I love Spain. My wife is Catalan and I have travelled there practically every summer for the last twenty years – but have never been to the Guggenheim Bilbao.  Now it looks like after hearing the latest news coming from this banal tourist attraction, I will never be going or getting close to their ‘battleship’ Frank Gehry building. Here is a link to the article in the Wall Street Journal…  http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2014/04/10/guggenheim-bilbao-fires-back-at-battleship-artwork-in-spain/ . Can you imagine? Can you believe it? An art museum is demanding artists to remove their art from public view! Isn’t this the exact OPPOSITE of a museum’s mission in society? What are contemporary art museums coming to when they promote censorship and intimidation of artists because in their (mistaken) judgement the artwork “includes connotations that discredit the institution”… and they exercise enough power and intolerance to make an image (uncomfortable for their precious corporate sentiments) DISAPPEAR?  Where is their outrage when they fill their exhibition space with artwork entirely appropriated from other cultural icons but KA-CHING from visitors? Examples like the McCarthy/Bouchet billboard in question are legion and Ed Ruscha’s LA County museum on fire is first to come to mind – but was  its artistic value ever questioned?  Is  Guggenheim Bilbao devolving to the point where they will resort to put fig leaves on statues and black boxes over the ‘naughty bits’ of nude paintings because they ‘discredit’ modesty and social norms? Would they remove their kitch Chia dog if Joseph Enterprises Inc threatened them with a lawsuit in the same way they have threatened the artists Paul McCarthy and Mike Bouchet? I don’t think so, nor should they. The hypocrisy is stunning for a supposed center of culture that is assumed to encourage artists to explore boundaries and question established norms. Guggenheim Bilbao even threatened to DESTROY the art if it was not removed in an expedited manner. Here is another link… http://www.theartnewspaper.com/articles/Billboard-work-taken-down-after-Guggenheim-Bilbao-complains/32347 . It appears that the closet fascists in this museum are caught in a timewarp and still living in Generalissimo Franco’s Spain when censorship and repression by force were the accepted norm. So I have a modest proposal… every artist in the world should boycott exhibiting at Guggenheim Bilbao and every art lover avoid visiting this museum until it becomes truly tolerant and ‘democratic’ in their acceptance of art, nevermind what petty corporate or institutional sensibilities are hurt. Intolerance of Art is not something we should be learning from an art museum. Good riddance Guggenheim Bilbao – or as the Spanish would say… de Puta Madre!

Have you had enough of Celebrity painters? I don’t have anything against working artists who become celebrated and popular through their work – I’m talking about people who have gained notoriety through other means and decide to take up art to exploit that fame.  For two recent examples there is George W. Bush (43rd president of authorized torture fame) who will exhibit his awkward attempts in Dallas at his presidential library and then there is George Zimmerman (shot Trayvon Martin in Florida) taking up appropriation pop painting and selling for $100K on eBay. How do a war criminal and an arraigned killer sully decent efforts by honest artists to create art? How can you believe art is about real feelings when you have notorious criminals trying to hustle their way into artistic respectability? It’s a sad commentary on the contemporary art scene that these clowns are taken seriously enough by mainstream media to gain press attention and merit exhibits on their meager and insincere efforts. Instead they should both be getting investigated for criminal activities during their time in the limelight. Almost makes you pine for the nostalgia of the recent past when only Hollywood stars who took up making art would get such publicity. Bring back Sylvester Stallone and Tony Bennett!

Heard the recent news about a guy in Miami who intentionally broke an Ai Weiwei vase during an art opening? And they wonder why a lot of the country thinks there are only hicks down there!  Supposedly this idiot did it ‘in protest’ – apparently because he’s a frustrated loser who thinks local artists (read: HIMSELF)  should be showing instead of ‘foreigners’ like Ai. It’s no wonder they don’t have many decent museums in the South with such pea-brained creative persons using them as venue for destruction of art and personal publicity stunts. I wonder if he would consider it a ‘protest’ if someone walked into his studio and slashed or burned one of his paintings? Maybe he took to heart the recent study from the University of Limerick that claims artist’s artwork is perceived more positive and original if the artist that created it is more eccentric in their behavior. This ‘study’ seems to perpetuate the notion that ‘real’ artists are better as psychos and don’t really encompass all of humanity like every other profession. I think the idea that artists have to be weird seems like a recent thing that started with Van Gogh’s ear or Gauguin’s sex-clusion, and continues today with antics like Lady Gaga and Banksy’s ‘mister brainwash’. Most successful artists have been relatively normal – Michelangelo and Rubens and Picasso etc seemed more concerned with fitting INTO their contemporary society and were recognized because of it.  I personally prefer to think that in the modern era you do not have to resort to packaging your feces (or acting like one) in order to be a significant artist. Viva the ordinary! Wonder if serving jail time for destroying art counts as eccentricity?

