogues in order to remove "Miss Kitty" and another controversial piece that depicted Premier Roman Prodi's spokesman talking to a transvestite, whose face is superimposed with an image of Jesus Christ.

Viola has stated that the exhibit was intended to be provocative and to question the perceptions of viewers in regards to religion within the context of secular culture. Viola charged that "The value of art from the period of the avant-garde onward has been to free oneself from the dogmatic and ecclesiastic censors,".

In an interesting twist the sculpture has been purchased by Milan's top culture official, Vittorio Sgarbi for an undisclosed price. The exhibition, which is backed by Sgarbi, opens Thursday in the Palazzo della Ragione and runs through Sept. 16. Organizers have been asked to ban children under 18 years of age from observing the exhibit.

What do you think about this censorship? Should artists and curators be free to exhibit art that displays a controversial stance against political and religious leaders? Is some art not meant to be seen by the general public? What is your opinion?

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin

Art Space Talk: William T. Wiley

From the very beginning of his career, William T. Wiley has been a maverick. He came on the scene in the early 1960s, developing his inimitable figurative style when virtually every artist in the United States who wanted to be taken seriously was painting in the Abstract Expressionist mode. As he was gaining substantial recognition in the late '60s. Minimalism and Conceptualism were becoming the vogue. Over the ensuing decades, Wiley has remained steadfast in his pursuit of truth and humor.

Brian Sherwin: Mr. Wiley, I observed your work at Art Chicago. How did the exhibit go for you? I understand that many people felt that the influence Chicago has on the 'art world' would be determined by the success of Art Chicago and the Bridge Art Fair. Do you think Chicago is still in the game, so to speak?

William T. Wiley: Game? You bet!

BS: You have been described as the "Michelangelo of Funk", a "dude ranch Dadaist" and as a "kinder, gentler Ted Kaczynski." What do you think of these labels?

WW: OK, my answer to all three labels... Lay Bull... but can be helpful. They might help you from drinking poison... just don't let them get in the way of comprehension and understanding.

BS: The art critic John Perreault stated that you are 'impossible to classify'. He went on to say that you are "one of the most important artists to challenge the very notion of "Mainstream art". Can you go into detail about his statement and how it defines you as an artist? How would you describe yourself and your art?

WW: J.P.'s statement sounds good to me. Does classification establish hierarchy? Lower Arky? As an artist hoping to make art... the doing and making describes me.

BS: Based on Mr. Perreault's statement about your work, do you think that certain schools hold young artists back from taking the creative direction they need in order to create unique works? How is your educational practice different than instructors who are restrictive in their teaching practice?

WW: I don't know. Only you can hold yourself back... a really good or humble student could learn and grow regardless if you're letting your spirit, heart, and soul lead your search or quest!

BS: Mr. Wiley, how has instructing art influenced your own artistic process? Do students even open your eyes to new directions?

WW: All the time... examples... I worked with graduate students Bruce Nauman, John Buck, Debbie Butterfield and many you never heard of. It's just an exchange of gifts if one is open to it.

BS: In what other ways has teaching art inspired you?

WW: Amazing human beings... working and playing with them. Exchanging ideas, possibilities, passions... obsessions.

BS: I'd like to ask you about the Tower. From 1985 to 1991 you worked with Lippincott, Inc. in order to fabricate an extraordinary 75-foot bronze sculpture. The interior spiral staircase leads past figures informed by the myths and mysticism of the middle ages to a star-shaped viewing area overlooking the surrounding woods. What inspired you to take part in this project?

WW: Don Lippincott helping me to do it... supporting me and making it possible. That was my inspiration.

BS: Did you have any doubts about the Tower and its construction?

WW: Not me. Do you?

BS: What about doubting your ability? Have you ever had doubt in your talent and skill as an artist?

WW: All the time...

BS: The majority of your work seems to be influenced by past eras. Why does the past influence your work in this manner?

WW: Like Faulkner said: "The past isn't dead, it isn't even past."

BS: Do you feel that you 'breathe new life' into the past by using symbolic imagery from these past eras?

WW: It is more like I breath in the present. The imagery and symbols... era's... etc... where I'm drawn to them... for me holds power, mystery, instruction...

BS: Mr. Wiley, you have been involved with several major exhibits. Your art has been exhibited at the Whitney Museum of American Art, The Museum of Modern Art and several other prestigious venues. Can you recall any exhibitions that had a profound impact on you personally? Does one stand out over the others?

WW: They all have their impact and instruction. The first organized showing of my work- by Brenda Richardson- at the Berkeley Museum titled 'Wizdumb' stands out because of Ms. R... and it was the first.

BS: Having exhibited widely does it ever feel like on exhibit is no different than the next? Or does each new exhibit give you a park of energy, so to speak?

WW: No. There are ups and downs... sparks come from many sources. Failure... success... do not be fooled by either.

BS: What advice do you have for younger artists? It is no secret that young talent can be exploited for personal gain. What should a young artist focus on and look out for?

WW: You exploiting you... and going against your inner voice... your gut feeling, your instinct. No matter what is being denied or offered, the true you knows better. You have to learn to heart it.

BS: Looking back on the years that you have created art- what do you think your legacy will be?

WW: I don't know. I don't have to worry about that.

BS: Finally, is there anything else you would like to say about your art, the art market, or anything else about the 'art world'?

WW: No, not really. Most of it has been said over and over again and 'art' doesn't care. Art will not be deceived or confined by the likes of us.

I hope that you have enjoyed learning about William T. Wiley and his art. You can find out more about William by visiting his site: www.williamtwiley.com

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin

Art Space Talk: Dianne Bowen

Originally from Brooklyn New York, Dianne Bowen is a painter by nature. Her pieces’ are conversations with the surface rooted in American Abstract Expressionism. The tactile surfaces speak their own language, which reflect the Human condition.

Dianne was included in the June/July issue of Art in America. The title of the article was called 'Feminist Art Girls, Girls, Girls, Feminists art's phases and philosophies? Let me count the ways...'by Carey Lovelace.

