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.

Imagine that all the work displayed here were commissioned from stable artists at a Chinese art factory that allowed all and any work produced by them to be signed with my name, whether the images were my personal inventions as reproduced by them or a selection of their personal images appropriated and presented as my own icons. Imagine that all the work was reproduced by hand in the  hundreds at $8 each in order to provide wide distribution of ‘originals’ at manageable cost. You might consider this to be artistically dishonest or just a big scam – but if the process was all out in the open in order to create a dialogue to distinguish capitalist consumerism from cultural conceptualism, couldn’t that be considered art? And isnt conceptual art at the core of contemporary culture? Isn’t the ability to created a discussion and question the culture at the core of art? Go to www.doupine.com and you will see what is possible in today’s online art market… and how it is diametrically opposed from the cultural pretense of a Christies or Gagosian in the art world.

Recently got a mailing from one of the social sites (Groupon or Living Social) titled ‘You as Art’. If you didn’t think there was enough competition from real and imagined artists and images on the web, this shows it goes way beyond that. Some imaginative entrepreneurs offer enlarged and framed versions of many of your biological singularities at a price – and so it seems Piero Manzoni and his outrageous canned ‘artist’s shit’ from 1961 was way ahead of its time in many ways.  You can get your DNA scan, fingerprint, voice print, lip print, your profile carved in wood lathe, and more just with an order and PayPal. BUT IS IT ART? Is the essence of your biological makeup really part of any creative process? Is the “stuff” of who we are as individuals without a conscious process of visualization really art? I think not, ‘You as Art’ is more like a commercial appeal to narcissistic tendencies that Piero personally exploited so seamlessly and that appeal to of most individuals in art networks that consider themselves sophisticated and beautiful people.  It won’t be long before someone is also willing to can and label your own feces and offer it back to you at a markup – yet considerably cheaper than the hundreds of thousands of dollars Manzoni’s got at auction. Making contemporary art is so easy in the 21st century on the web! Have indigestion? Go make some art!

Have you ever taken a tour of  art on the Web? I recently spent many hours surfing around the different sites and sales venues getting a feel for sales, portfolio, directory and gallery sites. From the apparent art factories of Ebay where you can get an ‘original’ painting done JUST LIKE the one featured in a photo to exclusive gallery sites where you can only join by submitting portfolios for review, it is a wild journey through the full spectrum of what is considered ‘art’ on the web. The variety is truly amazing.  Photos, illustration, painting, sculpture, ceramic, jewelry and almost every media imaginable and in most combinations are available. Also for your criticism and examination are every style imaginable… abstract, realistic, outsider, folk, traditional, impressionist, expressionist, conceptual, you name it and it is there. You can also find any and all subject matter: landscape, figure, fantasy, western, still life, cartoon, erotic, documentary the list goes on. For someone trying to get their bearings it is somewhat overwhelming. Where do you start? I can only say I am starting with an examination of what Art is on the web and how it differs from the concept of Art taught in art school.