Modern Art Quotes

Is Respect for All People Too Much To Ask? Thoughts on The Ground Zero Mosque Proposal

I don't like to mix art and politics. Why? We all know that old saying - don't discuss politics or religion if you don't want to fight, or whatever. It's true and can cause an artist to lose some of his support, (never alienate your customers), and can link the art to a place in history, taking away any 'timeless' quality in the work. Yes this is 'just' my blog but still I like to have that boundary of politics and art.

With this post I make an exception because of a story I read on the AP wire - muslim taxi-cab driver stabbed. I was reading this and it just kind of sickened me. The part that got me motivated to speak up though, was that I was not shocked. One of my favorite quotes of all time is from Edmund Burke -

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

And yes, we have heard calls to violence (if not calls then at least whispers) coming from some of the extreme right of American citizens, and even from some of the politicians that represent them. This story in my mind ties directly into another recent event in a New York ground zero protest. Earlier this week a random African-American man was caught up in the protest. A random dude mind you (not involved one way or the other or cared at all) was verbally and physically assualted. And yes I consider a large crowd of people touching and encircling the man while verbally abusing him FOR NO REASON physical assault. Check out the video as seen on HuffingtonPost.com -

I am still wondering why that story wasn't bigger. Are we all still suffering from the post - 9/11 shock that let the Bush W. team lure us into an illegal and dangerous war that costed us trillions? 10 years later - I don't think so. Don't be afraid to speak out. The anti-Muslim sentiment is dangerous and at a fever pitch. Do what you can to speak up and defuse this dangerous anger. Watching that video was an eye opener for me. Truly shocking. A random black man near this crowd is just standing there. Someone yells 'I bet he voted for Obama' or something and another 'I bet he's a Muslim', and well you can see the rest. Truly weird they way the crowd turned on a random dude.

First of all since when is it bad to be a Muslim? Depending on the estimate, their is at least 1 billion Muslims in the world and 99.9999% of them are not that different from me and you. Second of all I voted for Obama too. Is a crowd of rowdy protesters gonna show up at my house and beat my ass? I mean seriously what's wrong with these people. I recently listened to a piece on NPR that was an interview with an African-American man who was only one of three to survive a brutal assualt and murder on him and two of his friends in the 1950's in the South.

It was a similar type of hatred and rhetoric-driven, misinformed crowd. I can't imagine participating in something like that or witnessing it, and it scares the hell out of me that similar incidents are beginning to happen towards Muslim Americans. It doesn't scare me because I am a Muslim or something (I am spiritual but not religious and conform to no solid one viewpoint of any organization, my spirituality is personal). It scares me because it's this type of angry vigilante hate-driven mentality responsible for violence against African-Americans in the early 20th century south, and the same kind of blame the minority in a time of economic crisis rhetoric that seeded Hitler's plan for control in 1920's and 30's Germany.

So I am speaking out against the crowd that assaulted the man in the ground zero protest. I am speaking out against the young man who stabbed a muslim taxi driver in NYC. And don't give me this garbage that these were isolated incidents. The heavy and dangerous anti-Muslim rhetoric that's been surfacing in the media in the past few weeks is the fuel that started the fire. I am not gonna let these extremist right politicians, pundits and citizens have garbage come out of their mouths and then claim innocence when there is a huge landfill that caught on fire and spreading dangerous smoke everywhere.

When the mosque at ground zero story started getting big I was split on it - you can't call yourself a defender of the constitution and be against the mosque, it's just not possible. Freedom of religion is the first and most important rite in the constitution and one of the reasons this country was founded at all. On the other hand I could sense the anti-Muslim sentiment that this move might bring and didn't think it was wise if you were truly interested in improving the Muslim-American - non Muslim-American relationship. But these events to me are not isolated incidents but the surfacing of a fire that needs to be put out. I might not be for the Mosque at that location, but I am certainly for respecting all people, respecting all religions, respecting the constitution, and acting like a civilized morale human being.

Save the Internet! Get Involved in the Net-Neutrality Battle!

You might have heard of this issue 'net-neutrality' recently like I have. I am not an expert but will quickly lay out my understanding of it (a dumbed down version because that's how I myself process information sometimes) and explain why you (the reader) should get involved (see links at the bottom).

Okay net-neutrality means that right now the internet is neutral so to speak, (the internet as you know it now is neutral). But there are media corporations (phone companies, internet providers, search engines, etc) that are negotiating a deal to control how and what information we are able to receive. Basically, right now no entity or person 'owns' the internet, but these billion dollar media groups are plotting to control how information on the internet is provided to you (us) the consumer. (In my opinion a kind of capitalist version of a 'big-brother' style of information control.)

