Art as Authority

by Richard Gleaves


Scenes from Trolley Dances 2008 — click on image for larger version

Spun by Richard Gleaves at 02:36 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

music by Modest Mouse, video by The Bear Hunt

Spun by Art as Authority at 10:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

by Kevin Freitas


While doing a little fall clean-up on the blog and some overdue maintenance, I decided to re-post one of the first reviews I did two years ago on the San Diego painter, W. Haase Wojtyla. His solo show, organized by the Oceanside Museum of Art and curated by Catherine Gleason, was one of the largest retrospectives of his work in over ten years. At the time of the review, I was unfamiliar with his paintings or the artist. I'm pleased to have encountered his work and glad to have had the opportunity to write about it. Why re-post the review, well that's easy: the readership for Art as Authority has grown substantially over the past year, and while it appears more and more people subscribe to the blog and are regular readers, this is a way of sharing with you some of the blog's humble beginnings. Enjoy! and thanks for the continued interest.


from September 9, 2006

According to the exhibition catalog, W. Haase Wojtyla was born in Chicago in 1933. He attended the Art Institute of Chicago from 1952 to 1954, left Chicago for New York in the mid-1950's, and earned his M.A. from the University of Cincinnati in the early 1960's before returning to New York in 1967. He moved to San Miguel de Allende, Mexico with his wife and child in 1970, left Mexico in 1973 for San Diego, CA where he has been living and painting for the last 30 years. Wojtyla was included in several prestigious shows while in Chicago, notably the Exhibition of Chicago and Vicinity in 1956 and the Momentum Exhibition of the same year, an alternative exhibit in reaction to what was thought to be unfair politics and exclusion of those students desiring to participate in the Vicinity show. Wojtyla was also part of Art in America's New Talent in the U.S. survey of 1957 which included the likes of Helen Frankenthaler and Ellsworth Kelly. The current exhibit at the Oceanside Museum of Art, Ca is the largest retrospective of Wojtyla's paintings in over ten years.

Those familiar with Wojtyla's paintings will certainly recognize some familiar faces brought together into the intimate setting of the museum. Those who aren't, might find it difficult to enter into his universe, as the exhibit lightly touches on three bodies of related works or series that make up the main thrust of his long career. These are: Nudes in the Shower, Crime Scenes, and Stalkers. Catherine Gleason, the show's curator and the catalog's writer, argues that Wojtyla's artistic foundation was shaped by his native city Chicago and its tumultuous political and artistic upheaval during the 1950's, notably Senator Joe McCarthy's continued war on Communism and a particular artist's group Monster Roster, of which Leon Golub was part. She also argues that Wojtyla's paintings can be squarely placed into a certain type of genre painting known as the grotesque. Gleason cites Hieronymus Bosch (The Garden of Earthly Delights) and Francisco de Goya (Saturn Devouring One of His Children) as examples of this and tries to draw comparisons to Wojtyla's painting influences and style. As I looked at Wojtyla’s paintings, I couldn't stop wondering if living on the west coast for the last 30 years didn't have more of an influence on his work, certainly in the more formal and painterly aspects, than anything Chicago could muster up.

This can be seen I believe, in his use of a West Coast pallette and by systematically placing the figure in the center of the foreground, letting the rest of the canvas bleed out into large washes of blues, pinks, yellows and greens or larger patches/squares of black that anchor and foreshorten the central image, causing it to spill out of the painting toward the viewer. One can also see under the dry stumbling of the artist's brushstrokes, pencil lines drawn in perspective that create a grid and structure for the work. I was still seeing however, a greater influence of a whole generation of painters the likes of Richard Diebenkorn, David Parks, Elmer Bischoff, Roy DeForest, Wilem T. Wiley, and Wayne Thibaud - all of them important west coast artists living and exhibiting during the same period.