You can learn more about Dianne and her art by visiting her website: www.diannebowen.com

Brian Sherwin: Dianne, you are originally from Brooklyn, NY. You were born into a family of artists. Since the age of 6 you have been determined to be an artist. How did the early influences of your family shape your direction as an artist?

Dianne Bowen: My family was part of a group of artists who initially made the move to Brooklyn in search of studio space and a place to raise a family in the mid 60s. They were very politically active which led to many parties, and get togethers discussing the artworld, current events or simply who's doing what work and showing where..... always a strange and interesting cast of characters .

From painters, printers, graphic designers and poets, their influence helped me to develop a critical eye by a very young age. Becoming an artist seemed a natural choice. After being selected for a gifted and talented art program in elementary school, my fate was sealed.

Family visits always included a studio critique especially by my aunt Carol Mulhern (my biggest influence) who is also an artist. She was harsh but constructive. She said, "Your art is like your child, you need to nurture it, respect it, and give it the attention it deserves or don't do it. I'm not here to tell you how nice your work is, anyone can say that, it means nothing. I want you to own it, defend it, tell me why it works." My mother would simply say, "Do it or don't, just don't waste my time with mediocracy."

Most recently, I had a studio visit with my uncle Micheal Mulhern, a painter to discuss the new drawing sculpture series.
So you think being from a family of artists makes it easier? Think again.....

BS: Based on your family experiences, I assume that you have a 'tough skin' as far as critiques are concerned. That seems to be something that many younger artists have trouble with. Do you have any suggestions for current art students who have a 'soft skin'?

DB: Don't take it personally. You have to remove yourself from your work so you can see it clearly with an unbiased eye. I find it's easier if you approach it in a third person. Try to look at it from the point of view of a stranger seeing it for the first time or a writer, begin to ask your self questions what works in this piece, what doesn't and why.

This is not an easy task but imperative in order to gain perspective about what your doing. Sort through the criticism to find the constructive and don't worry about the other stuff it doesn't mean anything anyway.

BS: Since those early years you have had a lot of success. Your work can be found in a recent issue of Art in America. Can you tell our readers about the article?

DB: The issue is an overview of the current tide of Feminist Art events and shows taking place in the art world and the issues that surround such an undertaking. From the long awaited "Wack" exhibition at the L.A. MOCA, the opening of The Elizabeth Sackler Center for Feminist Art to non- profits such as A.I.R.'s "7th Biennial" and commercial galleries such as Galerie Lelong's "Role Play: Feminist Art Revisited 1960-1980)" the article examines the history of womens work to the present.

As the subtitle states Feminist's phases and philosophies Let me count the ways... The reviews of work range from women in contemporary art history to mid-career and emerging artists. I am particularly honored to be included in this very important issue.

BS: When did you find out that your work would be in the publication?

DB: I had a heads up from the the gallery that they were going to do a review on the show and requested an image of my work but I didn't know it was published until a fellow artist emailed me "You must be really happy, your work was published in Art in America with a great review." At that point I ran down to the store and joked with clerk, I only have $40 bucks! I'll take 8 now!

BS: It is about time that women artists gain the respect and equality that they deserve in the world of art. However, assume that the struggle is not over yet. Do you feel there is still a gap in how male artists are treated compared to female artists? Do you have any personal examples of this?

DB: Still miles to go on this subject. There is still a lack of opportunities for women to be shown, if you look through the gallery guide you'll notice it easy enough.

The National Gallery for Womens Art just put up a data base which is fantastic. Their doing some great work documenting the history of women artists.

One day it will just be "art history", at least that's what I'd like to see. purely about the work first.

BS: Dianne, do you have any advice for young women who are entering the art world? How can they get involved with Feminist Art events and exhibits? Do you have any sources of information that you would like to share... perhaps a link to a website or the title of a text besides the one you've mentioned?

DB: Research, get involved, talk to other artists. The Cue Foundation has great free seminars with prominent figures in the artworld on everything from how to write an artist statement, filing taxes to how to approach a galleryist. Residency programs provide a great way to concentrate on your work or get some good critiques from other artists. A.I.R. Gallery only shows womens art, founded in 1972 it's a non-profit gallery which also offers fellowships.

"The Exhibitionists" is a womens art salon I belong to which meets once a month to discuss pretty much everything related to art. Juried exhibitions are good to get your resume started but be careful with these, sometimes the shows offer "exhibition opportunities" with high fee memberships. You need to really read the fine print.

Registries like Nurture art, the Adam Sandler file at the Artist Space, the Painting Center open art program, New York State department of cultural affairs percent for art program are all good. Also the Saachi Gallery on line and if you live in Brooklyn or are from Brooklyn, the Brooklyn Arts Council and BWAC have a registry.

NYFA, artists deadline list are both good for opportunities. I'd start with these. The point is you should know all this information as it is relevant to what you do. The more you know the better off you are.

BS: You studied at the School of Visual Arts in New York. Who was your mentor during that time?

DB: Lucio Pozzi and May Stevens. Biggest influences, I had a very hard time in school as I was going full time, working part time, getting married and having kids and to top it off commuting from Long Island. Not to mention I was really broke. If it wasn't for the conversations and direction I found with both Pozzi and Stevens I may not have survived it honestly. Sometimes people save your life without even realizing it...

BS: Dianne, you tend to work in series, currently a drawing sculpture series on paper and a light panel series on plexi. Would you say that it is important for an artist to work in series?

DB: Not at all, it's important an artist is allowed room to grow and explore without being stuck in a box. For some, like myself, working in series is necessary to their process. I think you have to really listen to your work to find your way.

BS: You often explore the following themes in your art: depth of humanity, what connects us, the core of existence, marks left by life. Why do you focus on these themes? Are you interested in the psychology of the human condition?

DB: It's both a personal and shared experience. I've always been interested in how human beings relate to each other, how we affect each other consciously or subconsciously. How we are connected within the universe down to the particles or sub particles, this is where I find the questions I seek.

