"Paint #29, Paint #30" - Brad Streeper


The perspective and lack of a horizon line in Streeper’s paintings allow the viewer an entry into the picture plane at any point and the freedom to explore and discover the painting’s rich surface. It is a way of discovering his process and mark making from the first blob dropped to the poetic rhythm and beauty in its final state. It is obvious that Streeper is dedicated to his craft of pushing paint around and is in this sense, arguably one of the best painters San Diego has to offer. That being said, it is also evident that he is following a long history of abstract painters and some very masterful Colourist (atmospheric) painters like J.M. Turner. I was not however, entirely bowled over by “Paint #29” and “Paint #30” and I feel this is where Streeper’s process and physical application of the materials can sometimes clog what are normally veils of pure painting intuition and beauty. Streeper is still searching and we are thankful for that.




"Peculiar Velocity" - Lael Corbin


Lael Corbin (www.laelcorbin.com) has installed against one wall of the gallery a testing ground for an experiment he calls “Peculiar Velocity”. Indeed there are some peculiar objects that are being readied for their maiden flight or should I say fall, and their rate of speed of that action – the tossing, dropping, throwing of these objects will be calculated, to what end is unknown as the experimentation appears to have stopped in mid-course. No one seems to be too concerned about the results though, a few calculations are scribbled on the wall, and sketches of a better design are notated while a few of the actual cast plaster models lie smashed upon the floor. Not that they had a chance of surviving intact since someone has intentionally placed a large square steel plate underneath the drop zone.



"Peculiar Velocity"(detail) - Lael Corbin




"Peculiar Velocity"(detail) - Lael Corbin


What we’re not sure about is what these objects are meant to do and what their purpose is should they ever make it into production. The prototypes, cast in plaster look like they were moulded using the bottom of a small plastic container, bulging ever so slightly in the middle and then somewhat blunted at the top about the size of a thread spool – written on each is its weight. Are they eventually going to be transformed into weapons of mass destruction, hand grenades or shot-puts? Perhaps instead, Corbin’s experiment is simply a lesson in futility, of dreams and experiments gone awry, hopes dashed, a childhood fantasy or an 8th grade science project unfinished. It certainly looks that way as a chair partially broken faces in towards the wall next to a long 8ft high measuring pole in black & white. What does a work like “Peculiar Velocity” mean you might ask, I can’t say that I have an answer. It is indeed a peculiar piece, strangely quiet within the context of the show – unpretentious - and bashful about sharing the ideas it’s trying to communicate.



"Peculiar Velocity"(detail) - Lael Corbin



Pamela Jaeger, (www.myspace.com/pamelajaeger) I’ve seen too much of her work in the last several months to be objective about it. Her successive log of shows is definitely over-exposure on an almost corporate level, galleries and independent spaces are saturated with her work and while it’s relatively good painting it is more of the same.



Pamela Jaeger (click for larger image)


A good reference to the type of style Jaeger paints can be found at the Copro Nason Gallery in Santa Monica – Jaeger has exhibited there as well – which functions as a fine art publisher and gallery of the same genre self-described as a “mid-twentieth century ‘pop’ movement relative to Beatnik, Cad, Googie, Hodad, Kitsch and Surfdom." If these names don't ring a bell, the gallery continues, “how about Lowbrow, Hipster, Pin-Up or Outsider art.” This is a phenomenon that has taken over and influenced a large number of younger artists today, corresponding I would say with the fairly recent comic book revival and film derivatives that had their popular roots 20 years ago when artists like Frank Miller, John Byrne and the granddaddy of them all RCrumb, changed the face of the comic book industry for good.

Jaeger’s paintings are generally modest in scale, painted in a classic figure-foreground composition, typically portraits of women with generic faces and changing hairstyles, often in Victorian style gowns and/or “boudoir” lingerie – they want to be like Marie-Antoinette but all the decadence and steamy sex has been left out. Jaeger has created a saccharin world of blueberries, raspberries and strawberries, pink and blue cotton candy, cats, dogs, butterflies, bubbles, daffodils, pink and violent roses and Pixy Sticks for her heroines to exist in. Characteristically without emotion, Jaeger’s women (self-portraits?) stare blankly at their audience, the heavy theatrical make-up they wear further distances any reading or entry into their private lives or any clues as to why these women are being portrayed in the first place. Like a series of paper cut-out dolls, you can readily change an outfit, the play-house or the accessories creating endless possibilities of imaginary worlds, dreams and tales. And herein lies the rub, its Tele-Tubbies for the masses. If the efforts of the artist have been solely concentrated on a limited stylistic change and pictorial vocabulary through the use of very universal and un-personal imagery, then the focus of the spectator is going to forcibly look to the figurines for clues and direction – but there is none. There is no sense or content beyond the pastel picture plane despite any real or imagined experiences, beliefs, fantasies, hopes that the artist believes she is trying to imbue into the paintings via the figure. The over-whelming production and mass exposure of the work only tells us that there is more where this came from.




