I have had the art hanging (in my gallery) for two weeks and have heard all sorts of comments, " It looks like a babies head " or "looks like a view from space." Some People tell me that this art is nothing new, it has been done already. At the same time they can't tell me which artist Brad or Curtis is copying, just that it has been done before.

I also notice a big difference between the college educated artist and the artist with little or no training.The college artist has to deal with his/her peers in school and has to keep the professors happy. I think this affects their work. Ultimately they are graded on this stuff. If the professor doesn't like it it affects their grade. Also the college artist has connections in the art world because they go to a school where they are surrounded by people who love art and support it. When I asked both artists what their goals were they led me to believe they would be the professor one day working for a school training other artists. Basically getting paid to do what they love and doing some teaching on the side.

The untrained artist is much different. He/she paints because he is compelled to do so. They have something to say, they say it through their art.They struggle to get their art in shows, many times organizing their own events. They don't have the accepting environment that the college artist has.They don't have the criticism of the professors, they don't have to make anyone happy but themselves. Not many of the "underground" artists came to this show. The ones that did were not too impressed, but they could appreciate the work. One artist told me that he was talking to Brad and Curtis about a group show he curated. Once the realization that the show had "unknown" artists in it, he lost their attention.

Curtis told me when he first started painting he did mostly religious art, but now he stays away from it, a hard thing to sell. I have seen Curtis' art for the last few years. I definitely see how he has progressed as an artist. I can see the changes in his style from the work he did a few years ago. He seems to have a direction he is going in. As far as the meaning of the art I am not getting it.

Brad and I talked briefly about Jackson Pollock, we both have seen a video of him painting, I commented how he moved around it and was a strange thing to see. Brad commented on how he was trying to capture motion. It never occurred to me, but it made sense. I have been told Brad is more into the process of making art, he has been referred to as a "chemist." He works fast, uses things like fire and gravity to make art. I think you lose something not being able to see the process that goes into Brads' work.

In response to the comments by Ryan Campbell, I just wanted to say that not all college educated artists are snobs. I also make art because I am compelled to do so. I can see no other path I would rather take in life, therefore I went to school and put myself in the best position to be successful at what I love to do. College educated artists struggle and often organize their own events as well. It's not an easy life, which is why many end up teaching as a career. I agree that some students fall into a style while at school, but my experience was an exhaustive search of what is unique and personally significant. I also spend time searching out local art whether it be by a college educated artist or not, and I think my alumni would agree that some of the freshest art is by artists that chose not to go to university. I'd welcome further dialogue concerning college art versus non-college art.

Thanks
Brad

From Lawrence Rinder, Art Life Selected Writings 1991-2005, Gregory R. Miller & Co., New York, 2005.

"So what? Are these questions of any consequence to those outside the field of art, or are they academic matters better left to be hashed out at the annual meetings of the College Art Association? I believe that the way we define art is indeed relevant to a broader public, not only because art is part of most of our daily lives, but also because, in my opinion, the way we define art mirrors other profound social definitions. Specifically, I believe that what we see mirrored in the ways that the arts are defined in our society is a reflection of lingering vestiges of sexism, racism, and classism. For these are the terms that lie just beneath the surface of words like "craft," "untrained art," and "low art." We have allowed the arts to become a kind of dumb show in which so-called values that would be considered discriminatory at best in everyday discourse take the stage to enact lingering myths of hierarchy. Creative works become surrogates with which time-worn dramas of inclusion and exclusion are performed." - Lawrence Rinder

I don't think that college artists are snobs. If they are then I am one also. Why do I have something to say that's more important than anyone else? Maybe we are all snobs, because we appreciate art. We should be with the other 60 million Americans watching American Idol on TV. Instead we go to art events, drink crappy wine, and talk like intellectuals.

I am sitting here trying to think about intelligence and education, I am thinking how stupid it is to become an artist in the first place.

So you want to be an artist? What does it take? not much. First you have to do some thing creative, like draw, paint, or sculpt. Then when people ask you what you do, respond, " I am an artist" mission accomplished. Becoming an artist was the easiest thing I ever done, I remember one day just realizing that's what I was.

I enjoyed taking art classes in high school and in community college but never pursued it. I felt my time was wasted on the projects that were assigned to us in school. I didn't like being graded on art. I remember when I was young, I told my father I wanted to be an artist. He responded,"you should be an architect. There is no money in art." I think he was right.

I guess if you really think about it its' all been done before... Its really hard to come up with something totally unique, that everyone likes... It's hard to sell a political statement because no one wants to hear it...

I didn't mean to offend Brad or Curtis. I know that both of them are truly dedicated artists. They organized this show on their own, and did the installation. It looks professional. I think I was wrong to stereotype all college artists as "snobs". It's more of a warning, not to become like the people that you are surrounded by. I consider Brad and Curtis to be my friends. It's why I can be honest with them.

My posting came off a bit defensive, but I think it started an interesting dialogue. I agree with Kevin's assertion that terms like "low" and "high" art mirror classism and other insidious ism's, which is why it touched a nerve. This is the beauty of art. We all must be completely honest with ourselves and others if our choice to become artists is justified. Honesty, even when ugly or painful is an artists contribution to society.

Brad

hello, my name is martin and i am an English Art student currently preparing for a major project i must do to pass the course, i have been obvsering this work and it is very relevant to what i am doing, particularirly curtis' work, i have noticed when pursuing further research into him and his work that it is hard to come by on the web. please can you give me contact details, sources of info or anything to help me in my research, thanks for your time. martin