Comparisons have also been made between Wojtyla's paintings and those of Francis Bacon by Gleason and several other writers. Gleason states, "Their use of color as well as their abstracted forms seem born of the same experience." The experience she is referring to is that of the grotesque. There is one problem though to this viewer's eye, there is hardly anything grotesque, horrific, fearful or brutal in Wojtyla's paintings, at least not in how I experience these emotions when looking at Bacon, Goya or Bosch. Granted, Wojtyla's contorted objects and abstract figures are at times bizarre and comical, a curious morphing of the human form into pinkish tubes and flattened planes of intersecting globules, but they are hardly the Elephant Man. A good example of this can be found within the "Nudes in the Shower" series, making up a large part of the exhibit at the museum with works dating from 1975 to 2006 - a majority of them painted in the 80's.



Nude in the Shower, 1975 - Courtesy of the Artist


Two extraordinary drawings from 1975 - "Nude in the Shower" (prismacolor on paper) and "Black Stocking Nude in the Shower with Yellow Towel" (acrylic and ink on paper) - are beautiful sensual works constructed and enticingly layered with vivid color, rich shadows and a pulse. These drawings breathe life. They are precious works of observation and precision, of capturing the very essence of the human form and its surrounding. It feels as if the artist is very much there, curiously investigating every nook and cranny of a bent elbow or knee, expressing the joys of light and ambiance; he is perhaps even sitting in front of the bather recording every movement and gesture as you peer over his shoulder. The simplicity and range of depth and beauty in these drawings are in sharp contrast to the more stylized paintings of the 1980's and later. They have become much flatter, simple abstract cut-outs without the rich build up of color and light, instead Wojtyla has only slightly varied the tonality and surface of them. “Standing Nude in the Shower” 1987 (oil on canvas) is the only painting that stands out in this series; it is edgy and dark. The central figure dissolves into an array of cylinders growing out of arms turning black toward the ends, swirling down into the drain as huge drops of white shower water erupt from the shower head, spraying every which way like tracer bullets in the night. An ochre shower curtain, hanging like a Francis Bacon side of beef, frames the nude and threatens to envelop her.



Black Stocking Nude in the Shower with Yellow Towel, 1975 - Courtesy of the Artist



Standing Nude in the Shower, 1987 - Collection of Thomas Shadle


“Nude in the Shower with Shower Curtain” 2006 is the most disappointing work in this series. Constructed out of painted foam-core mounted on a simple white stretcher bar, (real) shower curtain stapled to the back, it has all the elements of Wojtyla’s earlier shower pieces – figure, shower head, tub, and jets of stylized water – but what is it that is so unsatisfying about this piece? I believe it is because it lacks the beauty and panache of the earlier works, their subtlness, while the version 2006 feels awfully heavy-handed and just plain lazy in its execution. Considering all that is available to artists these days in terms of materials, fabrication and technology, better care and thought could have been given to the result; it is in the end, a very old school approach.





The “Stalker Series” is represented by just two paintings in the Oceanside exhibit – “Night Stalker” 1985 and “Stalker with Calipers” 1986. Gleason explains in the catalog, “Each painting from this series a dog, appearing as though part coyote and part wolf, is shown in profile filling the entire space within the canvas. Jowls exposing sharp teeth dripping with blood and saliva suggest an event that has either just occurred or is about to occur within the nocturnal setting.” Night Stalker has been divided in half horizontally with the lower half containing a man on all fours advancing in unison with his bestial counterpart above him, blood frothing from his mouth. Stalker with Calipers is strange painting of a large dog engulfing the entire surface of two canvases side by side, with a set of callipers clamped down on the muzzle of the animal, silhouetting the skull and pointed teeth of their captive. There are as well, several less intriguing self-portraits by Wojtyla that bring us to the mid-point of the show.



Night Stalker, 1985 - Collection of Dan Agajeenian


“Crime Scenes” make up the third and last part of the exhibition and is where some his larger paintings can be seen. A voracious reader of True Crime novels, Wojtyla found a rich source of imagery and inspiration that he infuses these works with. Most notably are the Tony Mancini inspired paintings and the infamous Brighton Trunk Murders.

