Back when I built this fourth generation of my site, I made a rather large, and somewhat unusual decision, which has sat fairly quietly in my footer, largely unnoticed. When I launched this site, I decided to own up to my own advocacy of art for the masses, and I released all images of my own creation on this site under the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial Share-Alike license.

In a time when creative professionals are all cracking down on copyright, and protecting their works, choosing to release all my own art under such a license might seem like a very odd move. But the truth is, unlike a lot of working professionals, I don’t rely on the work on this site to make my living. Design is what pays my bills, buys me beer, buys me food, buys me camera, buys me paint. And, that leaves me in a rare spot for an artist: I’m completely un-reliant on the marketability of my pieces to make a living, allowing me to focus on exploring ideas, questions, and manifestos out of pure interest and passion.

It also gives me a bit more freedom in how I can distribute myself. I can focus on making sure the most number of people possible have access to my art, and that they feel they too can have it around. Because, let’s be honest, there’s not a whole lot of point in exploring ideas and messages and creating works of art if we’re not going to let people see them, experience them, live with them, and the like.

So, a mere couple of months before my upcoming show at Oranje, I’m making what I feel is a pretty bold statement about how I stand behind those philosophies by making all my works available to download in large form for printing. This is the second bit of this decision that will seem odd to some, so, I’d like to explain a few things I had in mind when I decided to do this, and to explain to you what’s up:

1. All these files are still licensed under that CC-BY-NC-SA license. This is to encourage individual and private use, as well as to encourage people to use my ideas as launching points, or to remix my pieces into new works. I’m a big proponent of the idea that strict copyright law when it is not necessary (such as to protect a livelihood) is detrimental to the creative flow of a society. So long as I’m attributed, the works aren’t sold, and anyone using elements of my piece in future pieces accepts these same terms, I feel I’ll have contributed more to the art world than by locking my stuff down.
2. Paintings aren’t the same printed. Period end. A photo of my painting will at best look like it, and at worst fail to capture most of what makes seeing one of my pieces in person the experience that it is. A painting is a physical object, and is inherently unique. By releasing images of my paintings, I don’t feel I’m in any way undercutting my own market for selling them should I wish. I am, however, allowing people who would never buy a painting otherwise a chance to at least experience my work, to display it, and to maybe introduce me to even more people. My paintings, as such, are available to download at the same size as I shot them, usually around 5-8 megapixels.
3. Photography is trickier. It’s also much easier and cheaper to make than it ever was in the film day. So, to that end, I’m releasing the photos at 8×10″ @200 dpi. More than large enough to make personal prints for yourself. I will never sign a print I have not made myself, however. My photographs will still be produced in small, limited editions, and those will be signed and hand-numbered. I will also make every attempt to sell these actual prints at a low enough price to be affordable to anyone wanting to own a work of art, no matter your line of work.
4. I do not accept commercial photographic work often, unless it lines up solidly with my own artistic goals. At rhe least, these terms do not apply to anything I do on a commercial or contract basis. My free-to-the-world model is for my own art, where I can afford it. I do not want to take food out of the mouths of any professional who relies on selling and licensing their work to live. That would be amazingly unethical of me, and would do more damage than good. My personal fine art works qualify for this open policy, but I encourage anyone wanting commercial work done to seek out an experienced professional in their area, and to be aware that there is a cost and value to the services these people offer. Even in a world racing to find the bottom of the price market.

And that’s that. Make sense to everyone? My goal here is to make it possible for people to consume art, because I think we need to break down this artificial barrier erected by elitism and cost that prevents people from being able to address art the same way they do literature, or any other work rooted in idea and attempting to convey that outwards.

If you would like to make use of my new policy, just click the “i” button below any gallery viewer. In the information overlay, you’ll see a download link for any piece with an available large download. What you do from there, well, I leave that to you.

 

This is part 3 of my series of posts discussing art and sexuality. The first part is mostly a prologue, or a preamble, explaining why these came about and how they’ll break down. Last time I laid out the way I view art and the terminology I’ll use to discuss that world. This time I’m going to talk about the sex side of things, and likewise establish some vocabulary so we can have a concise post after this free of the muddiness that usually darkens posts trying to talk about this stuff.

So let’s get going here.