"Paully Small Eyes" - Andy Howell


I was barely 20 years old in 1989, the year Andy Howell (www.andyhowell.com) became a professional skateboarder. I was born and raised in Santa Cruz, CA and had spent my earlier years riding some of the first fibreglass skateboards produced by a local surfboard maker in Capitola. I was never very good, suffering two broken collarbones and many a skinned knees and elbows – but I had fun. I even remember graduating up to a Hang Ten board with polyurethane wheels and sealed bearings, and attempting a ride in the next door neighbour’s empty pool.

WOW! times have changed to say the least, as the skateboard industry and its skaters have become one of the most influential cultural icons of the 21st century. Money talks and bullshit walks as they say and quick tour of the internet to get some industry stats led me to the International Association of Skateboard Companies (http://www.skateboardiasc.org/industry_stats.asp) who quoted annual sales volume for 2004 at $5.2 billion. But it isn’t all about money as skateboarding has entered all aspects of social and cultural life from art to fashion to design and beyond, its religious fervour and “way of life” has changed a whole generation of youth in America and abroad. It is also difficult to know who had first bragging rights to the artistic pole of this movement, were the Lowbrow artists just a natural extension of the skate and surf culture that has been around for generations or did they arrive from the renaissance of the Tattoo industry or did they see an opportunity to mass market their designs and bizarre imagery on every skateboard deck in the world? Or did the skaters and surfers suddenly realize they had some artistic talent to offer? What this has to do with Howell is everything, since he fully epitomizes the entrepreneurial spirit in skateboarding and being an artist. He is his very own “House,” a trademark and landmark production company, managed, packaged and delivered to the eager masses with razor sharp marketing skills. Image is everything in his world. Howell much like Nina Karavasiles, are two artists that have seamlessly turned their professional careers and life into art. And in doing so, I fail to see why Howell would even be considered for the show, and it’s not because he’s a terrible artist, but because his status as “emerging” in the context of the selection process seems ridiculous and maybe even just a little insulting. The only reason I can think of is that we’re making a distinction between his “fine art” production and his “commercial” production – which seems equally as absurd. Or is it simply about name recognition, if so, the focus is once again being pulled away from the art on view.



"Portrait of Missipi Red" - Andy Howell


Howell’s work in “New Contemporaries” is comprised of several mounted cut-out silhouetted heads, like some rack of safari trophies hanging in some big game hunter’s den, but instead of animals, they’re crooked cops and small time crooks. Are these awards being given to their perspective owners for loyal and dedicated service, perseverance in robbing liquor stores and racketeering or have they been given out post-mortem? – hard to tell but I suspect they no longer have a say in their future careers. “Snubnose”, “43 Years of Serviss” (purposely misspelled because this is how gangsters talk), Paully Small Eyes” are just some of the more light-hearted pieces Howell has created. I’m guessing that these works might be a drop in the bucket for him, view all the projects he is involved in, and probably shouldn’t be read into more than what they are – comical. They’re nicely done and well conceived, but if you’re looking for more “serious” work, check out his website(s) and his new book, “Art, Skateboarding and Life.” (http://www.andyhowell.com/demo.html)




"My Beautiful Wife" (self-portrait) - Alida Cervantes


Alida Cervantes (http://www.jjponline.com/GaleriaHH/
english/cervantes_eng/cervantes_galeria_eng.html) exhibits a large scale painting entitled “My Beautiful Wife (self-portrait)” a beautiful, compelling and richly seductive work that captures the viewer’s attention the moment you walk into the gallery. From what I’ve managed to gather off the internet, Cervantes is a Tijuana based artist, born here in San Diego from Mexican parents and she deals with issues of “identity” in her paintings. Rumour has it that Cervantes, apparently of fair complexion, was often told that she didn’t “look” Mexican. This led her to investigate and question what identity really is, creating a body of work where she portrays herself in various social and class distinctive or stereotypical culture and race typecasting scenarios. Similar I would say to the work Cindy Sherman has produced in photographs over the years. I’m sure this is all useful information and can only help us to better understand Cervantes work, however with one work in the show, it is at best difficult to “see” all those issues of identity within the work. Do they exist or does the painting need to be in a larger context of similar works accompanied by an essay? Artwork seldom lies. I like this painting a lot for other reasons than “identity;” does this mean that I’ve missed the intent and message of the artist? Or it doesn’t matter because it is simply art and open to a multitude of interpretations? Shouldn’t we just let the painting speak for itself? Again, these are debates that come up in group shows but isn’t it a bit misleading for the viewer who comes to the work seeing it for the first time? If we can justify in words what we can’t do in paint, why paint? Otherwise, Cervantes’ painting could easily be a portrait of just about anybody. Race should not be a criteria for making good art, translating what we believe about ourselves into that art is all we have - we have no other language available.