In the 1930’s Brighton became notorious for a series of Trunk Murders when dismembered female bodies were found crammed into separate trunks at Charing Cross Station in 1927 and two more bodies at King’s Cross and Brighton Stations in 1934. Tony Mancini of The Glass House movie fame was the lover of Violet Kaye (real name Violet Saunders), a prostitute, who was found dead stuffed into a trunk. Mancini had claimed he found her dead in their flat and assumed she had been killed by one of her clients. Since Mancini already had a criminal record, he hid her body in a trunk fearing the door to door searches going on by police for other victims –so he said – and later fled on the lamb. Mancini was later caught, tried for the murder, but was found not guilty by the jury, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.*Crime & Investigation Network.

Wojtyla executed several pieces based on this true crime mystery such as “Tony Mancini in a Terrible Funk Put Violet Saunders into a Trunk” 1981, an oil on canvas of a twisted flattened squished pinkish figure, forced into a trunk by a long arm and hand entering the picture plane from the right, attached one could only assume, to Tony Mancini himself.



Tony Mancini in a Terrible Funk Put Violet Saunders into a Trunk, 1981 - Collection of Robert S. Bell, Jr.


There are other Crime Scene paintings with equally sensational titles on view such as “Cardiac Transplant” 1989, “Winnie Ruth Judd” 1983, “Trunk with Lion’s Head” 1995, “John Wayne G.” 1991, but only one I particularly like and believe is the strongest work in the exhibit, which combines all the elements of the previous series into one wonderful and hell-bent of a perverse painting. The title: “The Incident at the Whip Snade Zoo” 1987. Incident is a large painting 84” x 60” depicting a scene at the Snade Zoo and in particular, what’s going on near the lion’s cage. It is difficult to explain the range of thoughts and feelings that run through my mind when viewing this work. It ranges from the contentment of “oh! I get it” and the shock of realizing you just saw what happened to the poor woman dragged into the cage, frozen in your tracks horrorified and bemused, like so many of the watching bystanders in the painting, watching in eager anticipation as to what will happen next, as you become a not so innocent spectator, voyeur and willing participant in the attack. I'm guessing this painting is not the favourite among museum viewers, but I can honestly tell you, after three days I still can’t get it off of my mind.

Let me describe the scene: we’ve just turned the long curving path up to the lion’s cage only to see a woman pulled into it, her brand new Easter bonnet topples from her head. The powerful beast has reared up on its hind legs, his black mane flowing in the wind. As we begin to watch more intently, we slowly realize that there is something very wrong with this picture. There’s no blood, no flailing limbs, no screams and no body parts flayed about. The woman appears to be very much alive. She is however, being forced to perform fellatio on the lion – or is she? A monkey on the far right of the painting stares with a stupid grin on his face, lustfully watching, waiting, anticipating his turn. Is it gang rape were witnessing? This painting is absurd in so many ways; the cartoon like handling of the subject matter and paint, softens the blow of this tragic scene. Both the lion and the woman are broken up into intersecting planes of color and criss-crossing lines, they twist and undulate together, flattened by the artist’s drawing, browns and oranges represent the beast, and large blue buttons glued to the surface of the canvas depict the petticoat of the woman. Only the grinning monkey is somewhat realistically painted, for he represents you and I, only the lower half of his body dissolves into the blackness of the painting except for a very prominent and phallic form rearing its head. We can’t see the woman’s face, we would be too embarrassed if our glances crossed, pinned down as she is, shoulders and arms held tightly. What we can see very clearly though, is a very long and very thick protuberance and two very testicle-like shapes hanging down between the lion’s thighs at the same level with the woman’s upper torso. A very feminine looking hand cups the animal and beast in all of us. Incident is dangerously ambiguous, riveting, frightening, nervously funny, frustrating, seductive, and disturbing. Our role as museum viewer, spectator, and voyeur is further complicated by our implicit participation in the "act."

Wojtyla plays on this tension and adds even more by letting the background break off into color planes of Diebenkorn-ish squares, trapezoids and rectangles, that define vaguely the surrounding animal cages and various other zoo creatures, through simple children book silhouettes painted in bright happy colors. However, it is the sadistic smiling monkey looking back at us so intently, so feverishly, yet complacent and relaxed that is by far, more terrifying than any “Stalker” painting Wojtyla has done. It still haunts me today.