Absolutely the psychology of the human condition comes into play, as I reflect on the materials I choose for each work. In a sense I'm whispering in your ear, gently taking your hand, "I have something for you, something you need, I've kept it here in the scar on my hand, the bits of glass, the seeds and fragile layers of paint and paper. I wanted to give you these lines dancing and flying around the surface like transient lines in space in an uncontrollable freedom and joy. I wanted to leave a mark- like a memory to keep with you for when you need it."

BS: So... in a sense you observe your work as a guide for those who view it? A guide for action, change, and self-reflection through the experiences you share visually? Would you say that the goal of art should be to build those kinds of connections between the artist and the viewer?

DB: Art works on so many levels, it's really an opinion after all. What art should be is the decision of the artist making it.

BS: In your statement you say the following: "Winding within the layers of skin, to the marrow of the bones into the heart, and deeper to the texture of the molecules Bowen digs into the internal depths of man. She turns the work inside out revealing their "guts" for you to reach in and dig about. "It’s Alive!" (Frankenstein). Her works are beautiful, contemplative spaces with subtle disturbing twists demanding time. Pushing the limits with materials and approach, bits and piece’s become "whole" within themselves ultimately reflecting the human condition. This is the intimate language of life, grotesque, harsh, fragile and beautiful". Can you go into further detail about how you peel back the skin of humanity, so to speak?

DB: The obsessive process of layering paint, dripped and pooled on the surface, embedded materials in each layer reveal themselves over time. The work is just that way, subtle, quiet, speaking when you least expect it, loring you in with surface texture and color. Combining disparate materials without loosing site of their original properties brings forth a transcendental life.

In the light works series, I specifically reference microscopic slides, and heart tissue, small pieces of something larger, organic in nature to explore and examine. The light creates an eerie feeling, as if the work may breath or pulse at any moment.

Like a strange x ray the silhouettes of minute seeds, bits of glass, mica flakes, eggskins and wire come through the layers of translucent papers. Fragile by nature the varied sizes and shapes appear as layers of skin.

The drawing sculptures are a hybrid of both drawing and sculpture. They address another side. My sheer joy in the process is evident in the movement of lines. For this work I needed to go low - tech. Back to the beginning if you will, to the first marks left in a cave, Using sienna pencil and charcoal pencil I draw concentric swirls, which reference life cycles and folding skin, muscle tissue or rings of trees.

Drawing on the inside and outside of egg shells and tiny coriander and mustard seeds sealed in acrylic medium they float on the surface, rest precariously on the ends of guitar strings, referencing "birth" the beginning and the end.

The black charcoal pieces swing out of control across the paper, in a playful, catch me if you can. Guitar Strings spin out from the paper into the environment, traces of mica, graphite pigment and recycled tire treads come together and dissolve into the work.

Here and not...... The lines in my work are turning inside out and upside down within contemplative spaces of rotation and anarchy challenging your perceptions.

BS: Can you describe your average studio routine? What is a day in your studio like?

DB: I work on my art 7 days a week all day every day. Usually I do the business part on the computer late at night like searching for show possibilities, grants, writing reviews, research and dealing with applications.

During the day I'm usually focused on producing the actual work. The process really takes place for months in my head before I actually begin to collect the materials I'm interested in using. I find once I'm in the moment of a work, there can be no interruption. Of course this had led to my being awake for 3 days straight.

The process of layering and dripping the paint is extremely particular so once I started that was that! Alot of coffee and a few interesting hallucinations... sleep deprivation does some really crazy things.

BS: Dianne, are you working on any special projects at this time... or do you plan to do so in the future?

DB: A few projects in the works. I was part of a large collaboration project "the seed", by artist and founder of Artworld Digest, David Cohen. He's absolutely brilliant, interesting guy. We've finished a short video collaboration which was inspired by the seed project. We are in the process of figuring out where we'll show it and how.

I'm really excited about it. I'm working on my current "drawing sculpture series", for which I'm seeking a solo show at the moment. More collaborations with other artists coming up but these projects are still in the raw state.. and I have a community mural in the Bronx with kids this month.

BS: What artists have influence you? Also, have certain genres of music influence you as well?

DB: Eva Hesse, May Stevens, Elizabeth Murray, most recently Franklin Evans and Phyllis Ewen and poets, Medh McGoukian, Aundre Lorde, Marge Piercy, Joyce and Bukowski. As for music, The Blues, David Bowie.

BS: I understand that you have some exhibits in the near future. Can you give our readers more information about those exhibits? Links?

DB: Currently, A.I.R. Gallery 511 W. 25th Street NY NY, Gallery III, June 26 - July 21 I have 7 small egg shell postcard pieces with my artist group "the exhibitionists" in the Wish You Were Here 6 show. www.airnyc.org. Theater for the New City Gallery 155 First ave. at 10th St. (lobby) extended through Aug 15th. Large drawing sculpture "Lines of Communication (white)" on grey paper. www.theaterforthenewcity.net Apexart, 291 church st. btn. white and walker. "the most curatorial biennial" 2 small drawing sculpture pieces, opening this sat. July 10th 6-8pm www.apexart.org/index.htm I am currently seeking a gallery for a solo show of my drawing sculpture series.

BS: Finally, what do you hope viewers obtain from your work?

DB: A different perspective, encourage thought, I hope it affects them. and in the end, I simply hope they enjoy it.

I'd like to thank Dianne for sharing some of her most recent work within the context of this interview. Again, you can learn more about Dianne by visiting her site: www.diannebowen.com

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin

The Conceptual Question: Is it Art?

You have most likely heard this charge before, "Conceptual art is not art!"- now I ask you, if it is not art- what is it? How should we define it? Why can't it be art? The negative views of conceptual art stems in the fact that most people simply do not know what it is. I've given some thought to this. Thus, I've decided to write a small article about conceptual art that will hopefully answer a few questions about the art form. Hopefully it will stimulate a debate as well.
The problem facing conceptual art is the fact that the majority of people do not understand it. It would be my guess that many artist who work in this manner are also guilty of not knowing the foundation of the art form. How can you appreciate a form of art if you do not comprehend the thoughts behind it? How can you judge a form of art if you don't understand the principles of it? These are questions that deserve an answer.

Conceptual art is a form of art that involves materials just like any other artistic endeavor. However, these materials are the very "concepts" that go into the piece. This is how a conceptual artist should view his or her work and how we, as the viewers, should observe it.