Why paint? may not be an issue for Cervantes on a most basic level of expression and her desire to move the oily substance around on canvas. It is only because she does it quite well with a lot of bravado and bold confident strokes of the brush. Cervantes’ large painted head looms almost bobs up and down before the viewer, filling up the majority of the canvas. Her shoulder length hair, pulled back with a cotton bandana exposes her large forehead and high cheek bones, framing her smiling face in dark brown and black thick brush strokes curling upwards ever so slightly as it brushes against her brightly colored floral summer dress. Reminiscent of some of Alex Katz’s works in their frontal composition and cropping, Cervantes’ painting is however, not as flat and as monochrome as Katz’s as she weaves into her rich surfaces an almost hot fluorescent palette of colors balanced by cooler blues and violets to define shape and three dimensionality. Her suburban housewife appeal and purity is rather unnerving because she is well.. so bubbly and happy to see us, or is it because she’s an American?



The last three artists in the show, Tristan Shone (www.oleblue.com), Nina Waisman (www.ninawaisman.net), and Tania Candiani (http://www.cronika.com/taniacandiani/index.htm) are non-emerging artists who have had various successes and recognition by the art establishment or have managed their careers on a national and international level. Candiani for being “selected” as an emerging artist in the context of this show, has a very impressive resume and collection pedigree already of work owned by: the Museum of Contemporary Art, La Jolla "Avidez"; San Diego Museum of Art, San Diego “El Novio y La Novia”; Alberta Du Pont Foundation, La Jolla “All the emotion…”; Centro Cultural Tijuana, Tijuana, B.C. "La Equilibrante"; and The Great American Women´s Sculpture Park, NY “Compulsive Eater” to name but a few. Candiani was born in 1974 in Mexico City and according to her website, lives and works in Tijuana; she is autodidact.



"Plays of Pleasure. Mattresses Series" - Tania Candiani


At first view, Candiani’s work can appear to be rather dark and cynical, uncomfortable, violent all the way from the physical process in making the work to its painful conclusions. In “New Contemporaries” Candiani presents a light-box installation constructed out of plexiglass, fluorescent tubes and digital prints on paper entitled “Plays of Pleasure” from the Mattresses Series which I’m supposing is part of her Domestic Series. Domesticity is quite the buzz word for a lot of artists here and abroad, often using installation and sculpture (loosely) and incorporating embroidery into the process of their art making – usually in red. A recent exhibition at the Art Produce Gallery of recent undergraduate work from UCSD, elicits yet another body of work around sexual identity and the taboo use of the word cunt. Does this prove my theory to be 100% fallible, of course not. What it does say is the issues of domesticity, sex, pornography, gender roles, work et al treated by some of San Diego’s younger women artists, alongside art history’s subjective non-recognition of under exposed and under appreciated women artists working quietly in New York during the male dominated atmosphere of Abstract Expressionism and much later, the feminist revolution in the late 60’s and early 70’s that woke everyone up to the art that truly was some of the best, IS little consulted by this current generation, neglected, forgotten or is stolen at face value and turned into art as such. The symbols, clichés, performances and shock imagery of the past – used with much more precision, depth and intellect (sensibility) by women and in tune with a real necessity to awaken their slumbering male counterparts into higher consciousness – is now being exploited and misrepresented by a water downed simulacra of artwork that appropriates but no longer distils.