W. Haase Wojtyla: A Coincidence of Paintings is an interesting exhibit of one of San Diego’s most respected artists. It has been more than a decade since the last roundup of his work has been shown. For those of you acquainted with his work, you’ll likely ease into the show with no major problems and without any expectations of anything new. Others who are not familiar might find it difficult to understand the thrust of the exhibit let alone the thread, due in part to the physical size of the museum space and the amount of paintings exhibited (the Oceanside Museum is relatively small, however plans are being made to increase is surface area). The lack of information on or about the artist throughout the exhibit is rather sparse, a hindrance I believe for the visitor and a better understanding of the work. What little that does exist however, is dumbed down to the point of being embarrassing simplistic. The problem of space obviously compromises the choice in what to exhibit, which results in a somewhat jumbled and piece meal selection of paintings spanning 30 years. This isn't a problem if you’re there just to look at the work, it is if you’re trying to understand the artist’s vision and intent. I would recommend buying the catalog for a very brief history of Wojtyla’s career, but would not give too much importance to Catherine Gleason’s essay. I have difficulty agreeing with her point of view about the grotesque and the potential influence it has had on Wojtyla’s oeuvre. I find his work to be pleasant in nature, rather formal, and richly inspired by the mysteries and events of the past. It is an exhibit many will enjoy as I have.

Spun by Art as Authority at 04:16 PM | Permalink | Comments (3)

logo design Michele Guieu

Spun by Art as Authority at 01:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

videos by Michele Guieu

Spun by Art as Authority at 08:10 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

by Kevin Freitas


A recent article appeared in last week's CityBeat, written by the Arts Editor Kinsee Morlan, that began with a catchy and somewhat exagerated title, Fight! Fight! Ray at Night! Gustaf Rooth (pictured) owner of Planet Rooth Gallery, Lea Caughlan and Carly Delso-Saavedra, owners of The Rubber Rose, were interviewed about future Ray at Night events and its broadening into a larger entity called North Park Nights. Differences of opinion, separatist visions maybe, but hardly fighting words; it does however, demonstrate the need for a larger debate about the state of the arts in general, including North Park and the rest of San Diego's artist community. As much as the word change is being carried as a flag of progressive rebooting of the nation's economy and politics, removing what positive connotations it had, the word itself in its essence, has the power artists need to make a difference. An event itself, is empty and meaningless until you put a standard of quality and vital content into it. I believe it is high time to start expressing some of those expectations.

Here is an excerpt from the article:

Fight! Fight! Ray at Night!
Changes ahead for North Park’s monthly art walk aren’t making everyone happy

By Kinsee Morlan

North Park’s Ray Street has always been stuck somewhere between a booming arts district and a shell of an arts district. During Ray at Night, the monthly art walk focused on Ray Street, the block comes alive as hordes of culture seekers flood the place, red wine in hand, ready to feast their eyes. more...

Spun by Art as Authority at 09:12 AM | Permalink | Comments (4)

by Richard Gleaves

Link

Spun by Richard Gleaves at 04:10 PM | Permalink | Comments (1)

David White, owner/director of the Agitprop Gallery in North Park, speaks out about the current exposition "Movers and Shakers" currently on view at Art Expressions Gallery. He asked if I would publish it and I agreed. David's gallery is one of the "newer" galleries to dot the diversifying cultural landscape in North Park, and is important to its (North Park) survival and continuation as a viable arts district. I recently had the opportunity to collaborate with him and Agitprop, in organizing the "TAPOUT" live critique several months ago. This is his first essay. And while David's opinions are of course his own, we should be able to find an element of truth in anyone's or any one voice, given that we're listening. The rest is up to you the reader to decide and act. Kevin Freitas




A work of agitprop by David White



A metaphor for artists opportunities in San Diego.
Tim Hawkinson "Bird"


To be a young artist that is in some small way trying to engage in cultural exchange/discourse within an art historical, culturally contemporary context in the city of San Diego can be discouraging and, at times, soul-crushing. The initial reason that comes to mind is that of the cost of living.