Conceptual art is not about the physical materials that are used to give form to the piece. The process should not be concerned with the finished product. Conceptual art is instead focused on the 'ideas' that go into the piece. In other words, conceptual art is a form of art that is founded on the idea of concepts.

The items used to construct the concepts in physical form are not the primary focus of the work. If they are the piece is no longer a work of conceptual art. Thus, the concept is art from the moment it enters the artists mind. This can be hard to grasp since we view art as either being physically finished or not.

In conceptual art the idea of concept is vital and must be the focus of the work. This is the strongest aspect of conceptual art as an art form. Without it the strength of the conceptual piece as a whole loses validity and becomes a work of art that is more perceptual than conceptual. In other words, without a pre-determined idea the art is no longer conceptual. Instead it would be perceptual.

Perceptual art, like classical paintings or drawings, are created from one idea to the next making changes in between to suit the over-all piece visually. Conceptual art should remain true to the original idea- the concept that stem from it. The appearance of the final product is not a point of concern for the conceptual artist. It is instead a by-product of the idea. Again, this goes against much of what we are taught in the early years of our education and is a key reason why people find it hard to accept conceptual art for what it is.

One must remember that conceptual art is not about the sensation of the eye. As mentioned, works focused on capturing the eye are perceptual- conceptual art is not focused on this endeavor. Thus, it is important to not judge perceptual and conceptual art on the same terms because they are contradictory in nature. This is where the problem with accepting conceptual art as a form of art can be found.

Viewing perceptual and conceptual art equally is almost like accepting past, present, and future as the same value of time. This is will not work unless your name is Marty McFly and you happen to be friends with a mad doctor. Thus, we need to know the foundation of these works in order to understand how they can be considered art.

Most of us are conditioned to view only perceptual art as art. We are raised to enjoy the emotive works of Van Gogh, Picasso, and the Old Masters. Thus, we define the beauty of art based on that conditioned stimulus- anything else is not accepted because it goes against years of assumed knowledge of what art should be.

For example, conceptual art is rarely mentioned in the average high school art class and most art books for children and teens involve works that are based in emotion. The popular media image of the artist is of a man or woman who works in an emotional manner- the tortured artist slaying his or her demons with artistic expression. Conceptual art should be void of emotion- thus it goes against our conditioned view of art. The image that the public school system and movies have created for us.

Many of us are raised to think that art should have an emotional message for the viewer. Thus, we do not accept works that lack a clear message as being art. We expect a work of art to have a message and for it to pull at our senses. Conceptual art is at a disadvantage due to this. This is due to the fact that conceptual art is purely intuitive and is purposeless based on the words of the artists who founded it in the first place.

I must repeat: Most of us do not accept conceptual art as art because we were raised not to accept it. Conceptual art has been caught in the cross-fire of our education... through school and by the media. We can't see this form of art as art because it contradicts the idea of art that we were raised to know and accept. So in order to enjoy conceptual art one must place everything that he or she has been taught on the back-burner. That can be very hard to do.

I would like to stress that one form of art is not any better than the next. I personally feel that all works should be equally accepted as art. I actually think it is harmful to art as a whole when once form of art is degraded. However, that does not mean that I have to like one form compared to another.

There can be good art and bad art... some bad art can be good art... and so on. In other words, I'm not suggesting that conceptual art is better than other forms of art. I do not work in a conceptual manner. I'm suggesting that the artists who work in that manner deserve to have their work accepted as art without being constantly questioned by their peers. Remember that many of the forms of art we utilize today were once questioned and degraded in the past.

With that knowledge in hand... let us rethink how we should view the non-emotive art form that is conceptual art. What are your views of conceptual art? Did this text help to give you a better perspective about conceptual art? Do you still feel that conceptual art is not art? Let me know what you think.

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin

Art Space Talk: Kasia Blekiewicz

Kasia Blekiewicz is an artist who has exhibited internationally. Kasia was born in 1972 in Gdansk, Poland. She completed her studies at the Academy of Fine Art in Gdansk and obtained a Masters Degree in Painting from the Maciej Swieszewski atelier. Kasia is interested in capturing aspects of nature and various cultures in her work. Her goal is to create images that have a message of peace.

Brian Sherwin: Kasia, you attended the Academy of Fine Art in Gdansk. Who were your mentors? Can you tell us about the art department?

Kasia Blekiewicz: The first teacher who connected me to art was my husband. I was his student, in the second year of my studies. He required from me a lot of work so I hope that it brought positive effects. He taught me abstract perception of nature. He put pressure on basic principles of composing the picture, something what was important for Vassily Kandinsky in his theory of art.

Concerning the art department in my Academy- after passing the exams we had the choice of five ateliers. Studies continue for five years. The first two regard basic education, traditional, with strong pressure on drawing techniques. The next three years was focused on individual development. After this period takes place a defense of master's dissertation.

We have the following departments in the Academy: Painting, Graphic art, Architecture, Industrial design and Sculpture. Apart from practical work there are also theoretical activities- philosophy, history of art, esthetics, technology of painting etc.

BS: You also studied under Maciej Swieszewski. Can you tell us about your training at the atelier?

KB: Maciej Swieszewski is a wonderful professor. He has a specific gift talking with students. When he gives advice regarding artworks it doesn't offend the listener. It is a well-known fact, that artists are sensitive. However, this doesn't exclude his professionalism. He sets high requirement and demands hard work from students. Maciej's corrections are concrete and right, always edifying. My studies in this atelier were a pleasure for me.

BS: Kasia, you have stated the following about your artistic philosophy: "signs that appear in my works come from my imagination.When being enchanted by nature I synthesize this world and portray it in the form of imaginary symbols.". Can you go into further detail on how nature inspires your work? Do you feel a spiritual connection with nature?

KB: The main source of my inspiration comes from my fascination with ancient art. I'm very interested in the art and culture of Egypt, Greece, Etruscan- their murals, sculptures and architecture.This art presented nature, glorified it. I'm not going to do it as they did. Instead, I transform my view of nature from my personal language.