"Plays of Pleasure. Mattresses Series(detail)" - Tania Candiani


Too harsh? Perhaps. But I have a low tolerance in my subjective objective points of view on work of this nature. I have the same feelings about some of the homoerotic works being produced these days, not because it is “disdainful” or “offensive” or “morally corrupt” to use any number of society’s stereotypical misreading and keywords for its banishment, but because it rarely moves beyond the graphic content and surface imagery. At the end of the day, a penis is a penis, a vagina a vagina and sex is sex. Celebrate it, i.e. show us something different. Does Candiani’s work fall into this categorization I’ve deduced or is this one work in a group show that is pure documentation of a larger body of work? I believe that it is the latter. But if you put work out there for public viewing, then you accept the responsibility of criticism and potential self-imposed misrepresentation of your work and take the risk that it has already been done – mined – before yours. Or should this be the curator’s responsibility to keep work out of a show that does not totally assume its role or is a tired metaphor?
That being said, Candiani’s “Plays of Pleasure” is a literal juxtaposition of separated images laid out horizontally, of embroidered white balloons held in place by holes in a grid in which they were blown through. Each balloon has a stitched word on it in red that makes up the following phrase: “Pain is a jufistication of pleasure”. The word “justification” has been altered to read “ju-fist-ication”. Up above the series of images, rests a lone image of a hand holding a dart. Perhaps pain is a truism for pleasure for some, maybe a hard line reality for others when it becomes domestic violence and likely a final resting place for still others – when they have become sadly, victims of Honor killings. Are all women victims in Candiani’s world? It certainly seems that way or they must have some very strong religious (upbringing) and matrimonial obligations they must fulfil or are being forced to fulfil. This can be seen in other embroidered works from the Domestic Series, stitched directly into bedroom mattresses like painted Zero’s on the side of a P-40 Mustang. They recite rather robotically, pleading or reluctantly providing expressions of love, pleasure and sex – ‘yes’, ‘no’, ‘in’, ‘out’, ‘don’t stop’ sometimes little plastic cherries are weaved into the surface just to make sure we “get” the intended message. Unfortunately, there is nothing to get as these works are powerful for their risqué presentation and biting commentary maybe, but in the end and if it is what John Cage once opined that “It’s the artist’s role to change the world,” then these works have offered no plausible plan of attack or hope for a better future. Are we not as responsible for recognizing a problem as we are irresponsible for not doing anything about it? Do I need an artist to tell me what that problem is? I’m not so sure. Why the disconnect from reality? What reality you ask, how about women’s rights in India, Iran, Iraq and China, female circumcision in the UK, rape in Africa – a vagina and arse so ripped apart that you can’t control bodily functions or keep your intestines from coming out the hole, and so on ad naseum. All artists should take the responsibilities of art making and not try to teach us lessons unless they’re willing to learn from them themselves! If Candiani’s work is a call to arms to stop the violence, then it needs to reach a larger public where it can do some good beyond the sanctity of the gallery walls.

On a lighter note, Candiani’s “Protección Familiar: helmets" Series (not in the show) of women sporting metal strainers on their heads with chin straps are much more effective and direct to this viewer. They are filtered, fresh and original.




"Drone Machines 4 Rotary Encoder" - Tristan Shone


Tristan Shone (from his website) has a BS in Mechanical Engineering from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in Troy, NY and is seeking a MFA from UCSD with an emphasis on robotics and automation. Between January 2005 and May 2006, Shone worked on a project called Aphanisis – a psychoanalytic term coined by Ernest Jones (a psychiatrist who introduced psychiatry to the U.K. in the early 20th century), whose symptoms are described as the disappearance of sexual desire. Shone’s Aphanisis was designed to “automate a bioMEMS chip filling and handling process reworked to overpower the chips. Addresses issues of sexual repression and unintuitive restraint in the clean lab.” I’m not quite sure what bioMEMS chips are or what they do, but how can you knock a guy who thinks like that. Did I mention the research he’s doing at the National Center for Microscopy and Imaging Research, “developing and testing robotic algorithms for achieving Eurocentricity within a new state of the art, high resolution electron microscope? Including work in mechanical design and fabrication.” I could go on but I think you get the point; Shone has some serious credentials and experience.



"Drone Machines 3 Linear Actuator" - Tristan Shone


But that’s not all. Shone has collaborated on several projects as engineer, programmer, designer and was notably, part of inSITE 2005 with Ricardo Dominguez and Coco Fusco in fabricating a USA-Mexico border video game that was installed in the Tijuana Zapatista headquarters. He is also an artist, a musician (the type of industrial sound from what I’ve read in various reviews, has been compared to Trent Renzor’s) who’s stage name is Author & Punisher and most recently, has been designing and fabricating what he calls “Drone Machines.” I’ll let him describe what they are, “For the past year I have been designing and hand fabricating industrial sound sculptures or interface devices titled Drone Machines. They are meant to be performed with at least for a time allowing one to experience the connection of the sound and hardware design. With durability and quality in industrial components ranging from robotics and automation all the way to older hand tools and musical instruments, these machines are meant to last and carry great weight and potential.” If you read the description of one of these machines it sounds like the latest publicity for Mercedes-Benz.