The first thing I think is important to discuss when talking sex and sexuality is the difference between sex and gender. Both get used pretty sloppily in society as a whole, and as such it’s hard to use them in a way where the meaning you meant is the one people assume you did. Part of the confusion is that gender and sex are often treated as interchangeable, an unfortunate side-effect of a very narrow-minded history of usage. Sex is pretty straight forward, and refers to one’s primary genetic sex– traditionally male or female, although there’s also intersex and a few other rarer genetic expressions that muddy up that particular pool. Gender means “kind,” and so gets applied to sex as different genders, but the most common way it’s used in language is literally in language, to refer to the “masculinity” or “femininity” of a word, an idea tracing all the way back to Aristotle. Gender is then, actually, the way we talk about the differences between the sexes.

So, for the next article, and in my own use, this is how it breaks down:

• Sex: Is the primary genetic expression of a person. Either that, or the interaction between them, when used as a verb.
• Gender: Is the way a person identifies themselves. This is an important distinction to be able to make once issues like transgender and transvestite enter into things. Just because you’re swinging dick doesn’t mean you identify as “masculine.” Nor does it mean you should have to, because gender is, put softly, fucked up.

I’m going to make a pretty assertive set of statements now. One is that there is in fact a difference between males and females. or rather, several. And they all come down to genetic expression and hormones. If you don’t believe men and women are different, all you need to do is take off their pants.

That’s where differences should stop. It’s unfortunate that they don’t, and that’s where our use of gender steps in. Between historical, anthropological, and societal differences and expectations of people based on what sexual phenotype they exhibit, we have a set of preconceptions about what makes a person “a man” or a “woman.” But, within every society, these gender roles and expectations will exist to varying degrees, and will frequently impact any discussion about sex and its application and purpose. Sexism is the big term bandied about, but I’d say genderism is a term we should also be aware of, as the pressure to conform to narrow gender roles is probably damaging our society more than sexism itself. Speaking of sexism, though, let’s move on to the next part of this discussion.

Talking about sex in our society even beyond sex versus gender has some problems, because we use one term indiscriminately for three separate ideas. Namely, who we address our own desires and impulses regarding sexual intercourse and our comfort with those, how we are treated based on our apparent sex type, and how we as a society treat the idea of sexual attraction. For convenience, let’s break these ideas down like into these three terms:

• Sexuality is how we identify our urges, how we act upon them, and how comfortable we are acknowledging them and accepting them.
• Sexism is a type of discrimination based on preconceptions about what people with different sexual attributes roles are in society.
• Sexualism is how society pushes for and address sexual attraction as a necessary, or at least important, force.

So, for example, if you’re complain about sex in relation to the work of Australian photographer Bill Hensen, you’re probably talking about sexualism. Because he’s shooting nude photographs of pubescent individuals. If you’ve read much about Hensen, how he gets permission from the custodians as well as the models, how they’re all on set together, and how what he’s exploring is that awkward transition from a non-sexual person into sexual beings, you’d know that the truth is his work speaks out about sexuality, not sexualism. I’ll go into more next post when we talk about how all three aspects of sex and their bastard cousin gender affect art, and how we should address them, but this is a pretty notorious example of where the language to adequately discuss these thoughts is typically broken down.

 

Before we wrap up this segment, though, I need to get a few things out of the way. Sex and gender are complicated issues, and they overlap and feed into each other a lot. And worst still, we’ve arrived where we have for a variety of reasons. Some you can almost wrap your head around (the statistical likelihood of a man being larger or stronger making them more historically preferred for combat, for example), some much less so (religiously established patriarchies come to mind). It’s not a subject you can be impartial on. I’ll try to give things a fair shake when I can, but I’m going to declare my biases here and now so you can expect them:

I think gender roles suck. I’m generally considered an effeminate guy for a variety of reasons, including my penchant for suits, how I wear rings, that I don’t trim my nails short, etc… Even intellectuals who should really know better will sometimes joke about me being “a girl,” which really helps show that the notion of gender is so ingrained in us we’re often unaware of it. That’s dangerous. And, it’s increasingly affecting both genders as more and more men want to break away from this backwards notion of being emotionally distant, liking cars and contact sports, and all the other baggage that makes a person “a man.”