Yes of course I feel a spiritual connection with nature. God created it for our needs, is it possible to feel differently?We all are small elements of one big wholeness. Everyone of us fulfills a different role. My role is to be an artist.

BS: When I view your work I can see the traditions of your homeland as well. So your work is a combination of traditions, including the traditions of Poland. Why did you decide to juxtapose these traditions?

KB: The traditions which I present on my canvas are not confined to my homeland. I draw from the above mentioned cultures, Mediterranean art of old, and sometimes from the Asian cultures.Generally I feel as if I'm a universal child, so I draw from our old civilizations as if they are one whole.

Why did I decide to juxtapose these traditions? When I was a child I knew that I would be an archaeologist or artist. People come into this world with certain interests and continue it in life. I believe and I know, that we continue our old ways. My way is painting and a fascination of ancient cultures.

BS: Your paintings often involve botanic imagery... trees.... various plants- symbols of life. Would you say that your art is about life?

KB: Botanic motifs in my paintings are very important, one of them is tree. In universal symbolism tree is considered like a metaphor of cosmic life, beauty, fairness, knowledge. Pliniusz wrote, that trees were the first temples of humans. In old Greek religion they considered trees sacred. In their faith, trees were places where various gods and nymphs lived, while in Christian symbolism the tree means salvation.

I present in my works different symbols. For example, figure of circle, sun, vase. I try to describe them in detail with one of my paintings as an example, although I don't like to do it, because it deprives the element of mystery in my work. I would like to give viewer's the possibility of interpretation.

In my piece, "Rondo" I present a central situated figure of a circle with the Sun in the middle. The circle means universe , cosmos and eternity. Sun life-giving energy , endlessness, light. Over the Sun is the eye -symbol of God, below fish - Christ, life and immortality. The Background for mentioned elements is abstract landscape in red colouring.

BS: Kasia, what message do you want to send to people who view your work? Is your message one of peace?

KB: I would like to send to people a message of peace. I want people to enjoy nature andto try and look for the beautiful surroundings in their lives.

BS: Finally, do you have any upcoming exhibitions? Where will you be exhibiting your art next?

KB: I will take part in the Edinburgh Art Festival with a group of Polish artists. We will present our works in the Art Space Gallery. The title of the exhibition is "Inspiring Humanity".

I hope that you have enjoyed learning about Kasia and her art. Be sure to join her network if you become a member of the myartspace.com community.

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin

Art Space Talk: Cindy Wiseman

I discovered the art of Cindy Wiseman while observing art on myartspace.com. Stimulated by the physical qualities of the natural world, Cindy paints environments that contain a sense of place without literal representation. Her paintings always have a strong relationship with light that oftentimes reflect an indefinable reality.

Cindy extracts the essence from nature and explore its mysteries, which forms a personal visual language. This painterly communication aids interpretation of the culture, terrain, and era in which she lives. She offers no tangible narrative or realism. Her desire is to introduce the viewer to an atmospheric space where a new engaging reality can be experienced.

Brian Sherwin: Cindy, as a child you were kind of nomadic. You moved with your parents over thirty times. How did this vagabond lifestyle influence your later work?

Cindy Wiseman: We moved so often when I was growing up that the only consistent things were family, my connectedness to the terrain, crayons, pencils, paper and books. My best friend was my vivid imagination.

To entertain myself I sketched and created realities on paper or tucked myself into nature playing in the new surroundings.

Reading was also important; I read my way through multiple phases of growing up. All of these things influence my artwork and affect the way I relate to my environment

BS: During the early years you predominately worked in clay. You eventually evolved into working with metal and stone. What inspired you to change your artistic practice? Where will your work take you next as far as exploring mediums is concerned?

CW: Please remember we are talking about an expanse of around thirty years—this amount of time often brings multiple evolutions for an artist. Changes can occur in medium due to discovering a new medium that you fall helplessly in love with, family considerations, or physical challenges.

I tend to work in a very focused, obsessive way. Long hours in the studio are pleasing to me and necessary. Also, I am independent and like to work alone doing most things for myself, though this tendency hasn’t always been to my advantage.

Working in clay was physically demanding. After about seven years I began to have problems hauling the weight of the materials. It was also about this time that there was a terminal illness in my family and major life changes took place. I choose to leave the studio and concentrate on my sons care. After those experiences I was changed as a person and artist. I started slowly reshaping my studio and life, which eventually led me into working in metals and stone for the next twelve years.

There are certain things a metalsmith does in the studio, like hammering and polishing, which can be brutal on one’s hands. I used my hands and arms so much in thisperiod that I began to have serious physical repercussions. Due to this, I was forced to leave metals and rethink my career.

Notably, these turning points led me into working in my next medium with greater intensity. Each shift has ultimately been more satisfying artistically.Where will my explorations take me next? I am completely involved with painting and don’t foresee working in any other concentration.

BS: Cindy, based on your experience... over three decades of artistic exploration...what advice can you give to artists who are just starting out?

CW: I find it beneficial to work consistently, take short breaks, and keep working in the studio regardless if I’m in a dry period or a period of success. Give art to your community. Art is a powerful means to communicate but be clear about what you want to say in your work. Follow your passion in art and think of it as an investment—don’t hesitate to put your time and money into your studio.

BS: Cindy, you took a painting course that altered your life. Since that time youhave painted and drawn with a passion. Do you think that it is important for artists to explore several mediums instead of focusing on one? A lot of people suggest that it is better to focus on one medium, but it would seem- from observing your work- that said advice (single concentration) may actually hold some artists back. Do you agree?

CW: Being involved with multiple mediums over an extended period of time has been beneficial in my development. Realize that I tend to focus for several years on a medium or specific concept. Past experiences in clay and metal offer broader understanding of three-dimensional space, which accentuates the way I relate to painting.

I value the luxury of single concentration with a medium—it allows me to gain understanding of the diversity of what the medium has, or doesn’t have to offer my work. But I don’t believe in ignoring things that repeatedly attract my attention, it may hold an important key.