Why is the congress in a majority support in favor of ending net-neutrality? Because the same people that defend British Petroleum (and some democrats too) are the same people that also serve the interests of corporate media groups.

If net-neutrality ends, wi-fi would be a much harder thing to come by, corporate endorsed media would be favored (and downloaded to your computer faster) over individual's media. The price of a good connection will skyrocket, ticky-tack fees will be added to every site you go to, (like 50 cents to watch each youtube video). The progress that has been made in the information revolution would be reset and erased. The world has become a better place since the internet has provided a world-wide flow of information that has connected people and made the world a community. We cannot let this progress evaporate. Below are links to more information and ways that you can get involved in saving the internet as we know it!

Save the Internet

Net-Neutrality

Tiered internet access

The Kansas City Star (online) Sucks

Yes I live in the midwest and one of the only papers around here is the Kansas City Star. Here is why you should not read the Star online though.

A. Invasive advertisements that don't go away, slow the website down, and makes you not to want to even stay on the site. (By invasive I mean pop-out or pop-down ads that move around with your cursor blocking the screen and don't even have a X close button sometimes.)

B. The website is slow to load, doesn't load at all sometimes, and seems to have basic coding problems once in a while.

C. The hordes of unrelenting disrespectful commenters are obscene, racist, and vulgar. I know the internet is full of commenters like these, but at the Star they are a premium.

Custom Framing Design Tip: Style Families

If you have read a few of my past posts you know that I am an experienced picture framer. So here is another nugget of knowledge I gleamed from my days on the sales/design counter. It's a very simple (but important) concept maybe that most of you are familiar with; if not, neither was I too aware of it before I became a picture framer - style families. Maybe I covered this a bit in a past post but I'll go into a little bit more detail here. Really it's a very simple design aesthetic; for example if you wanted to frame something that's from the renaissance period, or something similar you would maybe consider very large carved dark gold or silver frame, or if from the Victorian era the frame would be more intricately carved but maybe not as wide. For a Picasso print or even some Dali - maybe classical Spanish frames, again gold but the carving more curved and broad, less intricate, and the shape more round.

If you have a large contemporary painting you probably won't need a frame (regardless of what the framer tells you) in this case the width of the stretched canvas should be an inch or so and should be painted. Something impressionistic? - I would go with a softer silver/pewter frame with some kind of ordainment (carving, beading etc) and maybe add on a fillet (a small inner-set frame that matches the large frame, can be used under the mat or inside lining the frame) or a cloth covered liner (a flat downward sloping frame covered in a textured fabric, usually white or neutral, black).

When I say 'style family' (for lack of a better phrase) that could be as something as simple as using train pictures and large black frames if that's what gets you off, the idea is to set the basic style of the framed piece/pieces into a cohesive direction. One more example - Something Native American or from the southwest maybe a very rustic frame with a symbol based pattern carved in the top or bottom edge. Or for the American west (cowboys and whatnot, American history, folk-art, sewn items) a really rustic driftwood type frame. I personally for my own stuff like a nice simple well stained wood frame maybe with just a bit of a carved pattern or bit of color brushed on in the pattern.

Never forget the golden rule of framing though - frame for the piece of art. The ultimate decision should not take your eyes away from the art, and should only enhance the overall appearance, not overpower it.

Bravo's "Work of Art" is Syrupy Fluff

I have to admit that I have a few guilty pleasures on my TV agenda. Come on, we all do it, you know when no one else is around you have a show you watch that's nothing more than syrupy fluffy garbage. One of my current guilty pleasures or should I say 'train wreck you can't turn away from' is Bravo TV's Work of Art: The Next Great Artist. Yes yes, the obvious thing is that an art star reality show is the antithesis of what good art should be about and I wholeheartedly agree.

The whole concept is art-seminar senior year at art school at it's very best (which the show is at times and it's fairly interesting). At it's worst it creates another reason for most people to totally disregard and dismiss art, and showcases for the world that New York is not the center of the art world like it was in the mid to late 20th century. (If this is the best judging panel they could find from New York anyways).

I must say though after stating the obvious above, 'the train wreck you can't turn away from', does have some good moments, but not many of them have to do with art. The good moments are that syrupy fluffy stuff I was talking about earlier, the useless indulgences. The personalities of the artists clashing, seeing the leaders, the ass-kissers, the manipulators,.. but that's true of any reality show and has nothing directly to do with the show's concept.