Drone Machines1: THROTTLES: dual throttle bass controller - 100in.lb torque provided by servo motor output per axis - pitch output by quadrature encoder on motors - volume output by potentiometer on handle - current dial readout - midi out and control by atmel microcontroller - air cooled [anodized aluminium, maple, stainless steel, electronics]

"Drone Machines 3 Linear Actuator(detail)" - Tristan Shone


And a Mercedes-Benz these beauties are, “Drone Machines 3” and “Drone Machines 4” shown in this exhibit are stunning to look at – polished steel and aluminium, bearings, optical linear and rotary encoders, exotic woods, the stuff of science fiction and space travel, of great feats of engineering and technology, of fantasy - of Mice and Men when they’re not functioning. So what do industrial sound sculptures do when they’re not making noise and Shone isn’t at the controls? – they’re sittin’ pretty and awfully quiet. And this is really too bad for the importance of the work’s integrity and understanding (functioning), but for the visitor (unless he’s already familiar with Shone’s work) as well. I believe there was one performance set aside, but if you missed it like I did, or didn’t even know about it and just showed up in the gallery the next day, I’m betting that you would simply read these pieces as engineered objects, handcrafted maybe, sculpture probably, but certainly industrially fabricated in the vein of some of Judd’s pieces and not know what they do – despite all their implied mobility. And you would have been wrong. Shone’s website has a sound video of a Drone Machines performance, that only gives you a hint of what I’m sure it would be like to experience it in Surround Sound.



"Drone Machines 3 Linear Actuator(detail)" - Tristan Shone


I believe it is a tremendous disservice to the work and the audience, to assume that the bulk of an artwork or machine does something without seeing it function, not to mention that it is in sharp contrast to his mission statement to, “physically manoeuvre about the control room backed by 7000 watts of sound, reaching deep into the innards where wood and steel join as flesh and bone.” Would it not have been more informative if they’re had been an ongoing video projection or regularly scheduled performances or even schematics to accompany the display of the work? At least something…




"Apache Attack Helicopter Becomes Buddy" - Nina Waisman


And finally, Nina Waisman presents a very rich subtle almost minimal-esque presentation of a series entitled “Apache Attack Helicopter becomes Buddy” on luxurious white velvety smooth embossed paper - by use of a die. Exquisite works that are inspired by her very own mascot and imaginary friend “Buddy.” They draw the viewer in and caress them with a rhythmic shedding (la mue) of metal wings, armour and propellers into a rolling Play-Doh like figurine or Michlein Tire Man with impressive Optimus Prime transformations and speed – OR are simply “tracing the connection between 2 markers of an historical zeitgeist,” says Waisman. Buddy “first showed up as a calligraphic painting, but that 2-d, on-the-wall gig got tight. Butting into the 3d world, Buddy has been done up in day-glo acrylic as part of the Buddy-to-Buddha I Ching Game, travelled to Iraq, to Target, to murder scenes, to beds and to baths. Buddy has been worshipped, hidden, carved in wood, cast in aluminium, sewn up as soft-sculpture in leatherette and silk, and might appear in bubblegum-form some day soon. Some Buddies are mass-produced, some are virtual and some handmade limited editions, painstakingly created one-by-one. You can make Buddy into whatever you want: Buddy is easy.” And fun I might add.



"Apache Attack Helicopter Becomes Buddy"(detail) - Nina Waisman (click for larger image)


But much like her previous colleagues, Waisman is far from being an emerging artist and has attained a level of maturity, thought and process not seen much these days. With beginnings at Harvard University, B.A. Magna Cum Laude to an exhibition career spanning 15 years, she is hardly an artist in the making. Her work(s) much too vast and conceptually smart to outline here in a few brief paragraphs, are like Karavasiles, imbued with a range and dexterity – depth - that involves many mediums but primarily sound installations. Whereas Shone is the sole contributor and player in his sound performances, Waisman actively seeks out and requires audience participation to make her work speak – often documenting the results and actions/inactions and/or responses of the willing albeit trepid trespasser on video. The results are well documented, clean, succinct and fascinating to watch, you are immediately caught up in the ballet like movements and performance of orchestrated randomness.