My observation about artistic development is that it is an individual affair, although sometimes development has more to do with work ethic than medium. Important to me is to work consistently and produce bodies of work. Through observation of the collection, I can usually see where my work is cohesive and where I need to make changes.

BS: Since those early days of clay you have went on to obtain a BFA in studio painting and an MFA in studio art. Where will your studies take you next?

CW: For the last three years I have been studying the connection of abstract painting and color associated with the pulse of the landscape in north central New Mexico. This is a personal painterly investigation as well as a spiritual, contemporary and historical study. I feel that I have just scratched the surface and plan to continue.

I look at art that interests me and cultivate communication with artists’ whose opinions I respect. This combination stimulates my way of living and creating. A priority is time to cloister myself in the studio. I’m not sure what will unfold from this period of work. I do know I will be painting my way through it all and this will inform me as to what I need to do next.

Currently my past and present relationships with art making are uniting when I paint, its very stimulating.

BS: What else inspires or influences your work... beside childhood memories?

CW: My main influences are the illusive and often abstract color, multifaceted layering of life, and luminosity found the natural world. I see landscape as the heartbeat of our culture. It is ever changing, devoid of fads and when closely inspected, offers anintangible space that continually captivates my imagination.

BS: Cindy, have you ever thought of documenting your experiences in art... such as writing a book?

CW: Right now writing a book would take me away from precious hours in the studio.Perhaps in the future, but actually I would rather my paintings speak for me.

BS: Cindy, you have stated that you access a voice of reason in an unsettled world through painting and drawing. You have went on to say that your paintings are a reaction to living in the environment and help you to interpret the culture, terrain, and era that you live in. Do these views stem from you youth? In otherwords, you looking for a sense of belonging through your art? Does creating art give you a foundation to stand on?

CW: Yes, there is influence in my work derived from childhood. While growing up I found a safe haven in nature, often spending long hours observing or playing with organic forms (trees, creeks, nooks and crannies) or exploring the passage ways in a new town where we relocated. These forms and explorations eventually found there way into my paintings in the abstracted urbanscapes, crevices and light filled spaces.

I usually feel a sense of belonging more in nature than I do in the city or being around masses of people; this is reflected in my work. But also I recognize my need for diversity and multiple cultures in my environment, so I am conscious of keeping this type of balance when I can.

My outer environment is an important informant for my needs in painting. It is not necessarily “a sense of belonging” that my work offers, but it is a means for me to interpret. Fore instance, I start with a basic concept for a painting and as I get into the work, it changes form evolving into something beyond my original idea.

After a piece is completed, often I see an influence or subject that was a stimulus. When I am in the act of painting I may not be consciously aware of that influence. My artwork is an informant about my innermost thoughts. The information I gain from my paintings adds to the foundation of my work and life, thus giving me a broader understanding of my emotions and environment.

BS: Can you go into further detail about your artistic process? How do you know when a piece can go no further?

CW: Sketching is core to my process. I always carry a sketchbook and sketch from life or doodle as well as record my thoughts on art making. What I put into my sketchbooks is something I often return to for clarification about a thought or idea, a specific place, or artwork I’ve viewed. I don’t necessarily draw what I end up painting.

Mostly I depict the world around me ranging from art I appreciate, and interesting piece of trash in the streets, a cup of coffee…whatever catches my attention…but always people. I find sketching people when they are unaware helps me keep pulse of the emotional climate, which informs my work.

Sometimes finishing a painting is like a question and answer session. The paint or surface begins to lead me with a question of space, emotion, or need for density or illumination. When I stand back and observe what I am working on, it either answers that longing or it feels unanswered and devoid of my intent—that’s when I know I need to go further or back away from the work.

Having different perspectives in viewing offers valuable information regarding if a work is finished or needs tweaking. I have a mirror in my studio where I can look at the painting when I’m working.

Sometimes I’ll photograph the stages and look at them in another format. And a biggie…time is a valuable tool. It is good to get away from your work for a while, then return to it and sit to examine it with fresh eyes.

BS: Finally, is there anything else you would like to say about your art or the artworld in general?

CW: Support the arts in your community, state, country, and internationally. View art. Make art. Sell art. Buy art. Talk art. Live as art.

I hope you have enjoyed learning about Cindy Wiseman and her art. You can learn more by visiting her website: www.cindywiseman.com

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin

Art Space News: Is Banksy for the People?

The latest artwork thought to be by guerrilla artist Banksy has appeared on the streets of Glastonbury. An outhouse served as the 'canvas' for this latest work- which depicts a life-size image of a police officer frisking a young girl. The local police office was swamped with complaints about the piece. However, nothing can be done about it since the image is on private property.

Derek Balmer, from the Royal West of England Academy had the following to say about Bansky: "He has received publicity as no-one knows who he is". Mr. Balmer suggests that the popularity of Banksy is only due to his mysterious persona. However, hundreds- if not thousands- of people in England and throughout the world would disagree with that charge.

Many observe the work of Banksy as a form of 'visual voice' for the people. In that sense he has become a political underdog offering his own blend of social commentary. The question is... does Banksy want that role? Does he want to be a voice for the people? What do you think?

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin

Art Space Talk: Joshua Hagler

I discovered the art of Joshua Hagler while observing member art on myartspace.com. I was impressed by the expressive nature of his paintings.

Mr. Hagler graduated from the University of Arizona School of Fine Art with a BFA in Studio Art. His work has appeared in various art books, magazines, and journals- including the UK Guardian.

Mr. Hagler was one of ten international artists selected from a group of 10,000 entrants to show in a special exhibition put on by the Saatchi Gallery in London. His art is controversial and thought-provoking.

Brian Sherwin: Your current body of work is concerned with the problem of fundamentalism in America and the burden and social effects of religious faith. You presented several of these paintings in your recent solo show that you titled "Bring us Rapture" at the Mina Dresden Gallery in San Francisco. Can you tell our readers about the motive behind these works? Did the public accept them?

Joshua Hagler: I grew up in a small Illinois town going to church, youth group, Sunday school, and church camp. Later when I was in college in Tucson I joined an enormous campus Christian organization, although I never had the sense that I was fully accepted there. Later I would see how religious belief participated in the separation of my family, how it was capable of dividing the believer from the nonbeliever.