I think the Women’s Flat Track Association has currently proposed the most fair definition of sex and gender I’ve heard yet when they defined what counts as a “woman” for the ladies’ roller derby. The breakdown? If you identify and live as a woman, and have hormone levels a medical provider is willing to say fall within medically acceptable for that identification, you’re a woman. Same if you’re a man. I’m going to go one step further: if you’re intersex or otherwise compelled to not identify with other, preferring to be neuter, go for it. Gender identification is a big ball of complication that just gets in the way of us all just being folk and having to decide what we think of each other based on who we actually are.

Such things are apparently dangerous.

If the only reason you think genders need to be treated differently is because a holy book told you so, I will despise you. If you claim to be Christian and still believe that, I’ll despise you twice for mixing up Old Testament ideaologies with the much more progressive teachings of the New Testament just because they serve your confirmation bias.

Also, be aware I do identify as a feminist. I also identify with and advocate men’s rights. I do this because the goal of both are to make sure that regardless of your genetic junk, everyone gets treated the same. They both have their failings. It’s not hard to find examples of hard feminism where to restore power to women men become victimized (my mom cheers for the protagonist in Carrie Underwood’s “Before He Cheats,” I side with Glenn Sacks’ assessment that if you can flip the genders and become outraged, it’s not feminism.) That said, men’s rights aren’t princes either, and if I see one more poorly argued stance against raped laws because of the possibility the girl might be lying (something which should never be assumed, given the nature of that form of crime and how it affects the victims and their psyche), I’m going to scream. But, in theory, both want to create a truly level playing field, so I believe in both. Women have a worst time with sexism, but I’d both sexes are now truly under attack by genderism, especially as its wielded in commercial material.

And that’s exactly what next post is about. See you then.

So, back to more thoughts regarding art, sex, and society, and how they all fit together, both in practice and in conscience.

Last time I talked about how I think this is an extraordinarily big topic, and decided I was going to have to spend some time explaining my feelings about some of the major underlying concepts, and to also layout some of the language I’ll be using to explain things. Since both art and sexuality are subjective fields, I want everyone to know these are my thoughts alone. I am going to speak about them with conviction and force as if they were truths, because to me they are. But, I acknowledge they remain subjective fields. My intent is to clarify my own stance, not to belittle your own. If I should do so throughout the next few posts, forgive me.

That out of the way, let’s get going.

Art. Art’s had a long and, frankly, muddy history. It’s been around for so much and changed so many times that it’s foolish to try and explain it as a lump. Try reconciling cave paintings with patriarchal portrait commissions with architecture with the Dadaists with Banksy and get back to me on what common threads you find. It’s too much ground to cover, with too much historical change along the way. Which does lead to one very important point we can make about art: all art is relative to the society and time in which it was made. Some pieces might be retrospective, and seek to emulate styles of the past. Some will be avant-garde and will affect future generations more than their own. But, these terms are only useful in a context, and that context is always the society and time in which they were executed. You have to use that as a basis for all artistic understanding.

So, since we need to focus on a society and time, let’s get the next statement out of the way: for the remainder of this series of articles, I will be talking about Western art created since the popularization of photography, or roughly the past hundred years and change. Long enough to draw some trends, but short enough to be relevant. So, if I don’t specify a context for my statements, please mentally add “in Western society for the past hundred years.” Otherwise, we might be working with a different frame of reference which’ll make assertions I’m about to make take on different subtexts.

Next, let’s get this out of the way. I do fine art, I love fine art. But my training as a designer has given me a different viewpoint on things than I might have otherwise developed. To that end I think that the art world can be broadly divided into three categories, which can be further divided from there. But, the big three categories are Personal Art, Commercial Art, and Design.

Personal Art is the broadest, widest, and most sweeping category. This is where any art that is done purely or primarily from personal motivation falls for me. On the other end of the spectrum is Design, which is art applied for a purpose or to an end. A vase made by the artist to be shown but not used is Art, a vase intended to be used is Design. Sitting in between the two is the murky world of Commercial Art, which very often is art that doesn’t have a purpose or end by itself, but is intended to be used in a way that will give it such. My example here would be photography for an ad campaign. By itself, the photograph has no applied purpose, except that it will be given to an ad department who will then use it for an applied purpose.

Like I said, murky.

Now, a more refined breakdown of Personal Art and Design are necessary. And in this we’re going to break them down by motivations, since it is motivation that’ll be our critical factor in determining ethics of sexual content later.

For the sake of this article I’m lumping both the so-called “Craft” arts and “Fine” arts into one field here. The debate about what makes something “fine” art and the legitimacy and arrogance of making that distinction is a topic worthy of its own post, but is largely irrelevant here. So, then, our first breakdown looks like this:

• Personal Art – Art done primarily or purely for personal reasons, with commercial intent secondary or non-existent
  • Decorative
  • Illustrative
  • Explorative
  • Extrospective

Once again, these categories are broken down by the motivation of the piece, and as always with real-world concepts, pieces frequently make use of multiple motivations. So, it’s hard to say there are fast and rigid lines being drawn here where something must fit tidily into one of these concepts, but in my experience one or more of these motivations will always be present in the world of general art. I have listed them in a biased manner. They go from what I personally feel to be the lowest to the highest forms of art. The first two I consider to be arts of technique, the latter two are arts of content. Since I prefer art have depth and content to execution, I naturally gravitate towards the latter two and respect them more, since they tidily confirm my own biases.

OK, so, starting at the bottom then, we have Decorative Art. I think of works done with this as their primary motivations as the “purdy arts.” Their reason for existing is to look good, or to be used as decorative elements. The easiest example to point to here is going to be the happy trees of Bob Ross. Although, another popular one would be the similar styling of Thomas Kincaid.

A derogatory term for this extreme end of decorative art you’ll hear is “sofa art.” The obvious implication being that the art exists for no purpose other than to look good above a sofa. Other examples I’d bring in on the better end of the genre would include things like non-functional ceramics. Most vessels thrown that aren’t intended for use have a primary motivation of looking good and of exhibiting tight craft and technique.

Also, yes, sorry Ansel fans, but the well-known landscapes of Ansel Adams fall into this category.

Next up is Illustrative Art, a motivational set dominated in our current world by photography and drawing, but for centuries dominated by painting. And to this day you find a fair number of illustrative paintings. Like what, you ask? Portraits tend to be the big one. The primary purpose of most portraits is to make a working image of a distinct entity. To illustrate to the viewers a thing.

And, it doesn’t have to be a real thing to count as illustration. So long as the goal is to visually define something in an empirical manner, it’s illustration. Once again, craft and technique are highly respected on the whole in this area. So, you’re talking everything from the portraits of Gwenn Seemel to the comic art of Ashley Wood.

For you photo people, this is where you’d find reportage, photojournalism, and wedding photography. But, be careful, everything in this field has a lot of overlap with commercial art. A lot. For reasons I hope are apparent, illustrative pieces are the most common type of commercial art, under any illustration done under specific commission or contract edges really close to getting misplaced. Artists working in this area seem to walk a delicate balance between personal work and commercial work. Which is a difficult task, and that the better ones blur the lines so effectively as to be irrelevant impresses me routinely.

 

Moving up another tier, we have the Explorative Arts. I personally think of these as the “selfish arts,” which is a pretty hard and demeaning way of putting it, but it gets to the point that much of this art is done primarily for the artist themself, with little regard to commercial viability or responsibility. The purpose of art in this area is not to illustrate something, or to look good, but to help externalize internal conflicts– be they of emotional turmoil, identity, direction and intent, or method and execution. I call the works selfish, because they are very self-oriented, but I think very often these pieces are successful in a societal context despite a lack of intent for that because they tend to have a force or quality of execution behind them. This is also the most socially recognized motivation for at, the “tortured artist” genre. Good examples are everywhere, from the action paintings of Jackson Pollock, to photo projects like Manjari Sharma’s “Shower” to the mixed media works of my own friend Nathan Monk.

The last general art motivator is Extrospective. Extrospective art fulfills what I believe to be the highest calling of art (although I rarely succeed in getting to it myself), namely, to challenge views, create or inspire dialogue, force introspection or reflection, challenge politics, and in general interact with the viewers to question the world it exists in and try to influence change. Art exists in an odd position to do this. With fewer and fewer people educated in art, art has become fairly marginalized in modern society. It is a thing for educated and cultured people, and not the masses. But, it is still a visual medium, and can express things that, if not understandable in a glance, can be taken in quickly and readily, as opposed to denser forms of communication like reading, which is growing even less popular. Also, thanks to its own marginalization, art has a blanket permission to push the boundaries of taboo and controversy. In fact, it is often expected to. A luxury afforded to few visual mediums. So, while the audience is small, art has a powerful liberty to express opinions and thoughts earnestly.

So, examples in this motivation? How about Picasso’s Guernica, or the graffiti works of British artist Banksy? Or, for better or worse, Andres Serrano’s Piss Christ? Or Zana Briski’s Born Into Brothels project? The success or impact of any of these works can be argued. And is. They consistently succeed in opening dialog, even if the original intent of the piece is debated, it introduces ancillary debate around the topic.

So, those then are the four motivators I perceive being at work in Personal Art. On the other end, in the world of functional art, you have a different set of motivators for the world of design.

Design is a fairly modern philosophy, all considered. At least in its current, purpose-driven form. While the Bauhaus gets the most nods for formalizing modern design, it traces back a little further to the Industrial Revolution. In the years since, it has broken down in to a variety of different disciplines, including architectural, industrial, print, web, package, interface, and more. There are two things in my mind that make something design: a sense of applying the art and form to a purpose, and the sense of being beholden to some external motivator for that purpose. The most common of those external motivators are Social, Commercial, and Consumer concerns, which gives us this breakdown for design:

• Design – Art applied to form to an externally derived purpose and responsible to external factors
  • Social
  • Consumer
  • Commercial

What I’m trying to get across here is that design is best being thought of as work done for a client. Which isn’t to say that a designer needs an employer to function, but the work is always done towards an end, with one or more of those three factors in mind as to who the design is responsible to.

Social design focuses on how the final product can better suit or serve a population or society. This is prevalent a lot in architecture, as well as in things like street signs, and a lot of social design research goes into things as simple as roundabouts. Done properly, this style of design is largely transparent, and increases our quality of living with such ease that we often fail to notice it.

Apple's iPhone 4

 

 

 

 

Consumer design focuses on the results ease-of-use and satisfaction among the people intended or expected to use it, how well it addresses their needs. The classic example in modern design here would be Apple, who despite their brusque business behavior and capricious policies have a proven track record of making products that consumer want to use and which fit easily into people’s lifestyles and ability ranges. Many consumers weren’t even aware a tablet would be a better solution for their computing needs until Apple made them a product that was too easy not to use.

Commercial design is done where the primary responsibility is to a company or corporation, or in some other way to striking a balance between cost and sale price in order to generate profits. The basic mantra of commercial design tends to be that something doesn’t have to be elegant, attractive, or even good quality to be well-suited to its use. An example? The lowly Bic pen. A basic pen is ugly. It’s cheap. It has little social or consumer responsibility. I can buy any number of more ergonomic, better-writing, more dependable, more environmentally friendly pens. But, Bic’s pens are some of the most common items in Western society, because they so handily fill a price point and purpose. To that end, the Bic Cristal, the clear plastic Bics, are recognized by the Museum of Modern Art in New York as part of the permanent collection.

And, sitting between the two disciplines of Art and Design, we have Commercial Art. As mentioned earlier, commercial art is any work done as part of a contract where the artwork alone isn’t applied to any purpose, but will be used in a final total piece that is. Magazine photography, newspaper photos, comic book illustrations, these are all common examples of commercial art. Real estate photography. Journalism.

And this, I think, is where we’re going to get ourselves into the most trouble with discussions of how sex and sexuality fit into art in our society. Design alone is focused on application to a purpose, and personal art has a fairly marginal art. But, commercial art, which steps between both, has a huge market exposure, from magazines to television to billboard. Its presence in our society is constant, and near-inescapable. And I think that’s where the problems arise. It’s everywhere, and that kind of coverage and exposure costs money, which expects to gain something from the expense. Which leads to commercial art catering to very specific marketing demands. It doesn’t take a lot of thinking to see where that could go badly, especially when something as volatile and appealing as sex gets involved. So, next, we need to talk about sex. Which sounds like another post to me. Check back later and we’ll continue this.

 

So, it’s no secret to any long-term readers that sex in its various forms and concerns is a big topic for me. At least it shouldn’t, what with my long-running series of chicken skull clad nudes, a painting series exploring lust and relationships, and some freelance work for a softcore porn group. Heck, even the title of this blog is a reference to it:

Suzie, every alchemical fuck’s a Masaccio exchange: sex for desire, desire for obscenity, and ultimately desire for pain.

- “Perfect Tan (Bikini Atoll),” by Machines of Loving Grace

And, as you might expect from someone who’s personal work goes into this subject a lot, I tend to spend a lot of time reading about and arguing sex and sexuality, its place in our society, its relationship to feminism (and with that, feminism’s relationship to the men’s rights movement), and its relationship to art and, more-so still, to the commercially-oriented field of modern photography. Recently, for example, I was called out for my stance on nude therapist Sarah White for having an overly-simplistic and socio-normative take on the issue. Which was fair. The language and ideas I conveyed in the post were pretty far from what I intended to, leaving a very unsatisfying final position on the matter. So, I decided I needed to spend some more time pondering this. It’s never a good thing when you’re unable to adequately express your thoughts about a recurring subject and theme of preference.

Read More

So, I’m sure by now all of you who keep up at all with the news or the art world have heard about the damage done to Andres Serrano’s infamous “Piss Christ” this last week. I wasn’t too bothered about reporting on it, because, well, it’s not like it was the first attack on it, and it’s not unexpected. But, still, it’s worth pondering the entirety of this situation.

“Piss Christ” is one of those works that’s become important independent of any artistic merit. To say it’s not a good photograph, I feel, is to misread the thing. The actual physical product was never the art, it was the statement. And, while it’s easy to read the art as a bombastic and juvenile attempt to piss off Christians–which it readily does–I don’t feel we can offhandedly dismiss the artist’s own statements that the piece was meant more as a commentary of what we’ve done to Christ and that it comes more through his own relation with the subject and how society treats it than any attempt to offend.

Now, I’ve seen some of his other work, so, you have to wonder how honest he’s being there, but still, we can’t offhand dismiss it. Any open statement an artist makes about a work is a part of the work, after all.

Anyway, I don’t know this photo because of its art, but because of the fuss it raised about being funded with taxpayer money. That’s where this becomes legend, is it became the poster work for what counts as art, what doesn’t, and when it’s OK to fund and when not.It brings up questions of artistic merit, censorship, the whole works. And, they’re not questions with simple answers, even some twenty years later. That’s why anyone cares about the piece, and why artists especially continue to pay homage to it.

And now it’s destroyed, and there’s a good article about what actually happened here and Joerg Colberg over at Conscientious has some interesting thoughts on it here, even if I disagree with his simplistic dismissal of the piece as purely bombastic. Where I do agree with Joerg is how the piece means more destroyed. It’s moved beyond the initial offensiveness. it’s moved now even beyond the initial questions of the validity of art and tax funding. It’s not an over-arcing comment on how we handle controversy, spanning just more than two decades and full of enough sub-controversy to add depth. Much like Duchamp’s “The Bride Stripped Bare By Her Bachelors, Even,” it’s just possible that the permanent damage of this piece will be what it takes to finish it. It’s complete now. I like that.

But, I think it’s important to give real consideration to controversial art’s place in the world. It’s important, I feel, that art be encouraged to challenge us and make us uncomfortable. Being made uncomfortable by such a neutral object is generally an invitation for personal exploration and dialog. If it bothers that much, then why? Even the most juvenile of pieces can be of merit so long as it creates that opportunity. But, there’s no hard and fast line to say art is doing that, and not just pissing people off to get a rise, or attention. So, it’s hard to say what stance to take on controversial works and their merit as art, so I prefer a neutral one myself. If the art is truly empty, the world will get around to forgetting it. That Piss Christ endures is because however much people want it to be just inflammatory, it’s become something more. And that’s good. It might even have been the point.

Alright, it’s been a little while since I’ve had time to sit down and crunch out a proper article reflecting on happening things in a timely manner. Been equally as long since I had time to sit and review some artist I’ve just discovered I like, although that has as much to do with not having time to go looking for them as it does with not having the time to review them. Bollocks.

So, before I head off here to help my good friend Jennifer with a photo shoot this dreary Sunday, here are some links and things from the art world this week, should you have missed them.

Let’s start with Why We Love Bad Photography, an idea from A Photo Editor expanding on a Salon article about why we love bad writing. Don’t forget to read the excellent follow-up from Joerg Colberg over at my favorite art blog (photography, in this case, but you’ll find a lot of insightful and broad philosophy about what art is woven in there), Conscientious.

For my own thoughts on the matter, the idea of good art vs bad art is one that’s been bandied about a lot by my friends and I over the years, especially in the context of Grimey Studios. With their help, I’ve settled into viewing things as divided roughly into two categories: pulp art and fine art. Pulp art is art done using very low-brow means, highly colloquial or based in pop culture, and designed for easy mass consumption. Fine art is art that sets out with ideas and purpose, and might require a background in several ideas or mediums before it gives up its depths to you. I have a deep love for both, and there’s a lot of work done in both styles that I find awful. Other people love that same work. Which eventually forces the idea that there’s no such thing as bad, however often we all will shorthand things we don’t care for as being “bad.” I’m as guilty of it as anyone else, it’s a quick, one-syllable way to convey the idea that “I’m either poorly equipped to understand and appreciate this, or it works using tropes or styles that I simply don’t care for, and that’s fine because there’s plenty enough in this world to accomodate for taste.” Bad is just plain shorter.

That said, don’t get lazy because you don’t have to ever consume anything you don’t like. Trying to figure out why other people like something you don’t and giving it an intent, critical assessment where you honestly try to like it is one of the more rewarding experiences in life. And, sometimes you still won’t like it, and that’s still fine. But see if you don’t walk away with a better appreciation for it regardless, I dare you.

The other thing of note this week is the most sensationally, offensively titled article I’ve seen in a while, Artist Kills Himself (No Big Surprise… Once You See His Paintings). I don’t even know where to start with that, from its crass implications about artist stability to its astounding insensitivity to the plight of the individual it’s about to the implication that you must be deeply messed up to do such off-kilter work. It’s the sort of article that makes me want to side with the old fogeys decrying web journalism because of its lack of standards.

That said, it did introduce me to the work of artist Tetsuya Ishida, who last week threw himself in front of a train, ending 32 years on this ball of molecules. For the introduction, I’m glad. For the death, I’m sad. Ishida used a very illustratorial style for his works, but the subject matter and presentation were all bizarrely surreal, equal parts post-Hiroshima Japan existentialism combined with that surrealist feel of Kafka. It was gorgeous, and while I’m saddened there won’t be any more, what there is will remain favorites of mine.

OK, I’m off to a shoot. Check out Tetsuya Ishida, ponder over the articles on why we love bad art. Get back to me in the comments, or hit me up on Twitter at @zedmartinez.

Who’s ready for a soapbox rant? No? OK, who’ll patiently pretend they’re ready for one so I can make a point about the modern world? OK, that’s better.

So, I was at Indianapolis’ big art tradition, First Friday. I was doing my usual thing, where I go around and don’t understand a lick of what the IMOCA is showing and then wander upstairs to see the very cool stuff that tends to be going on at the artist studios. So, I see a stunning piece of an owl done in watercolor on two birch panels. Now, I’m quite a fan of owls, and it was a nice piece, so, I did what I always do when I see a piece I’m interested in, I pull out my cell camera to snap a shot of it and the name plate so in the rush and whir of the evening I don’t forget what piece I saw and whose name is goes with.

Everyone figured out where this is going? Yeah, I got the “I’m sorry, I’m going to have to ask you not take pictures of the art” lecture from a Lady of Authority. Not flash photography, just photography at all. And hot on the heels of Francis Ford Coppola’s wonderful thoughts on worrying about distribution vs commerce, at that.

So, I refrained from further pictures, but, I have to ask… why? Why can’t I take a picture of your work? Has the irrational fear of digital plagiarism gone so far that photos at a public showing are now off limits? Because, if that’s the case, I’m offended. My new phone has a 5 megapixel camera. The piece in question was a watercolor on birch. I’m pretty sure you don’t even have to be a painter to appreciate just how much a hastily shot photo in bad light cannot capture the essence of a painting. Heck, a well lit photo couldn’t do it justice.

Now, I’m not saying plagiarism doesn’t happen, but, you’re doing a disservice to the majority of the population if you assume people are out to do such. And, honestly, as the video game market is finding out with piracy, the person willing to steal copies of your stuff wasn’t even in your sales market to begin with.

But, I’m getting away from my point. Which is this:

Dear Britt DeMaris Leiendecker,

If that was you at First Friday, I’m sorry you’re so opposed to people taking reference photos of your work. In the modern day, it’s much easier for the average person to take a reminder, and it makes it easy for us to show other people the cool stuff we’ve been seeing. If that was not you, and just your representation, I urge you to consider different representation. No photograph of your work can ever replace the experience of seeing it in person, I can attest to that. But, coldly handling a situation like that without any just explanation can work against you. I know I, for one, am no longer interested in purchasing the piece I was making note of.

I see that you have a Facebook, so you’re aware of the dynamic of social networking and its importance to our field, and that you have a photo of it online, so, it’s not even that you don’t want it online. So, I am terribly confused as to why taking a cellphone photo is worth banning.

Out of respect, I’m not posting the photo I took. You’re welcome. But, I still feel this was a poorly handled opportunity on all accounts.

Sincerely,

-Z

PS. I do recognize that there’s a chance you were worried about my flash degrading the art. Not that an LED really pumps enough watts to do so, or that it would matter in our lifetime, but, I can’t fault a concern for the safety of your work in a physical sense. However, were that the case I would’ve really preferred that you kindly prohibit flash photography only, so that I could still show people who couldn’t make it the piece I was diggin’ last weekend.

How does an aspiring artist bridge the gap between distribution and commerce?

We have to be very clever about those things. You have to remember that it’s only a few hundred years, if that much, that artists are working with money. Artists never got money. Artists had a patron, either the leader of the state or the duke of Weimar or somewhere, or the church, the pope. Or they had another job. I have another job. I make films. No one tells me what to do. But I make the money in the wine industry. You work another job and get up at five in the morning and write your script.

This idea of Metallica or some rock n’ roll singer being rich, that’s not necessarily going to happen anymore. Because, as we enter into a new age, maybe art will be free. Maybe the students are right. They should be able to download music and movies. I’m going to be shot for saying this. But who said art has to cost money? And therefore, who says artists have to make money?

Via A Photo Editor via a longer interview at The 99 Percent

I’ve been trying to get at exactly that same sentiment for a while. I’ve been confused as all get out by the recent whinings that art isn’t a sustainable career. Since when was art ever about the career and not the paint, the music, the words, the ideas, the motion, or the whatever? I pay my bills with web design, I spend it on beer and paint. I sell very few paintings, but I can’t see me ever stopping to paint. If you can make some money from art, bully, I’m not saying don’t be willing to sell. And, don’t be afraid to buy, actually buy, art. But, who ever promised you you’d do anything but starve as an artist?

6. Guerrilla fiction favors the promotion of art through direct connection between the artist and audience – using web sites, social networks, community involvement, word of mouth, and face-to-face human interaction.

7. Guerrilla fiction makes the distribution of art an extension of the interpersonal relationship between the artist and the audience, rather than the commercial relationship between the publisher and the consumer.

8. Guerrilla fiction believes that getting art to the audience is more important than getting money to the artist.

From the “Guerilla Fiction Manifesto” from (by?) Moxie Mezcal. Is it just me or would those all be equally valid if you substituted “art” in for “fiction” at any point? I mean, I’m not really upset when I sell a painting, something has to buy the scotch around here, but I really do think there’s a lot more merit in doing the art and making sure people have ready access to it and creating, to use a rare buzzword, a dialog between artist and viewer. Art is personal, any capital merit it has is secondary.

Sorry for the radio silence the past couple weeks, I’m a bit in-between things right now. But, I’m looking through quite a backlog of good links here, and I think next week might be art and sexuality week. C’mon, you know that sounds fun.

For right now, however,  found this, which I’d forgotten about. This is a long, but useful, read on the basics of artistic composition, which is easily the single most important thing most people with cameras don’t seem to have a grasp of that could improve their work so much more than a better lens.

I’ve probably encountered some painters with a bum sense of composition, too, but there seems to be something about paint that encourages people to worry more about composition.

Anyway, it was a good read when I found it, and it’s a good read now. Take some time this weekend and read it. If you’re new to art, it’s invaluable. If you’re seasoned, well, it’s generally worth a reminder now and then of what the basics are.