Recently went on a tour of DC galleries around Dupont Circle then the 14th and U st. area where we saw some group shows of ‘local’ artists and some of the more sophisticated galleries in the area. Later went online to check out the local art group Mid City Artists  – a “…diverse and talented group of professional artists who have come together for the purpose of promoting their art and the Dupont/Logan neighborhoods of Washington DC that they call home.” However, you have to live there to join them so then I thought GREAT IDEA – to counter the isolation of my lovely quiet suburb I should join the local art group! Well after nearly two months, I have still to hear back  from the league of local artists – even after volunteering a significant amount of time per week through their online application and website. Seems like they’re not exactly anxious to embrace all local artists, even when they represent revenue and manpower.  In any case these local leagues attract criticism similar to that directed at the recent Latino Art show at the Smithsonian American Art museum – that the criteria (Latino) represents an arbitrary reason to collect such diverse artists and styles. The local leagues similarly lump together artists indiscriminately on the basis of area of residence. Shouldn’t art associations be based on a shared aesthetic or process rather than race, ethnic group, language, geography or hair color? Not sure exhibiting with a bunch of different styles gathered in this manner promotes any vision whatsoever or any artist in particular. Does such a group really benefit an individual’s career as an artist or simply promote an organization? Gone seem to be the days of art movements and manifestos with a consistent and coherent vision and style. Go figure why with the facility and resources of the web available for congregating and communication there aren’t more ‘virtual leagues’ forming under shared art forms and aesthetics.  If you look at what art associations actually do exist on the wild and wonderful web it seems the opposite – a jumble of artists and styles collected under any one particular website for expressly commercial or marketing purposes while individual artist websites float in a sea of anonymity. Guess you could say that every artist is trying to be an art league – even if old cliques fail to invite you and your website lacks all the popular links.

When I was in Art School back in the 80′s, I worked at the school’s ‘Slide Library’ for several years.  This is where artist images were copied out of books or illustrations and converted into 35mm slides for use by teachers, students and research.  In today’s digital mass media and web world this is nothing but a quaint relic of a time gone by. The frames and labels used for the self-portrait series on this site come from discarded glass slides originally used to mount film images. Just outside the slide library studios was an oldtime photo booth where you could get a strip of four shots for a quarter. After recovering selected slides by their labels, I would step outside and strike various poses, sometimes inspired by the titles. Later these black and white ‘selfies’ would be sorted then tinted,  painted, or collaged to complete the piece. The artwork you see in the Self Portraits gallery page grew out of this creative process.

So a Francis Bacon went for $142M, an Andy Warhol for $105M and a Jeff Koons for $58M – all records at auction this month. Most of the public don’t even know Bacon yet his work is worth more than most old or modern masters if you can get them… and who is the BIG MONEY driving the contemporary art market like this? Apparently there’s alot of 1%ers with cash to burn and nowhere else to invest, I’m sure Hirst INC and  Koons CORP have their names on speed dial. I always thought the best artists tended to be reclusive creatures obsessed with exploring the boundaries of ART not sales and marketing – man is that WRONG, at least in the Art Establishment of 21st Century America. Quite the opposite, it seems to be ALL about the marketing – and Pop fits right into that mold.  Pop art and Pop music are both in a rut and like Sinead O’Connor says prostituting artists to feed the system. Warhol’s celebration of boredom and lack of meaning have never seemed so fitting. I always thought old rockers should retire while young – or at least not OLD – but there’s Mick Jagger at past 70 strutting on stage like he were still a ‘rebellious’ 20 when WTF he IS the Establishment selling live stadium concerts to make bucks hand over fist one more time… it would be really amusing if it weren’t so sad that it’s not about the music in the least anymore LOL. And he’s not the only one. Don’t these old geezers have any respect for what their art represented? It’s one thing to continue to perform to small groups in private clubs and another to try to maintain status as musical cult figures while their tunes run in TV ads.  Seems like both the music and art scenes have diverged into the Rich Corporate few who sold out and the Struggling many. Is this a reflection of today’s polarized society or was it always like this? Probably both. I don’t want to worry that the ‘right’ collectors are interested in promoting the value of my art. Think I will just continue pursuing a more humanist art and a relaxed lifestyle with good friends and good sex.

A few people I have brought to my studio lately seem to want to know exactly how much time it takes to create each individual piece of my latest series, as if it were easy to crank out original art and it’s just a matter of time.  All I can say is that if it looks like it was done spontaneously and in only a few minutes, then I have achieved one of my objectives which is that of  showing immediacy in the artwork.  Everything about the process of my painting should be visible and on display without narrative.  But getting back to the time dedicated to each piece… should I say it has taken a lifetime to create a particular work of art? After all, I have spent my whole life in some way leading up to these pieces – it wouldn’t be a lie exactly. Of course it wouldn’t be exactly truthful either. There obviously is much to the process of creating art that doesn’t directly figure in actually making the art manifest. Should time spent conceiving the piece count? Should time spent pausing to look and consider a next step count? Should preparatory drawings or the taking of reference photographs count? Should time spent mixing colors or cleaning brushes? How about framing – does consideration of display options count? I think it’s obvious that taking accurate measure of the exact time devoted to any one piece of artwork before it is exhibited is difficult if not impossible to establish.  I am hoping my latest pieces appear like they were created impulsively and look innocent in approach but the actual process is significantly more sophisticated and studied.  No sane artist could or should try to explain to a viewer all the minutia that contributes to a piece. Every artist needs to reserve a little mystery for their creativity.  Artwork born from time in the creative process is a luxury that should not require explanation.