"Apache Attack Helicopter Becomes Buddy"(detail) - Nina Waisman


“Displacement” and “Around” are two installation sound pieces that Waisman describes as, “modular interactive floor-tile-speaker systems of ‘displacement’ so that I might pursue a variety of sound and choreographic experiences working with the simple act of walking. Each iteration is site-specific, allowing for ongoing experiments with soundplay and choreography. Future iterations will have visitors' footsteps trigger non-walking sounds – concrete sound that might suggest connections/impact on distant events.” In short, you have to walk upon these interactive floor tiles or pass by sensors, which can be hidden or intermingled with other objects, to have what Waisman explains is “an interest in Deleuze & Guattari's proposal that sound play - chromatics, as they call it - might eventually push language towards a ‘beyond of language’". Sound play. Perfect! I highly recommend viewing the video of “Quinine”(no relation I suspect to the wonder drug for the cure of malaria) but nonetheless, the “Quinine: Rough Dance Improv” segment with dancer Matt Johnstone on video is spectacular.





So what have I learned? And what do I still have questions about? Let me preface this by saying all criticism I’m logging here is two bring the attention of the gallery visitor and the reader back onto the art on the walls and to open up a debate on the current artistic scene in San Diego. Why do I think this is necessary? It is because I believe what is lacking is some form of consistent “defining moments” from San Diego’s artists, curators, galleries, museums and art press. There are pockets of resistance from galleries and artists working here that have established themselves independently from any support or lack of, they have received. This is a credit to their perseverance and individual visions but I’m not sure San Diego has enough to offer them in terms of say, a larger collector base, retrospective shows, an art fair, cultural centers, state and city support (grants, public & private foundations, public sculpture, studio space etc.), a gallery center (Ray at Night isn’t exactly what I would call a “cultural Mecca”), to keep anyone of them here beyond their years at a University – which usually coincides with the pursuit of a M.F.A. and what to do afterwards. There are to my point of view, no one artist or gallery that is looked to or sought after that is creating a personal vision or movement that defines a trend that the San Diego Art Prize committee is so desperately trying to create. But you can’t knock them for trying.

It is easier to understand why artists and galleries choose to live and work in San Diego if you understand I think what the reasons are that they stay, meaning how are they using what they have to their advantage. I’m certainly not pretending that I know ALL the reasons, but I use it to illustrate my point as to why there is a certain (minimal) level of quality within the art being made here, the ampler of work being shown in the museums (i.e. why didn’t the Dan Flavin retrospective travel to San Diego?) and the general lack of attention art receives by the public, its newspaper and its galleries – it is because it is only a railroad stop on a route to a much more attractive destination – the art world. Sea, Sex and Sun, the Padres, the Gaslamp and a multi-million dollar tourist and hotel industry sums up the priorities San Diego has beyond the obvious lack of any art infrastructure and city budget to support the arts. This is why we get what we get. And yes, I’ve read plenty of articles where critics have pointed out the errant gesticulations of “why San Diego isn’t an art city” by those who have questioned its vitality and future, that have us all convinced in the end that it is simply not so. But why make art here in San Diego and if you do, what are the goals in doing so beyond just showing it? This convinces no one that there is something to be seen.

So, I believe you can view the “New Contemporaries” as an example of this temporality, as a single endeavour organized by a group of private individuals who felt it was necessary to award excellence to artists living and working here. Fine. This would however, go a long way in explaining the random and non-representative selection of the work, the lack of information about the artists – other than going to their websites, the choice of exhibition space and the confusion about who is established and who isn’t – since it was one of the premises for organizing the exhibition in the first place. This shouldn’t be some “dog and pony show” where artists have to compete against one another for a coveted prize that other than some money and an exhibit at the Omni Hotel, is destined to show us what? Artists can show together? It is this level of expertise by the established consensus and their implied nuggets of promised wisdom and/or insight bequeathed upon those who are chosen (it’s difficult to ignore a certain “judge and jury” mentality), that disturbs me the most. The fact that you are establishing a hierarchy of power and selecting from a limited gene pool proves what? What it proves is that you don’t need to fill in the blanks for those who come visit these exhibitions, because if you’re already in the loop, well you’re in the loop. The details aren’t necessary because the reasons for doing it are not about the art. So what are those reasons? And where did this desire arise from? Was it because they (the organizers) felt something was lacking or is it a simple case of “need is the mother of invention?” But what is that need, what is lacking here in San Diego that I don’t know about and am willing to help satisfy and build upon?

Kevin Freitas