As I began to ask more questions about my faith, about its philosophical implications, its history, its evolution over time, I had what some might refer to as a crisis of faith, although what I really came to understand was that I merely started to be aware of things that, in the back of my mind, I always understood but would never allow myself to admit out of fear of the consequences.

During the past couple of years I've noticed that the kinds of arguments I used to have internally are being projected onto the big screen--the mass media. I think this is especially the case right now with the interrelationship of politics and religion. Were arguing about who we are as Americans, whether our nationality is defined by our dominant religion and vice versa.


The United States spends considerable time and energy imposing its views and culture onto other parts of the world. I'm concerned with our pursuit of hegemony and address the problem in my paintings. I do not think we can survive this way, but I also think that if one is to believe in the Rapture as most Americans do, then that line of thought will bring a person only to one conclusion: that destruction is a precondition for salvation. It's a stark belief to think we have to die in order to live. It's also stark to realize that one of the largest political lobbies in the United States believes this. It seems to be an undercurrent in our violent and wasteful behavior as Americans.


As far as whether my paintings are accepted by people who see them, I guess I don't really know. In San Francisco, most people who make it a point to be active on the art scene are not really put off by challenging subject matter. If anything, I think perhaps they don't actually recognize the subject matter. Northern California is not a very indoctrinated part of the country, which is partly why I moved out here. I sometimes wonder, though, if that's precisely why I should show them elsewhere. I think the issue of people accepting the work is less a problem than the issue of people recognizing where it comes from.


BS: What other social implications can be discovered in your work? Do you see your paintings as a form of advocacy?

JH: I definitely don't see them as a form of advocacy. I'm not really advocating anything in them. I'm certainly not advocating that people stop having religious beliefs because I don't actually feel confident that it's necessarily the best thing for the individual, nor do I think that human beings actually need religion in order to do harm to each other or the planet. I think we can do that just as well without. So what am I left to advocate?

Socially, the paintings imply that what you see is not necessarily what you get in terms of religion. I think there is this kind of exuberance that comes with organized religion that does a lot to mask the violence of thought that runs beneath it. I do not believe we should expect better from those with religious belief than those without. I do not believe they are more deserving of trust.

I have neither the high hope that my paintings can change anyones thinking, nor do I have the audacity to believe that they should. I will admit to hoping that in retrospect people will see them as a marker--a social litmus that shows how acidic the landscape can get when we believe in things without reason. All religion becomes myth over time. Who were we when we believed this myth instead of that one? I hope my paintings are one day seen when someone asks that question. How similar do we look? How different?

BS: Do you ever fear getting involved in some manner of witch-hunt over your art and thoughts concerning established religion? Do you ever feel like your walking a fine line due to the images you create? Has the controversy over your work ever caused conflict in your personal life?

JH: That' an interesting question. The short answer is no. I don't think the hypothetical witch-hunters will pay any attention to my paintings. I'm not really the paranoid type.

A good point to make on this topic is that I have plenty of non-witch-hunting Christian friends, family and acquaintances. While not all of them like my work, many of them do. Sometimes I think they have a better appreciation for the work than my non-religious friends because they come with a more specific context with which to approach the work. Everyone who knows me knows that I'm not after their souls, if you will. Nobody I know personally has said that they are angry with me or show that they are afraid of my work or somehow threatened by it.

Of course, none of my friends are marginal characters either. But I'm pretty sure the folks with their 'God hates fags' signs aren't especially invested in the contemporary art world. I'd have to show up on Yahoo news first. I don't have any plans to build anything out of elephant dung anytime soon.

To be more serious, there is a kind of discomfort when certain people close to me see it. I think they recognize what I'm trying to say but are afraid to ask penetrating questions. I'm not sure what to do about that. Maybe that's just how it has to be.


BS: Describe your process of creating. I understand that your method tend to be kind of destructive... or violent... compared to traditional methods of painting.

JH: Well, to tell the truth, I do tend to begin my paintings in a fairly traditional way. What I mean by that is I actually do have formal concerns with proportion, value, temperature, etc. It's just that over the course of the painting I reach a point where I've sort of found an opening, a gash in the side of some kind of carcass and spread it open. I feel as if something comes into my throat, like light or fear or anger and blasts out of the back of my head. I get goose bumps and I can't settle down.

I've sort of lost concern for how a painting should look and I feel more as if I'm attacking the canvas or panel than actually painting a picture. But it's a back and forth from the conscious application of paint to a more heightened aliveness. The latter doesn't actually last long, but I've learned to trust it more, so I let more happen during that time. Inevitably the wave passes and I'm left to clean up the mess. The problems that are created in my heightened state are solved in my more rational state, but both states are absolutely necessary.

Most of the art on this website was completed after my wife and I lost our apartment and my studio to arson. It was one of the most stressful, discombobulated, and delirious times of my life. When I got to the studio that I was sharing with a friend, it all poured out of me. It was a beautiful state of terror.

BS: Two of your paintings were selected last year by the Saatchi Gallery and Guardian readers to display with nine other artists from around the world in a group exhibition at the Guardian Gallery in London. I understand that you and the others artists were selected from several thousand people. Art critic Jonathan Jones acknowledged your work as his personal favorite of the group. He stated, "These are still my favorites - especially the nutty and grotesque art of Joshua Hagler, an anthropological window onto America's religious right.". Can you share any of your other experiences in regards to that exhibit?

JH: I tend to see that show as just one part of my larger experience in London. We were there for a week. I was blown away by what is going on artistically there. I was already aware that London is a place where some of the world's best artists are born, but I didn't understand how important art is there to people. I've never had the sense that most Americans are particularly aware of art or interested in it. But in London it's different. There's just a different feeling in the air.

The exhibit itself was a wonderful time. It was weird to be photographed by media people and brought from one person to another to be introduced to have one conversation interrupted for another. But the best thing was the kinds of questions that were being asked. It made me nervous to be asked things about the work that I wasn't prepared to answer, but it was a welcome change from the San Francisco art scene where it seems as if a question is rarely asked. There are just different kinds of observations that were being made in London. I think people here are more attracted to the party than to the art itself, and I didn't get that feeling in London. It felt really nice. I miss it.


