Turner Prize

So it's Turner Prize time again. If you do not have any idea what this is about Let me briefly explain. It's a big award for an artist in the UK, given annually. It's named after J. M. W. Turner, a leading British artist (one of my favorites). Here is a link.
I'm also including a link to an article about this years potential winners. Let me know what you think. Potential Winners link. Sorry about the short posting. I'll do better next time. Cheers!

Three Part Blog

When I originally set out to make this blog, I intended to update every weekend. I seem to be falling well behind that goal. Oh well. Such is life. This posting comes in three parts. I don't think I have done a three part post in a while, so that might help make up for my lack of recent updates. : )

PART 1

Last time I wrote about a work in progress for a show in Atlanta. I have since finished that piece, and have sent it on its way. It arrived at the gallery yesterday. At least that is what the tracking information is telling me. I thought perhaps you might want to see what the finished painting looks like, and for those of you who are not in the greater Atlanta area, here it is:



If you do happen to be in the Atlanta area check it out at the Art House Gallery December 11. It should be a good show.

PART 2

In addition to being an artist extraordinaire (Hah!), I do some substitute teaching. There is one teacher for whom I fill in, that allows me to teach an art lesson while there. This past Tuesday we did a project on creative problem solving. The students were asked to create an object capable of getting one sheet of paper as far down the adjacent 100 ft hallway as possible. They were free to be as imaginative as they liked, the only limit was in the materials they could use. They were allowed two sheets of paper, three inches of tape, three inches of string, and two paper clips. Some ideas worked better than others, and the ultimate winner got her project roughly half way down the hall. The following pictures were some of their designs.













































PART 3

When I taught Art Appreciation, we would occasionally play a game. This game was called "Is it Art?" Now that I am no longer teaching this class I see no reason to let a perfectly good game rot away. So I thought we could play it on this blog. Here is how it works: I have an official "Is it art?" folder. Here is a picture of it:




As you can see it is full of images. Occasionally I will pull out one of these images and post them on the blog. These images could be anything; a painting, a drawing, or perhaps the internal working mechanisms for the landing gear of a 747. We really have no idea what these images are going to be. Your job is to look at the image, scrutinize it for a bit, and come to some conclusions as to weather or not you think it is art. Post your thoughts in the comments section. I will announce weather it is or is not art in a later blog entry. There is a wide variety of art made these days, so in order to eliminate some confusion here are some other rules. First if the image is art it must be claimed by an established, recognized artist, and be exhibited in gallery, museum, or some other official setting. Secondly, I will never present a photograph. While photography is art, there would just be confusion if I showed a photo of a tree or something. You must look at the object within the image, and decide if this is the art, not the image itself. If you are confused, or have questions post those in the comments as well. Here we go with "Is it Art?" See you next time.

Recent work

So, I didn't post last week. It was quite hectic, and there was a lot going on. This week I am posting about my most recent project. This December I will be part of a group exhibition that had asked everyone to produce a depiction of "chair." I decided to use the idea of Chair as in chairman, or chair person.
The way I approached this idea was to examine Chairman Mao. Portraiture is not my strong point, and I'm not sure how it is going. But the above image is meant to illustrate how my project is going. it may not look exactly like the other images of Chairman Mao, but I definitely think it has that look and feel of communist leader portraiture. What do you think? I have to submit this image by the the end the week, so I need to finish it up. Post your comments. I would love to see how people respond to my work before it is finished.

Teaching artists

This morning I was reflecting on the art courses I have taught. Ever since the first day I enrolled in art school it has always been my desire to be an art professor. They seem to have the perfect job for an artist. They get to teach and interact with other artists, which helps develop work and ideas, they are required to participate in exhibitions and showings of their work, which builds their professionalism and recognition, and they have the benefit of salaried employment.

I have recently begun to move in another direction away from teaching, and I'm not sure what, if any, affect this will have on my art. When I completed my B.F.A I went on and earned an M.S.Ed in College Teaching with a specialization in Art. One would think this would be perfect for teaching art at the collegiate level. But all I have managed to secure in the last four years since graduating is a series of adjunct, part-time teaching positions. I have had interviews, and I have had more than one person tell me that they either cannot hire me, or they will not hire me because I do not have an M.F.A. I find it ironic that a field that prides itself on forward thinking, originality, and problem solving is mired in old traditions. I am also sure I am not the only art instructor with a passion for teaching that has been passed over for full-time jobs. The policy makers of education, not just the education of artists but educators as a whole, need to expand their thinking. I'm going to close this posting with a few images of past student works. Post your comments, see you next week.