San Diego is roughly as expensive to live in as any of the major art-market cities (L.A., New York, Chicago, San Francisco) without the benefit of having the support structure of an art buying public. I have recently visited my home town of Cleveland and was impressed with the high level of art being shown by emerging artists who have the freedom to experiment simply based on the fact that it is possible to rent 3000 sq. ft. for $1000 a month in some abandoned warehouse to work and show art in (and sometimes live in as well). Having also lived in Columbus for quite some time, and having talked with friends from Detroit, these cities, despite also being “backward” Midwestern towns, each have more of an underground aura of experimentation than six San Diegos combined. Cheap spaces equal a certain freedom from economic pressures, which in turn allow artists to take some risks. The drawback in these cities is that the economies are so poor that there does not leave much money to be spent on the purchase of art. San Diego has the drawbacks of both environments without having the benefits of either. If I am spending $1000 a month on 350 sq. ft., why not move to L.A, New York, Chicago, or San Francisco where at least there is a sliver of hope of some economic (and critical) response? Or move to any post-industrial city like Cleveland where there is cheap space, freedom to experiment and some less economically driven exhibition opportunities such as the outstanding non-profit Spaces Gallery, at which I have seen numerous intriguing shows by local Ohio, artists.

Another reason is, for lack of a better word, the ‘tone’ of art in San Diego. Other than attending events at the major acronymed institutions such as the SDMA, MCASD, UCSD, SDSU, and USD, there is little opportunity for work other than an endless barrage of landscape paintings, portrait paintings, still lifes, abstractionist probings that go well with the interior décor of any one of the half empty sky-rise condos downtown (and soon to be in Barrio Logan), and “pop-surrealist” knock-offs. All of this work is primarily painting. (Throw in an occasional photograph.) Painting only constitutes a small percentage of the fantastic array that is contemporary art. “Movers and Shakers” is a peak example of the limited scope of vision the tone-setters of this town have. “Movers and Shakers” is a show that was billed by San Diego’s “underground” or “alternative” weekly periodical CityBeat as a show that is “a chance to see the breadth and scope of the local-art scene.” (CityBeat, August 27th 2008, pg. 22) In such a diverse art world, is this really the “breadth and scope” that the most creative-of San Diegans can muster? And should our only major those-without-means voice in the media be so quick to praise such a conservative showing by the art establishment?

The contemporary art world consists of media as diverse as video, performance, ceramic objects, functional objects, film, found film, found objects, happenings, conceptualism, collage, land art, earthworks, new media, altered objects, altered media, websites, installations, architectural pieces, writings, manifestoes, bubble gum, plastic shopping bags, fingernail clippings*, etc., etc., etc. So why rig the concept of any “sampling” show to favor only painting and photography? And if this format was not encouraged by the premise of the show than does it really mean that people who are a “sampling” of the trendsetters in this town really believe that painting and photography are the only viable forms of art in the twenty-first century? I realize that there were also a couple of ceramic pieces, a bronze, and one other sculpture that contained a video element but let’s be honest, this was a painting show. I understand that in a market as conservative and as commercially driven as San Diego is, it much easier to sell painting and photography because these mediums lend themselves better to being used as decorative objects in an individual’s home, hotel lobby, or office complex. The decorative object reigns supreme, at least economically. This aspect of the local art world is a reality and is completely understandable in terms of the economics, but let’s not try to say that this was truly a sampling of what is happening in San Diego when, thankfully, it is not. Especially when there are several venues in the city, driven and owned by individuals who operate with no budget and on a volunteer basis, that try to bring work to the San Diego public that has more say than “I am a picture of someone of note.”

