What is it about contemporary artists that make them so prone to violating other people’s rights with arrogance and impunity? What makes art and culture in our society rage with appropriation, outsourcing, exploitation and invasion of privacy? The latest example is NYC photographer Arne Svenson’s rationalization of voyeurism. Arne took images of neighbors, their children and pets inside their own homes with a telephoto lens, then successfully exhibited and sold them for over $10K. Some of his ‘subjects’ found out he had invaded their privacy and sued Arne. He has been exonerated twice by the NY court system but can anyone deny he is an unethical scumbag? How is this different from the criminality of a stalker or a peeping Tom? His victims are simply going about their normal lives under the assumption that they are not being recorded by someone who will then exhibit to the public and profit from their images without warning or consent. What kind of amoral universe does Arne live in that he cannot understand these people’s objections, no matter what a court of law says? He claims that his subjects are “…performing behind a transparent scrim on a stage of their own creation with the curtain raised high.”, but does anyone really feel they are granting strangers access to a ‘stage’ in their life when they raise the curtains to let in light?… and why doesn’t Arne get it? Does he have no expectation or concept of privacy? It really is baffling to me how some artists rationalize outrageous and unethical behavior in the name of art. Never mind my rants against stealing other images and calling them your own – this is stealing someone’s right to peace of mind in their own home! What does this say about a contemporary Art World that encourages him to profit from his arrogance? And what does it say about our courts that enable someone to invade another’s privacy just because he calls himself an artist? Arne, go get a job with the NSA and rejoice in despicable standards!

There is nothing like seeing artwork live so come visit my exhibit at the USGS National Center Art Hall during the month of February 2015.  This is my first solo show in the Washington area. I will be showing my latest Acrylic paintings on Yupo paper – still life and landscapes inspired from personal journeys and local excursions. There is a small exhibit catalog on site – the show includes eight still life pieces such as ‘Six Tulips’, ‘Lillies in a vase’ and ‘Three Bowl IV’ as well as fourteen landscapes including ‘Cascades’, ‘Great Falls’ and ‘Billy Goat Trail’.

The US Geological Survey is located at 12201 Sunrise Valley Drive in Reston and is open Monday through Friday 8:00am to 5:00pm. The exhibit is free to the public. There will be a reception on Friday, February 6 from 4:00pm to 6:00pm. Hope you can make it and look forward to seeing you there!

Pop is dead. Pop has Popped and Pooped out. It has finally reached the apex of soulless and crass commercialism that inspired it. Pop does not go deeper than the gloss surface and celebrity icons of its images. It is like American action movies based on superheroes – alot of superficial distraction and kitch puns. Where is contemporary art built on the traditions of impressionism and modernism – a contemplative, cerebral, and personal art? Today’s pop art superstars can’t trace their hand… recently Jeff Koons was sued for plagiarism twice in two weeks. If Koons does not CREATE his images (they’re appropriated) and he does not CRAFT his art objects (they are executed by assistants or contractors) then WHERE IS THE ART? Where is the talent attributed to the artist? Aren’t artists at least supposed to know how to draw? Are you really an artist if you only choose an image and market it? I want art based on the Anti-Pop. A personal art that celebrates nature and not human objects. An art that makes us honor and question life and not one that worships bling and empty pleasures. Good riddance Andy Warhol, king of Pop – your art was never personal. Good riddance to eliminating the hand of the artist, to art ‘factories’ and glorifying trite cliches.  Good riddance to egoistic self indulgence and overvalued insignificant objects. The Anti-Pop comes from within, not without. The Anti-Pop is cerebral and spiritual – not sensual and material. Anti-Pop is not in your face and based on fads but subtle and enduring. Anti-Pop is introspective, thoughtful and mystical. It is about live people and wild nature – not dead and manufactured objects. It is the inspiration for art that many of us are doing and that the market is not rewarding… but that will change because Pop is dead.

It seems almost incredible that in 21st century Western society there are still religious forces potent enough to attempt to censor art exhibits and dismiss directors who offend their theology. Such is the ongoing case against Spanish ‘Reina Sofia’ museum director Manuel Borja-Villel who is being sued for misuse of public funds by the Spanish Association of Christian Lawyers for exhibiting a matchbox by the collective Mujeres Publicas displaying the phrase “The only Church that illuminates is the one that burns”. The offended justify their rage by asking if the museum’s display would be removed if the phrase instead promoted the burning of mosques or Synagogues so it appears they want to claim the same religious intolerance often on display by zealous Zionists or Muslims. But isn’t this exactly why they should separate themselves from that attitude? It seems that as the Catholic Church of Pope Francis tries to be more tolerant and innovative its flock pulls in the opposite direction. The controversy over the exhibit has generated competing petitions – one requesting the removal of the offending artwork and the museum’s director, another supporting the director and artistic freedom. Not surprisingly the latter is backed by the international museum community and has gathered about 2,000 signatures to the former’s 40,000 so public sentiment is running about 20 to 1 in favor of removal. The exhibition is titled ‘Really Useful Knowledge’ and is scheduled to run from October 29th through February 9th in Madrid. You can sign the petition against religious censorship and in support of the director at this link: https://www.change.org/p/spanish-ministry-of-education-culture-and-sports-support-manuel-borja-villel-director-of-museo-reina-sof%C3%ADa-and-the-team-at-the-museum-in-their-opposition-to-the-attempted-censorship-of-a-work-of-art-in-the-exhibition-really-useful-knowledge?utm_campaign=4cae61afc8-Support+Manuel+Borja-Villel&utm_medium=email&utm_source=CIMAM+NEWSLETTER+MAILING+LIST&utm_term=0_9bed3b7ae9-4cae61afc8-103511041