And unlike other reality shows like Top Chef and Project Runway, the judges here are 100% useless and devoid of experience and knowledge (as in being a successful chef, or fashion designer in the past like the judges on the other two shows). In Top Chef most of the judges (at least more than half) are always past chefs who have put in years of cooking experience. Although Work of Art's judges do own galleries and are art critiques, not a single one has ever been a successful artist in their own rite. Let me say that again, not a single one of the panel judges has ever been successful in creating their own art form on a long-term level, none of them. And no founding a gallery doesn't count, neither does being a critic, what counts is producing, marketing and living off of your art that you create directly with your own hands for years and years, which none of them have done.

The show's value is only in it's 'train wreck you can't look away from' aspect I described above. I recommend DVR'ing the artist interaction part of it, and fast-forwarding through the, judges who were never successful artists, but all just tools of the corporate industry and wise only in the ways of exploiting artists not being one giving advice to people doing things they themselves (the judges) have never been successful at, or even attempted. I mean how ludicrous and 'insider-art' pretentiousness is that, having judges who have never ever been succusful at or even attempted the thing of which they are judging. One or two critiques is understandable, but NONE of the panel judges have ever made their own art? Ludicrous, pretentious and really, really lame.

Two Great Artist Bio Movies: "Frida" and "Basquiat"

Not too long ago I watched the movie Frida, about the artist Frida Kahlo. The way in which it totally enveloped you into the artist's daily life and surroundings with it's geniune feeling scenery and cast, reminded me of the also great artist-biography movie Basquiat about Jean-Michel Basquait. Two great movies with one word titles about two great artists, one from Mexico active in the 1920's and 30's and one from New York in the 1980's. It's nice to see such well made depictions of the artists' life, for those that are interested I've included my short reviews of both movies below. First is Frida:

I knew the basic history about Mexican artist Frida Kahlo, her work and the relationship with the communist leaning Diego Rivera, but seeing the story displayed in front of you with great actors really helped me to understand her work in a way that I could not have before. Salma Hayek does a great job of portraying Kahlo. Good actors will go out of their way to find roles that challenge them and help break the type-cast mold in which they might have found themselves, and that's exactly what this role did for Hayek.

The history behind the whole thing is amazing, two avant-garde (at the time) Mexican artists who have dangerous political views exhibit their work around the world while having a torrid and confusing love affair, and hiding political refugees at their estate.

"They are so damn 'intellectual' and rotten that I can't stand them anymore... I would rather sit on the floor in the market of Toluca and sell tortillas, than have anything to do with those artistic bitches of Paris."

-Frida Kahlo

I mean you couldn't write this kind of stuff. It's stories like this that really keep me coming back to art history as a valuable resource for understanding cultures and people. Alfred Molina does an amazing job portraying the gregarious and larger than life Diego Rivera. Hayek was good, and Molina was amazing ( I hate to say that because in the story Rivera is so mean to Frida).

Now leap forward and northward about 50 years... to Basquiat. Directed by Julian Schnabel, himself a painter who has connections to the 1980's art scene which the movie depicts brilliantly. Jeffrey Wright gives an eerily dead-on performance as the young genius painter Jean-Michel Basquiat. I mean you watch old documentaries or bits of interviews or videos with Jean-Michel, and you watch the movie and Wright's performance is so dead on it's very scary. Wright should of won best actor easily for this role. David Bowie plays Andy Warhol to a tee, Dennis Hopper is awesome, Gary Oldman, Benicio Del Toro, the whole cast is incredible. No movie I have ever seen captures a time and place and the people so perfectly, how they did it is beyond me.

"I don't think the stereotype of the artist in the studio quietly working is really true anymore. There's always photographers coming through the studio and stuff like this. There is a lot more of daily life that is sort of documented and put out there, ...if you go to a restaurant they write about it in the Post on page six."

-Jean-Michel Basquait (from a 1986 interview)

I think it's clear that by 1986 Basquiat had lost some of his rebelliousness and innocence and was using the artworld has much as it was using him. Unfortunately for him, it's my opinion that he was too far gone into trying to please everyone else and not himself at this point. Not too disimalar to what happend to another young genius African American artist that was exploited to some extent - Jimi Hendrix.