Response to "Patrons Support Artists on the Web" in New York Times

This weeks post is a response to an article sent to me from the New York Times. The full text can be read here. The article is about Kickstarter, a unique online donation tool for visual artists, musicians, and other aspiring individuals of the arts.

Jenna Wortham, the author of the article explains how this organization works. Through the internet artists with a project idea post their concept. They are then matched with individuals who would like to make a contribution to the proposed project, but cannot fund the entire operation. By combining their resources these donors help get the projects off the ground. The contributors are then often treated to an additional tangible gift as well. Perry Chen, one of the founders, identified his organization as a sort of marketplace of goods and services based on the arts.

I think that this concept is interesting, and without further thought, I might be tempted to sign up for donation support. But I also foresee some potential problems. Any time you open your project idea up for funding from individuals, they are then going to gain a sense of ownership to that project or idea. Their vision may not be the same as that of the artist, and they may become unsatisfied with the outcome. This could lead to arguments among the artists as well as fellow donors.

Another problem relates to the idea of intellectual property. By posting an untested idea on the internet, which is available to anyone, there is a potential for someone who has funding to steal that idea and launch it as their own. There would be no real way to prove who came up with the initial idea.

These problems aside, I think this donation concept has merit. Too often it seems that Americans are uninterested in supporting the arts and cultural development. To see a group who is actively seeking and supporting artists is gratifying. To learn more about Kickstart, click here. I'll see you next week.

Economics of art

This past week I sold a painting for the highest sum to-date for one of my works. This got me reflecting on the prices and values that society places on art works. My question is why are the prices so high? With most object-De-arts there is little use other than visual pleasure (or disgust). Life does not depend on these items. So why are they perceived as precious?

This is a thought that I have asked my art appreciation students to consider. In class, I taught that the value of a work depends on who the artist is, what his/her intention in making the art was, and what other viewers think about the work. In a broad sense this is true. These are the basic foundations for why critics and the public value a work, and why people would pay 6 million for a Van Gogh. But the real question of why or how these values are place on these objects isn't really answered. Would Van Goghs' sunflowers still fetch such a high price if it was instead painted by Joe Blow? I somehow doubt it.

This is a problem that I have thought about before, and I have no real answer. I don't know if I will ever completely understand this issue, but it is one that I think should be addressed. What are your thoughts? Post them in the comments, and we'll see you next week.

Response to Artist Squatters on NPR

This weeks posting is a response to a radio broadcast on NPR. A link to the full broadcast can be found here. This news piece explained about a situation in Berlin involving a bombed out building from WW II that has been taken over by artists.

The story explains that upon the fall of the Berlin Wall in the late 1980's, a community of artists developed in what was once a large department store. This store had been heavily damaged by allied bombing at the end of WW II, and remained neglected throughout the Cold War due to its close proximity to the Berlin Wall. Eric Westervelt, the NPR reporter, explained how after the wall fell, artists moved in to the building and used it as a makeshift community to create and sell art. They have been doing this for the past 20 years. The reporter went on to describe how the buildings current owners now want to evict the artists and set up a new commercial tourist district on this site. The artists have banded together and are refusing to leave. It's become a legal issue and is set to go to court.

I found this piece interesting, but I do take issue with one thing that Westervelt said. He identified the artists as "squatters," however if you listen closely, the artists have always paid rent. It was a very low rent, but they have always paid their part. I don't necessarily think they could be labeled as squatters.

My second comment relates to something one of the artists interviewed said. Kuri Haran, an artist from Japan said that this was a unique place, but I'm not so sure it is. I know of several cities and towns in the United States that are trying to establish themselves as artist communities. These cities offer artists low interest loans to develop their studios and galleries in what are often historically important examples of American Architecture. The hope is that artists will move in, and bring a vibrant new life to communities that are struggling. As far as I know, these new artist communities have been met with some success. This is very similar to the community established by the artists in Berlin.

I'm not sure the artists should be removed from the building in Berlin. I think the established community of artists could work closely with the buildings owners to create a new environment to work and sell their art. Perhaps the art towns of the United States could serve as an example. If you have comments, leave them below, and I will see you next week.