So the shiny-kitch-for-the-rich Jeff Koons show has led to surging membership at the Whitney museum! That is not a surprise knowing the Corporate Artworld model needs capitalist artists to perpetuate its economic hierarchy and raise its bottom line! How else are they going to pay for their new digs near the High Line? Koons and his incestuous ilk like Damien Hirst represent one of the most disturbing trends in the contemporary art market – appropriation of imagery and outsourcing of art production. This process leaves any ‘artist’ willing to dismiss these moral scruples solely responsible for personal promotion and exploitation of profits from their artworld conspirators. They are accurate in describing their art as ‘conceptual’ because that is virtually the only involvement they can claim with their own pieces. These artists are really only managing and manipulating labor, resources, and talent outside themselves – a mirror of the economic imperialism of Corporate Capitalism under globalization. Call them the ‘Multinational CEO’s of modern Art’! No wonder there is such cynicism in the artworld! I recently read a review of the Koons exhibition in the New York Review of Books where they noted how far the intent of dada ‘readymades’ are from Koons’ art souvenirs and how many in the artworld have been drinking the Koons Kool-Aid for too long. It is reassuring that there are still some sane critics in the artworld who have not been bought.  It may be jealousy but how can you take seriously all the Koons BS such as the statement that his use of reflective surfaces are a way for him to get the public into his art piece!? I guess a viewer’s gag reflex would, in Koonspeak, be an urge to bestow the art with a viewer’s most intimate emotions! Art discourse can be, like Corporate propaganda, such eloquent doublespeak! In fact the artworld, like current politics, is rapidly becoming a cult of personality and public manipulation out of Orwell’s 1984. The artworld in 2014 is being handled by the ‘Ministy of Truth’ and cultural significance is rectified in blackwhite.

In my continuing rant against Appropriation Art, there is a new jewel of a story about this sad and enduring trend in contemporary art. A self-styled ‘artiste’ in St. Petersburg, Florida (what is it about that state that encourages jerks like this and the guy who broke the Wei vase?), is apparently going to exhibit (i.e. appropriate) the recently hacked and leaked nude photos of celebrities like Kate Upton and Jennifer Lawrence in extra-large format. The artist XVALA (derisively hiding his identity under a pseudonym – real name Jeff Hamilton of Los Angeles, CA) will exhibit the photographs at ‘Cory Allen Contemporary Art’, a self-described ‘PR gallery’ whose acronym ‘CACA’ is a term that fittingly means ‘shit’ in several languages including Spanish and babyspeak. XVALA’s artist statement says “We share our secrets with technology, and when we do, our privacy becomes accessible to others.’ Great observation loser, that doesn’t mean lazy lackies like you have to profit from them! I’m hoping Jeff gets caught collecting images more akin to pedophilia than his celebrity obsession so he can face some well deserved jail time. In any case, I’m sure some highly-paid celebrity lawyers will have something to say about his planned exhibit. Not only is his ‘appropriations’ art process disgusting to me but his moral compass is also very broken, if not missing altogether. To attempt to personally profit from someone’s crime and another’s invasion of privacy is truly despicable, but to call it art is beyond the pale. The gallery founder, Cory Allen, another precious specimen of humanity, said “The commentary behind this show is a reflection of who we are today…”  well speak for yourself Cory you scumbag – and have your perverted ‘artist’ also look in the mirror! It used to be that art elevated the human body – it now seems that it’s only exploited by sleazeballs of the art world such as these two. So much for appropriation art and its proponents – desperate slugs overindulging in words and images that they could not possibly conceive.

As if our elected officials needed to make any more enemies, now they are trying to alienate visual artists through negligence and inaction on issues that are important to us. Even though proposed, the A.R.T. (Art Royalties Too) act will probably die in committee and has gotten one single legislative co-sponsor since its introduction in late February. In case you missed it – and who wouldn’t with the minimal publicity the issue has received –  S.2045 is a reasonable attempt to give visual artists a minimal 5% share of proceeds from auction resales over $5,000 for a work of art. Presently once an artwork is sold to a collector or gallery that is the end of any economic stake for its creator which means that rich collectors, galleries and the super rich auction houses are the only ones to profit from an artist’s subsequent increase in reputation and value of their art. Really, does that seem fair? I mean how many artists do you know that actually make a living making their art… and how many years of poverty, anxiety and dedication does it take for the few to get there? Shouldn’t artists be compensated for success? Predictably, powerhouse NY auction house Sothebys has mobilized its lobbyists and considerable economic leverage to kill the bill proposed on February 26 by Senator Tammy Baldwin of Wisconsin and backed by Senator Edward Markey of Massachusetts, both Democrats. The bill rests with the Senate Judiciary Committee and will certainly die there as a grand gesture of these two civil servants, snubbed by all their colleagues unless artists drown them in calls and emails to gain support and prompt it out of committee. The chairman is Patrick Leahy (D-VT), the ranking member is Chuck Grassley (R-IA) and the Committee includes both senators from Texas and Minnesota. Here’s a link to all the members…  http://www.judiciary.senate.gov/about/members and a summary of the Bill… https://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/senate-bill/2045. The Congressional press release quoted Frank Stella as stating that visual artists are the only members of the American creative community who do not receive residual revenue on their work. That is true and not only that but American visual artists are also isolated internationally, being denied a right that European artists have long enjoyed –  the  ‘droit de suite’ (right to follow) first established in 1889 by France and adopted by the European Union in 2001. Australia also grants royalties to visual artists since 2009. California’s only attempt at royalties for visual artists was found to be ‘unconstitutional’ in 2011 for violating the Commerce clause and so a federal law like this one is required. This is protection long overdue to visual artists in the US – send your senators an email today!

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?