I am not saying one doesn't take responsibility for their own actions, decisions, and life, they absolutely should of course. But to say there wasn't many people surrounding both of these artists who were making money off of them with no interest in the person behind the art, and pushing them farther into personal chaos, is to be naive. Maybe it's not a racial thing - these two artists being exploited; there were also many other artists that were exploited, especially musical artist's during Hendrix's time. In Basquiat's case he had a very troubled childhood supposedly where he claimed he was beaten by his father, he ran away from home in his late teens and lived on the streets of New York. With no true direction other than his crayon, his spray can, his pencil, his brush guiding him.

It's unfortunate that he didn't have anyone around him who was able to help him get the personal help he needed. Which goes my back to my last post about Andy Warhol, or specifically this one from a year or so ago: Andy Warhol. Many deaths of artists happened around Warhol. In the linked post, it describes Warhol's own thoughts on this. If I understand his sentiment right, he says that he didn't encourage anyone around him into destructive behavior and tried to talk them out of it to what extent he could, but said that if people want to destroy themselves they will. I firmly believe that's true, but also that to just stand by and watch it happen while you make money off of your art-collaboration with the man destroying himself (Warhol and Basquiat) that's not exactly innocent either. I want to end with the note that I do firmly believe that Warhol wanted the best for everyone around him and not the opposite.

Good Business is the Best Art

No, it's not a statement that I necessarily believe in, or one that I believe even Andy Warhol (the artist I am quoting) totally believed in. I came across news of an exhibition ("Andy Warhol Enterprises") at the Indianapolis Museum of Art in October later this year (2010), that features Andy Warhol's work in relation to his commercial art background. A background that carried directly over to his later work in many ways, whether it's his pop-art paintings, his factory-studio movies and projects, his band promoting, or his publishing.

"Good Business is the Best Art"
-Andy Warhol

Art and business are subjects that are often found together - this is an idea behind much of Warhol's work. I think he was tapping into that exploitive, dumbed down, quick version of popular culture that we are especially seeing now in the 21st century, while at the same time cashing in on it, creating and or predicting it. Warning us of our future cultural doom while at the same time having a hand in it's invention.

Some quick thoughts off the top of my head about money and art are that on some level it's easy to be commercial, and I am not necessarily saying that Warhol's work is shallow, but some might see it that way. For example - I could paint puppy dogs or cottages in the woods or whatnot and I could sell some paintings consistently no question in my mind. I would not only not want to do that idealistically, but if I had to starve I still would not be up for that.

But on a different level, maybe your current work is ideally what you would want to do but it has no commercial appeal whatsover. Then you have to ask yourself - are you happy doing your art for yourself on your own time and not as a way to make money? If this is an option, that's not a bad thing of course. Without any commercial appeal though, that could mean that other people don't even dig your work on any kind of aesthetic level, which is kind of a general bummer, right?

I mean speaking for myself, I really get off on seeing people's reaction to my work, I want to interact with them and talk about it, maybe sometimes even if it's not a positive experience at first. Good art to me should have some kind of attractive quality to it, something that draws me in, the work needs to stand on it's own visually and appeal to me somehow. And even if one person digs it, that usually means that marketed well enough you could achieve some level of commercial success. And success can be defined not just in making money selling your art, but in sharing it and growing an audience for it. Even if it's only the latter you're after, if you want to be successful, good marketing is essential and Warhol was a master of it.

On another level my own experience is similar to Warhol's (except for the part about being hugely famous and successful). Similar in respect to the fact that I stumbled into picture framing as a young man and worked full time in that field for more than several years. I learned sales skills, attention to detail, excellent craftsmanship, color and composition theory on daily basis, amongst many other things; many of the skills I imagine that Warhol learned in his early years as a graphic designer. If your are lucky enough to have a craft or skill that is close to what you ideally want to do, this can be a great thing. Some artists shy away from the marketing or commercial aspect of the job, but for my money, the more you know and do the better you're chances are.

The Andy Warhol Enterprises exhibition will feature many items from the Andy Warhol Museum in Pittsburgh, PA. I saw that museum when when I lived in the 'Burgh, and the visit is one of my most vivid memories of that city. The silver pillow room is awesome if you are ever near there and are able to go. I gained a tremendous amount more of respect for Warhol and his work after seeing this museum. Although after much thought on the subject over the years; I still disagree with some of the basic philosophy of art that Warhol maintained throughout his work, (blending the line between pop culture and art, exposing/exploiting this fact has a basis for all his work). His work is important however you want to look at it and I think the debates that his work presents to us, are ones that deserve to be examined over and over again, which Warhol's work allows us to do.

Modern Art Quotes

Is Respect for All People Too Much To Ask? Thoughts on The Ground Zero Mosque Proposal