BS: Can you go into further detail about your studio practice? What sets the mood for your work sessions? Care to describe your studio space?

JH: My studio can be best described as uninhabitable since the fire. Sadly, San Francisco is a hard place to find affordable space, so I've been without for a couple of months. I'm still in shock that I can't find anything. If anyone reading this knows of anything, I sure could use some help in that department. We're still sharing an apartment with friends until we can find a more permanent place to live.

BS: So how exactly did the studio fire start? Did you lose art work as well?

JH: The building in which I lived and made art caught fire because one of the tenants had a schizophrenic episode in which he torched his art studio because he believed it to be possessed by demons. The top half of the building was fried crispy. Roof gone. Lucky for us, we were on the second floor, one floor below his. My wife suffered some damage to her piano which has been fixed, and we lost some clothes because of water damage, but that's about it. None of my art was lost because my actual studio was almost completely untouched. Everything on the walls was safe enough.

BS: What artists from the past have influenced your work?

JH: For the sake of brevity, I'll keep the list short. Willem de Kooning, Giacometti, Francis Bacon, Flannery O' Connor (writer), Egon Schiele, Gustov Klimt, Carravagio, Kurt Vonnegut (writer), Goya, and more. Plus lots more living people.

BS: Concerning elephant dung and other controversial materials... we all know that some artists use certain materials to deepen the impact of their works. Do you think less of an artist who uses urine, feces, or some other controversial medium to make their point. In other words, do you think a painter should be able to make his or her point with paint... and not rely on these other materials? What is your opinion of these works... many of which deal with the same themes that you are exploring?

JH: No. I think it's silly to have some kind moral objection to any kind of media. I certainly wouldn't advocate the restriction of creative freedom. I'm all for knocking down boundaries if serves a higher purpose. My knowledge of Chris Ofili's work is limited so I don't have much of an opinion on the matter.

Getting back to the issue of relying on certain materials, I was just having a conversation with a friend about the difference between the words 'contemporary' and 'temporary'. This is sort of a tangent, but it's relevant to your question I think.

There seems to be some kind of implied pressure on artists now to push new materials in order to have relevance to the contemporary art world rather than to the world at large. For instance, if you use synthetic materials and digitally manipulate your images, all of the sudden you're more contemporary. But the funny thing is, the fine art world (vs. the commercial/illustration/videogame/animation world) is always way behind the curve in terms of its collective understanding of digital art for instance.

So if someone makes a vector tracing in Illustrator or uses Photoshop filters and paints that, or makes some crappy digital video in Final Cut or After Effects, people will start talking about how contemporary that is because it's using new methods. But the methods aren't really that new. I've been doing that sort of thing since my first year in high school, as have many of my friends. It's corny. And anyone looking from the commercial art world into the fine art world knows this. It's not contemporary; it's just temporary. Temporary, meaning that as soon as it makes its way into the gallery it's already dated.

In my opinion, 'contemporary' implies that you're among the first to get there--the contemporary conversation is one step ahead of the outmoded conversations. You're creating trends, not following them. Contemporary work has a heightened awareness of the subject that it addresses. Just because you use acrylic paint, doesn't mean you're more contemporary than someone who uses oil. It doesn't mean you're more contemporary if you use a Photoshop Filter instead of imagining something that looks unusual all by yourself. Coming up with a gimmick to add meaning to your work seems to me like a desperate scramble to do something in order for the art world to take notice of you before you turn 30.

So going back to the question, I don't have a problem with any media. I just have a problem with lending too much meaning and interest to media in which the artist is more of a prisoner to than a master of. A computer or polymer synthetic are just tools like any other. Just because there's a box with a glowing picture between you and your final outcome, or an injection molding mechanism to take the place of your plaster cast doesn't, by itself, lend more meaning, relevance, or contemporary-ness. It only means you've chosen a particular tool with no more or less intrinsic value at a particular moment to achieve your goal.

If the art critic understood the processes better, I don't think he would tend to lend so much relevance to it. It's just that technology changes so quickly now that it's hard for the audience to keep up, so it makes the artist look smart for a few years until the average consumer starts to learn how to make someone's eyes glow in Photoshop from a the photo his phone took. Then the eight-foot digital portrait with glowing eyes in the gallery doesn't seem so special anymore.

Though I'm not opposed to any medium in principle, I think, in the end, what's going to make the work last in the public's consciousness of it is not just what kind of materials the artist uses, but rather how the artist senses her world and is able to translate that vision into something that goes directly to the hearts and minds of those who experience it. Also, I recognize that whether something is contemporary or whether it lasts over time are two different conversations, but still, in order for the work to remain contemporary it needs to have some lasting power in order not to become just temporary. A little bit off the subject, but anyway. . .

BS: Finally, what do you see in your future? Care to reveal any plans for your work?

JH: I'm always biting off more than I can chew. The important thing is that I'm finally getting back into a studio after being without for a couple of months. In addition to painting, I also recently made a publishing deal for my serialized graphic novel called The Boy Who Made Silence, which will be released at the beginning of next year. I will probably be working on that for quite some time to come.

In terms of painting, I'm interested in a couple of traveling destinations for which I'd like to get a some grant money to support. One is Kentucky, where a biblical creation museum is being built. The museum asserts that the world is 6,000 years old and that dinosaurs rode on Noah's Ark. I'd like to take a tour when it's finished and make some work based on the visit and any conversations I might get to have.

The other destination is South America. My brother is currently serving in the Peace Corp and has said that there are a number of missionaries doing work around there. I'd like to see what it's like, to see what they actually do on a day-to-day basis and how the people there respond to and are affected by their work and his work actually.

I also have photos from my burnt-out apartment building that I want to use in some way. I'm interested in finding out what happened to our resident arsonist and possibly getting in touch with him. There are a lot of things that interest me right now. I just need to figure out what to prioritize.

You can learn more about Joshua Hagler and his art by visiting his website: www.joshuahagler.com. Feel free to leave a comment.

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin