Cranky Artist Grandma-pants

Posted by Joel (Joel Mathis) on November 11, 2007 at 12:06 a.m. (Suggest removal)

I'm going to tread lightly here, since I'm only about one step removed from the "I know what I like" school of art knowledge and criticism. (And at least two steps removed from the "My kid could do that!" level.)

I get a better and better sense all the time of who you don't like. Obviously, Damien Hirst is near the top of that list, which has just caused me to cancel my vivisection classes.

But I'm curious: Who do you like right now? What do you like? And why?

Posted by smerdyakov (anonymous) on November 11, 2007 at 8:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

In a vacuum I couldn't agree with this more... but you like Banksy, right? (Or was that just before he turned out to be a capitalist dickwad, too?) What are the distinguishing characteristics...?

Myself, I can't help but like certain capitalist dickwads, including the ones who openly farm out their work...

Chihuly's probably the best example of the fuzziness of the line. Couldn't stand his stuff when I only knew it as large-scale paraphernalia gone wrong, hung in offices and museums. The Spencer's piece annoyed me. Then I saw "his" stuff installed at the St. Louis botanical gardens. My reluctant, skeptical mind was blown. Hard to put my finger on why exactly.... how bout: "Because obviously it meant something to me"

Posted by smerdyakov (anonymous) on November 11, 2007 at 8:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

And happy 30th Jilla!

Posted by DOTDOT (anonymous) on November 11, 2007 at 1:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ahem and harrumph. I also hesitate, because this issue, like no other, exposes the fact that I have no idea what I am talking about. The only consolation is that no one else does either.

"But like music, when money becomes a major issue, the good stuff gets lost in all the noise." All the noise being people making money? That's been going on since the "music business" became the "record business". Its frustrating to hear hit songs containing lyrics you would have thrown away. It's more frustrating to hear people you otherwise respect actually liking said songs. All I have to say re: music is three (four) words: High School Musical (II).

I don't know from art, but it seems the "market" suffers a valley between two peaks; the one where people buy your shit to adorn their walls or miscellaneous flat surfaces in their homes, and the one where people buy your shit for bragging rights to buying your shit, and putting your shit in to their "collections." Oooh. Aaaah.

Where does that leave the rest of us? I love art and music, but I don't "buy" art, and I shop for music at used cd stores. No artist or musician is going to fund health insurance off of my love. My kids must eat the groceries.

Yet I, and others of my ilk, can still be moved. Not often, but every once in a decade or so there comes a piece that stops us in our tracks and requires us to rethink our entire understanding of the world. If the fact that you, personally, produced the last piece that has done so for me (we discussed this in some manner - quickly, awkwardly) isn't enough for you, then I have nothing to offer.

Yet I continue:

1) Make the art you love for the reasons you love it. Don't be dissuaded.

2) If you choose to make a living at doing so, you may have to a) compromise number 1) to dome degree, or b) learn (theory and practice) market skilz to retain your autonomy.

3) If you choose to compromise your artistic autonomy in order to support yourself, do it on purpose and with full realization. Grasp it. Own it.

4) If you decide not to, grasp that and own that too. Not as many people will appreciate the sacrifice you made for personal integrity, but the most important ones will. The danger on this trail is that art under girded with petty bitterness is rarely worthwhile. Maybe I'm wrong.

I'm just saying.

Posted by DOTDOT (anonymous) on November 11, 2007 at 1:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

PS

Banksy is still a fucking vandal.

Posted by DOTDOT (anonymous) on November 11, 2007 at 4:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Ouch. Never go back and read your post. Ah well, my grasp of the conspicuous is ever present. Just know it's a lot more annoying for me than it is for y'all.

And as far as "dome degree", well dhoot me. I deserve it.

Posted by godjilla (Jill Ensley) on November 11, 2007 at 8:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Joel, I was going to type out more of them, but it's too much. Here are some as of late:

Painting: Zhang Xiaogang, Marilyn Minter (I know she uses a few assistants, but it's quite minimal), June Stratton, and Hong Zhang.

Photography: Melanie Pullen, Amy Stein, Natalie Behring

3-D/mix: Anish Kapoor, Tim Hawkinson, Tom Friedman, Lesley Dill, and Paul D. McKee (who happens to have a show at the A&D gallery right now.

Posted by godjilla (Jill Ensley) on November 11, 2007 at 8:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Oh yeah, why....hmm. Well, all for different reasons, but there seem to be some similarities in my taste for noir-ish, turned forms, and photorealism. I suppose I've come from "know what I like" to "can like anything if you read into it enough" (that's what happens to you in Art History classes), back to "know what I like". In the end, my meat knows what I likes and I likes my meat.

smerdy, I actually considered the possible hypocritical nature of saying Hirst is full of poo and then liking Banksy. It's true, a Banksy painting now commands a price in the millions, but I, personally, feel his work means more, or means to mean more. When he starts hiring people to glue cocaine to a 30-year old piece of cow shit instead of commenting on the wall in Palestine then we'll talk about how much of a hack he is. For now, I still think he's doing good work. I don't see him opening restaurants. Hell, no one sees him. p.s. thanks!

Posted by godjilla (Jill Ensley) on November 11, 2007 at 8:56 p.m. (Suggest removal)

DOTDOT, it IS enough for me. Frankly, I didn't really understand that it got to you that much.

The same, or at least similar, argument comes up when pricing work. Do I want to pay my rent? Or do I want to make art readily accessible, art that the average person can afford. And if I do, how long can that go on? I've been told repeatedly that I charge too little and I've been trying to ride the line. There will come a day when I will cross it and then I'll be the asshole asking $10,000 for some torn paper and a piece of string (except that I won't.)
Noble notions have no place in the business of art making.

I've long thought that I will pay the bills with the camera and continue my passionate relationship with paint. I'm not bitter towards Hirst. I want no part of that. I just don't like the bastard or think he's talented enough to get the attention that he does. I don't like business taking the driver's seat, but I realize it needs to ride shotgun sometimes.

This one's for you, ..

"Is graffiti art or vandalism? That word has a lot of negative connotations and it alienates people, so no, I don't like to use the word 'art' at all." --Banksy

Posted by godjilla (Jill Ensley) on November 11, 2007 at 9:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Also, just stumbled upon this guy a few weeks ago.

http://www.momao.com/

And just found this article on art and artists, haven't had time to read it yet:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1...

Posted by Joel (Joel Mathis) on November 11, 2007 at 9:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I will commence to Googling...

Posted by godjilla (Jill Ensley) on November 11, 2007 at 9:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And now that I've looked over everyone again, there's only a few of Melanie Pullen's I like. June Stratton however, has come a long way and I'm really liking her new work.

Posted by leslie (Leslie vonHolten) on November 12, 2007 at 10:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

thetom nailed it in his 4-part list of advice above. I used to be a romantic regarding art & commerce, but now that I'm running toward 40 and understand the needs and wants of a family, I'm much more empathetic to the "selling out" aspect of it all. Sometimes compromise is the path of peace, and compromise is not something only artists must contend with. We all make compromises at some point in order to participate in our society; the importance is setting your personal boundaries and then not compromising those.

As for grad school, my 2 cents is that it can wait. (I know you are always happy to hear my 2 cents, yes?!) As my friend Laura likes to say, in life as in art, there is always a time for revision. Grad school will always be willing to accept your money, be it next semester or 20 years down the road.

Glad to see Hong Zhang on your list of faves. Talk about a consummate artist who balances art making and business with her feet on the ground. She's an inspiration.

Our opinions on Big Art are the same, I think. In our home, if we do anything without the vigor or heart it deserves, Tim and I will often say that we "Chihulyed it." As in, "The recipe said fresh tomatoes, but I Chihuleyed it and used canned instead."

Looking forward to your show.

Posted by nicole (anonymous) on November 12, 2007 at 3:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You say your just making art for yourself? Fine artists need to be a little more generous about the communication of their works once IN a while if they want them to have the impact that will affect people enough to buy into their world. I'm afraid you'll have to be an art teacher to get that health insurance if your just making art for you and one other person that will likely never see your work.

Posted by godjilla (Jill Ensley) on November 12, 2007 at 4:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

nicole, that, or collect fame and fortune post-humous. Plenty of artists did just that. There are no rules or regulations and fine artists don't have to tell you how to feel about something or how to think, what to think. Sometimes you have to work for it, sometimes it's just not your bag, sometimes you get it handed to you on a silver platter.

scenebooster, oh please. I really don't think Damien Hirst needs you to defend him from "a blogger in Lawrence, KS". And we may have different definitions of success. Mine doesn't involve collecting massive amounts of cash and making myself into a corporation.

Posted by godjilla (Jill Ensley) on November 12, 2007 at 4:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Leslie, I DO like to hear your opinion. And you're right. I suppose the getting older thing had me thinking I really have to finish this school thing now. I just can't do it. I need a break. When I went to Chicago last week, it felt like stepping outside a bubble, a little art school bubble. I remembered what life was like before that and I miss it.

As for art & commerce, I'm sure, since nothing dies on the internet, this will all come back to bite me in the ass, but it's hard to mesh the idealistic socialist in me with the girl who wants to pay her debts and get some insurance, maybe a house someday.
I suppose setting your limits is the only way to go. I've just seen a lot of people making a lot of money (some of them friends) by licensing their work to make stuffed toys, action figures, lunch boxes, etc. It's hard not to think "sell out" once and awhile. I realize that just because I don't like something, doesn't mean it isn't good. But damn, there has to be a line somewhere.

And Hong Zhang is amazing.

Also, this has me thinking, maybe it has more to do with the medium for me. Maybe, at least in my head, painting is such a personal act, that having someone else do the majority of the work is just blasphemy. I don't understand how you could stand there, look at a finish piece and own it, feel like it's yours, if you didn't do at least most of the work. I mean, photographers have people develop and print all the time. It's just too expensive, time-consuming, to do it ALL. That's understandable. And glass, it seems more of a communal act as well. But painting, that's just you, some brushes, a canvas, paint, and your head.

Hmm.

Posted by godjilla (Jill Ensley) on November 12, 2007 at 6:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

This thinking outloud, in text, has got to stop....but now that I've got it on the brain...

I didn't always dislike Hirst, and though it may seem I downright loathe him, I don't. He's just a good example of what happens when things just go too far. I'm not for alienating people with your work. Maybe it all comes down to authenticity, that gut-feeling of truth. Maybe it's not your truth, or maybe it's a universal truth. Some things you just know when you see it.

I can't say that I feel anything but a price tag and fakery in the latter part of Hirst's oeuvre.

Just sayin.

Posted by leslie (Leslie vonHolten) on November 12, 2007 at 8:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

A visit to the Kemper Museum's Damien Hirst ("Beautiful Divided Madness Slowly Creeping") shows us that the joke is most definitely on the jerks who spend the money. Don't just look at it online; take the drive just to read the bullshit placard next to it.

Funny thing is, I highly suspect he had an assistant squeeze the paint tube, even.

http://www.kemperart.org/permanent/works...

Better to throw stones at art we don't like, I say, than accept it just because it's by a big name.

Posted by leslie (Leslie vonHolten) on November 12, 2007 at 8:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And Jill, this whole commerce & art tension has been on my mind lately as well. The relationship with one's art has me on a Primmy Chorley kick (she was finally talked into an exhibit, and has steadfastly refused to ever sell her work), which is leading me on a William Morris excursion (19th-century Arts & Crafts gent who believed that all art should come from the artist's very hands).

They're extremists in this regard, but it's comforting to me to know that it's an option. (Won't get you a house or insurance, but my help firm up some philosophical loose ends...it's my hope for myself, anyway.)

These art discussions, they're always maddingly fluid, eh? I swagger in with a solid opinion and walk out with a head full of questions. It's worse than parenting.

Posted by leslie (Leslie vonHolten) on November 12, 2007 at 9:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well, I didn't say it's not art--that definition is wide open. I will still say that it's crap. Art AND crap. Crappy art. Whatever. The intrinsic value of the Kemper's piece is (hold your breath) having the name "Damien Hirst" in the collection. It's naive to think that that isn't a motivator in many acquisitions.

You really think if I came over and squeezed some paint onto your turntable, and then wrote that nauseating bit about blending the lines between high and low art, word for word, and then pitched it to the Kemper with the names vonHolten and Anonymous Scenebooster, that they would buy it? Really? Because they purchased it based on its qualities?

Yes, curators and art historians have more education and generally more experience than me, and I give many of them undying respect. But it's a dangerous world when we don't allow ourselves to have our own opinions, just because we're lowly commoners.

If Hirst floats your boat, that's awesome. Good for you. Perhaps you could defend his work beyond his obvious ordination by the elite.

Posted by DOTDOT (anonymous) on November 12, 2007 at 9:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I've always seen it as art v. entertainment. Entertainment value trumps all in the commerce division. Disirregardless of the education level achieved (harrumph; nod) by the paid promoters. In my world, I have met some of the world renowned, but the qualities displayed have been met and in many ways surpassed by people nobody will ever hear of. It is a separate function. "The best" don't automatically float to the top. The people that swim to the top do.

Who's to say? Scenebooster says nobody. I say everybody.

And you never can be sure that that soccer mom you flipped off the other day couldn't beat box you a new asshole.

Posted by godjilla (Jill Ensley) on November 12, 2007 at 10:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Wait a minute, sceney, aren't you a regular piss-taker on these blogs? Hmm. And if all you got out of my thinking out loud about this was that "I hate Damien Hirst because he's successful" then I blame me, not you. Let me rephrase it, I dislike Damien Hirst's new work (and I get the feeling he's just a tool) because the work itself is pre-packaged, alienating and meaningless. It's meant to sell, and at that point, it ceases to be JUST art, but a commodity. No, it's not hate. I'm just tired of Names and Scenes and Untouchable Things.

Anyway, I think Leslie answered it better than I could right now.

My brain fall down go poop.

Posted by godjilla (Jill Ensley) on November 12, 2007 at 10:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well, I guess it's not meaningless if it's meant to seel.
Good point, Jill
Touché.

I'm missing Family Guy.

Posted by godjilla (Jill Ensley) on November 12, 2007 at 10:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

sell.

DAMMIT.

Posted by godjilla (Jill Ensley) on November 12, 2007 at 10:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Also, SPIN ART.
Fucking SPIN ART.

Seriously.

Obviously someone's taking this personally.
Methinks sceney wants mucho dinero and wants to be ok with that.

Just sayin'.

Leslie, thanks for the info on the artists. I shall look them up, since it sounds like we're thinking about the same things. And yes, there's really no definitive answers when it comes to art. Like music, it's a very personal thing to some people....or it's just a job...one where you make spin art and piss off the everyday joe's coming into the museum, making the rest of us look bad.

Which is not to say I don't like Bad Art, but only when it knows it's bad art, when it strives and dreams of being bad art, art that wants to be spanked. That spin art crap wants to roll around on a pile of money while fellating a museum curator.

Wait....what?

Posted by godjilla (Jill Ensley) on November 12, 2007 at 10:44 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I need to post more quickly.

Dude, really, don't get your panties in a bunch. I like talking art too. But you can't tell someone they're flat-out wrong and then back-peddle to say you were just "commenting" or having a discussion.

Calling someone a douchebag and/or a capitalistic dickwad does not equal hate, at least, not in my world. I also implicated everyone in the visual arts.

And don't pull that passive-aggressive shit. I don't always agree with a lot of people on here, but I like hearing their opinions.

Posted by reeveso (John Reeves) on November 12, 2007 at 10:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Jill, go to the Art & Architecture Library and get their DVD of Robert Irwin: The Beauty of Questions. I think you'll like it. Irwin admits to all of the faults of art making, but he also rises to the challenge of making new work for everyone without a bag of history lessons or wall text. It's accessible and new for everyone. It's utopic and populist. And bogus too. I'm a firm believer in his work. I'm planning my trip to San Diego to see the show in January. Lawrence Weschler will be speaking about Irwin's work. GO.

http://www.portlandart.net/archives/2007...
The last paragraph reads, "The best art is different than most entertainment because it is not escapist, it is about the here and now. It is a way of coming back to and engaging the world more intensely than ever, even if the world is sometimes difficult to look at. It is a dull mirror that allows your triumphs and tragedies to be reflected back to you because we are all human. The best art reminds us of what it is like to be human. We look at art to learn about ourselves, and the best art reminds us that we are not alone".

Bullshit, sure, but it's truly something to believe in. These are the values and possibilities of what we are capable of making.

Posted by DOTDOT (anonymous) on November 12, 2007 at 11:35 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"The whole notion that the "suffering" artist is somehow more pure than the one that caught the wave is, to me, a bit of puff-uppery."

Indisputably correct. It's a good thing that nobody here actually said that or even suggested it lest they be guilty of said puff-uppery (add to dictionary).

Rightly or wrongly, it is hard to watch one's craft bullied by the vagaries of whimsy (rock band!). It doesn't matter who you are or what you do or how much money you make. That the work is held sacred by more than a few is a testimony to our species which otherwise sucks.

Posted by godjilla (Jill Ensley) on November 13, 2007 at 12:54 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Mr. Reeves, that was an amazing quote. On the whole, I have never been a big fan of Irwin's, but I like what I'm seeing. I will definitely be reading/viewing more. Also, since you're of the architecture variety, do you know A.G. Rizzoli? I was going to mention him later, but now is a good a time as any. Saw an exhibit of his work at the Intuit Gallery in Chicago and though it's not usually my thing, I was rather taken with those crazy drawings.

http://www.amesgallery.com/ArtistPages/R...

You guys are coming up with some good stuff...makes all my knee-jerk ramblings worthwhile.

Posted by godjilla (Jill Ensley) on November 13, 2007 at 12:58 a.m. (Suggest removal)

DOTDOT, he's onto us. Best pick our Mexican wrestler names now.

DOUBLE TEAM!

Posted by leslie (Leslie vonHolten) on November 13, 2007 at 10:04 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Scenebooster, I think we've teased out the crux of this argument! It's a viable one, too: Are museum acquisition funds best spent on no-name but quality art, or should they spring for B-list works so Big Art names can be represented in the collection? I prefer the former, you are a proponent of the latter. There you go. Different camps. (And yes, we could extend this to Duchamp and Rothko, and dear lord don't get me started on Pollock.)

But really, I must ask: Don't you think Hirst totally Chihulyed that Kemper piece???

And just because I'm in a catty mood, and I love throwing stones at His Highness Crosby Kemper: When we talk about the skills of curators, let's not forget the debacle that was the FAKE GEORGIA O'KEEFE PURCHASE of the mid-1990s. Ouch. I guess curators and gabillionaires are people, too.

Anyway, this has been fun. No hurt feelings, I hope.

Posted by OnShakedown (Chris Tackett) on November 13, 2007 at 1:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

http://www.woostercollective.com/2007/07...

Posted by DOTDOT (anonymous) on November 13, 2007 at 9:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Dos Dottos

Posted by jonathanholley (anonymous) on November 13, 2007 at 9:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Just wanted to point out that the asking price was fifty million POUNDS, not dollars (£50m / $100m), though it's been reported that the final price was dropped to £38 / $76m.

A high price, but it does cost a lot to produce a diamond-encrusted platinum skull ( $24 million )!

Posted by godjilla (Jill Ensley) on November 14, 2007 at 1:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Chris, that is indeed awesome.

jonathanh., the reduced price was a rumor, but good point about the pounds. (oops.) But, it did sell (to an investment group of some sort) for the original price.

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/t...

Gotta hand it to him, that's quite a return. Forget 401K's, let's spray some "ethically sourced" gold dust on my ass and call it art.

Posted by zzgoeb (anonymous) on November 14, 2007 at 9:13 a.m. (Suggest removal)

J-

Enjoy your new decade! I had a blast in that one...and went back to school to boot!

I can't really speak critically on the "new" artists...but did check out the DB link. The guy is obviously NOT Tiffany or Fabrege'! But as others have said here so aptly, some dickwads with big wads just HAVE to buy the most outrageous to see it in the Times.

I too am matriculating this year, and have put grad school on hold for at least one year. You chose wisely grasshoppa'!!! Clear you head and your calendar. Don't let work and creating overlap or collide. Do what you want artistically. Go back and look at the "old" school not the "new." Don't read the art media/news, just go and look at some small museum, or even better some yard art!!!

Will you post info on you senior show? I really want to catch it.

peace and love!!!
the goabster...Weegee on the Delaware!

Posted by billy (Billy Keefe) on November 14, 2007 at 1:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Godjilla,

I couldn't have read your post at a more apt time. I have been feeling so down trodden these past two weeks. I have been working non-profit and education jobs, barely having time to do anything that is my own and yet not really making enough money to have any piece of mind. Then I spend like 10 bucks to go to a museum and I see art that is made for rich people. Not only is it made for rich people, it is made for rich people who have the luxury of time and space to learn about the back story of art movements of which they are not actually a part. I hear art dealer acquaintances mythologizing gimicky artists. And I am genuinely distraught. I can't write. I can't draw. I can't make anything. I feel like the real stories that need to be told are things like the unarmed teenager who was shot 16 times two days ago in my neighborhood by police officers while he was holding his hands over his head, or the transwoman who was beaten with a lead pipe while workers and patrons chanted "Kill the Faggot" and was then arrested because she tried to use the only working bathroom in a NYC McDonalds to take her insulin. But I turn on the TV and all the shows are about rich white housewives, rich white little people, rich white fashion designers you have to be rich and white to be visible. There are still hardly any black, latino, asian or native faces in the media, esp not ones that are portrayed positively or justly. And then I go to the MoMa and see bullshit, that in another context I might be able to enjoy, but in this world, I can't understand why people aren't creating an engaged dialogue about the real issues of our times: misuse of presidential power, the disappearance of civil liberties, the criminalization of ethnic cultural values (specifically the english only laws in western states and the outlawing of baggy pants in TX), continued, unmitigated structural racism, homophobia and transphobia, the criminalization of poverty, the destruction of the global south for the benefit of the global north, global warming and so on.

Whew. Just had to get that off my chest.

Posted by leslie (Leslie vonHolten) on November 14, 2007 at 1:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OK, Josh, you gotta give it up: what was your gallery???

Billy, you're damn right.

Posted by billy (Billy Keefe) on November 14, 2007 at 3:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I meant I can't make anything right now. Usually I am somewhat prolific but right now I am broke and kind of overwhelmed. I don't know where or how to start.

Posted by godjilla (Jill Ensley) on November 14, 2007 at 6:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

At work, so I can't really delve into a meaty response, but let me just say, scenebooster, you take me WAY too seriously sometimes. A girl can't vent her frustrations in a (somewhat) tongue-in-cheek manner? What has the world come to.
I don't understand the picking apart of my "arguments". I guess I do, actually, since I used to do that too. Not that I'm "better" than you. I'm just tired. And I really don't agree that art, fine art, unfine art, whatever, is made for rich people. There are a lot of artists out there who would disagree. Also, thanks for the faith. I can use all I can get. Sorry I didn't notice the compliment sooner....but you buried it in the mucky-muck. ;p

billy, as someone who is about to go back into the field of "Real Life", I completely understand. I haven't had the spark for months until today. Sometimes we have to just keep trudging along, faithful that that flame will return. I worry about After Graduation. I know what it's like when you're not in school, working, in a big city. It'll be a test of sorts.
And I too wonder why there aren't more artists speaking about the big issues. Is it just too taxing? Is it because it won't sell? Or is it a "why bother" situation. I don't know, but I feel, or maybe hope, the tide is turning. I will tell you this, I agree with scenebooster, don't stop writing. Ever.

zzgoeb, Thanks! It finally sank it though. I do feel older. Not Old, but older. I feel it in me bones, waiting for my brain to follow. And I definitely need a year off. We're wise. So wise. It's amazing really. That's good advice. I really need to stop looking at all this flash-in-the-pan crap. Focus on the timeless and the meaningful. I will also need cheap studio space. heheh. I have a show on Monday at the KU Union (7-9) pm. The Senior Show is set for January sometime.

Posted by ladylaw (Terry Bush) on November 14, 2007 at 9:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

My undergrad was Fine Art, emphasis water color painting. I still remember my senior show and all the work that went into it! These days, decades later, I pick up brushes to make silk scarves. Most are given away, and a few donated for sale at charity auctions. The reason for the "back story" is to establish, if I can, that I am on the side of and claim some kinship with artistic types.

People who create art (be it written, performed, sung, danced, formed, soddered, or some other medium I'm not covering) do it for a lot of reasons. Usually, because they can't stop it; the urge to create is almost as strong as the sex drive for some people. There are other reasons (a longing for fame, a desire to be rich, an attraction to being unique, etc.).

But, just because a person has a talent or desire to do art for a oliving does not mean other people will see or appreciate or foster the desire or talent.

There is a big difference between creating and consuming the creations. Or paying for them. There is a big difference between being truly good at something and being recognized at being good. Whether or not someone can make a living being artistic has a lot to do with things that have very little to do with sheer talent. And that has always been the case.

I no longer know if it's true or not, but I remember reading/hearing that Auguste Renoir (whose paintings now hang in all the moswt famous museums) painted room divider murals for rich patrons so he could support himself and a wife (whom he only married once he was making some income), while he painted his now famolus paintings in spare moments. He had the drive and passion to keep working at his art, but enough common sense and survival instincts to know he still had to make a living. So he gave the paying customers what they would buy. And kept painting what he wanted in his spare time. Whenever I start thinking that other people did not properly appreciate my talent, I tried to remember people like Renoir.

Posted by godjilla (Jill Ensley) on November 15, 2007 at 10:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Sometimes, a little complaining can keep you from not making, you know? A little venting, a little fist-shaking, a little yelling at gallery walls just might keep us a few of us together (in a couple different ways).

It may not be my museum, it may not be my money, but it is the world I've chosen to live in, work in, try and get by in. And when your livelihood and your passion is threatened by a general dumbing down, by money-grubbing, you tend to take it personally. I don't want Damien Hirst to be the status quo. He may very well be, but I don't have to simply shrug my shoulders. There's nothing wrong with a little bitchery.

And I see what you were trying to say, but there's a whole wide world of artists out there that we never hear about. Yet it's always the same people who are considered Artists. Maybe that art is made for rich people, true. But there are plenty of others, and have been in the last 500 years, who have been consistently creating work for those of us without big paychecks and wise investments in mind.

Posted by godjilla (Jill Ensley) on November 16, 2007 at 1:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Well, at least some good came of this.

Slightly off-topic, and just an observation, but I've noticed a lot of men are touchy about the judgement thing. Everyone does it, and though I agree that standing by, not doing anything, not being involved in the subject at hand, and THEN passing judgement after judgement is a bad thing, we shouldn't lose our ability to be critical.
It's a line I guess, and you saw me crossing it, I didn't. C'est la vie.

I've also noticed my sentences have a pattern of "example, example, example". Odd.

Posted by DOTDOT (anonymous) on November 17, 2007 at 2:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Being touchy about the judgment thing is hormonal. Same as driving really big trucks. OOoogh.

Posted by ladylaw (Terry Bush) on November 17, 2007 at 4:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

You all know of course the saying about opinions, they're all like a** holes. We all have them and some of them stink.

I think being critical is a good thing. We all need to discern and make choices in life, and without critical thinking skills the choice making process would be a giant mess. Along with criticism, opinions, and critical thinking comes judgments. It's a natural by-product.

What probably is less easy to take, especially if you are on the receiving end, is judgmentalism.

I was raised by two perfectionistic parents, who had a lot to say about a lot of things; in particular me. Perhaps that is one of the reasons that, while I am passionate and idealistic to this day, I don't tend to sit in judgement upon others nearly as much as I did when I was young or might otherwise be tempted.

I know from first hand experience that there are always facts or things I didn't consider or know. The more I know, the more I know I don't know!

I do have opinions (TONS OF THEM) and personal preferences etc., However, I try to keep foremost in mind that I am not very qualified to be the ultimate judge of anyone else's personal value system. And that includes artistic tastes.

Posted by godjilla (Jill Ensley) on November 19, 2007 at 6:06 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I'd say, "huh. I haven't noticed that as much." And then I would virtually shrug.

Posted by DOTDOT (anonymous) on November 20, 2007 at 8:59 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Hmmmmm... little touchy about the judgment thing, eh?

YAAAAhahahahaha!!!

iDOS DOTTOS!

Posted by godjilla (Jill Ensley) on November 20, 2007 at 10:49 a.m. (Suggest removal)

sceney, do you want a soooda?
Maybe some ice cream?
Do you wanna poop on DOTDOT's shoes?

Posted by godjilla (Jill Ensley) on November 20, 2007 at 10:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

"IN DOTDOT's shoes?"

Dammit.
JOKE RUINED.

Posted by godjilla (Jill Ensley) on November 20, 2007 at 11:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Family Guy.