The problem with the “Movers and Shakers” show was not that it was exclusive, (every show is) rather that it presumes, even in the post-event discourse, to be inclusive. No amount of organizational transparency or verbal proclamations are going to matter when the form of the event is, at its most basic foundation, self contained and only serves the people who fall under its narrow pre-prescribed conditions. If any individual or organization is going claim that they somehow represent the whole of the San Diego art community than that individual or organization needs to be ready to accept the input of all of those people they claim to represent. Otherwise just call it a “portrait show” and please leave the rest of us San Diegans out of your implications. I, for one, do not want to be identified with, or have San Diego be a town known for, such a conservative event as painting portraits of its VIPs. Stating that it was just meant to be a “sampling of the many types of art” in San Diego and not a ‘best of’ show based on the parties involved narrow criteria is spurious given the vast number of artists who were excluded simply based on the media implied by “creating a portrait.” It also shows an obvious lack of awareness as to an entire world of people operating in San Diego who would not fall under the umbrella of consideration simply for working in forms other than painting (or photography). A clear message has been sent: If you are not painter, especially in a somewhat traditional style, than you are not considered an artist. If certain modes of production are not to be considered then there isn’t even a possibility of inclusion or enriching the San Diego art scene as this event claims it does. And if the limited scope of the work is because these are the only artists the Movers and Shakers aware of than the Movers and Shakers are painfully disconnected with what is happening here in San Diego.

And what about the public? Why should anybody other than the participants and people already in acquaintance with this aspect of the local art scene care about the portraits of the people involved? Art should not only be judged on its economic value, but on whether it also has some significance to the culture at large, should the public choose to engage it. Would this event help a person feel at least a little bit less intimidated by the art world based on what they would have seen that night or any day thereafter? How is the form of portrait painting, which in the grand scheme of art history is probably the most used form for establishing status, supposed to not be intimidating? Granted, there are times when portraiture can be used in a way other than as a status symbol. When I see the black and white portraits of homeless people outside of the Art Academy of San Diego I see the personality of an individual who is oftentimes overlooked. When I see Warhol silk screens of Elvis I think of the impact the reproducible image has had on the cult of personality over the course of the last century. When I look at the Movers and Shakers portraits, well… I some see people that many in the younger generation of San Diego artists have a profound respect for engaging in a self-indulgent act that has in some small way tarnished their credibility. It reminds me of listening to an overly embellished story from an aging grandparent where at some point during the story you realize that he or she is not telling the story for your benefit, rather their own. It does not mean that you do not have love and admiration for this person, or that you do not admire this person’s accomplishments, you simply realize that they have grown a little out of touch with reality.



The medium is the message. Clockwise from top left: Jonathon Segal by Dan Camp, Portrait of King George III by Matthew Brown, Catherine Sass by Sidney Wildesmith, Half-length Portrait of the Duchess of Courland by Angelica Kauffman.


On the same night as the opening of “Movers and Shakers” there was an art event at 810 25th St., Over Laps Art Show, that was everything “Movers and Shakers” was not; spontaneous, contemporary, a true mixture of current media, and embodied a sense of community larger than that of “our” art world cronies. This was a show organized with a cash bar to benefit the Greater Golden Hill Community Development Corporation. It consisted of work by the following artists: Acamonchi, Armando De La Torre, Bejamin Lavender, Brian Dick, Cathy De La Cruz, Deanna Erdmann, Gary James Lee, Glenna Jennings, Iana Quesnell, Kathy Brannock, Micheal Trigilio, Monica Duncan, Nathaniel Klein, Rob Benavides, Scott Horsley, and Trisch Stone, as well as outstanding dance improvisation by Justin Morrison, Ron Estes and Leslie Seitlers to the beat of virtuoso drumming by David Hurley. While only some of the work at this event had the same amount of polish and craftsmanship that was present at “Movers and Shakers” it had something else, a willingness to experiment and soul.

The point of this is not to put down any of the individual accomplishments of the Movers and Shakers, to put down the skills of any of the artists involved, or to put down the initiative of the organizers. The point is to ask the questions: Being the suppose-ed creative people of this town, is this really the most interesting type of event that can be put together? When resources are so limited do we really think that a show like this is doing its small part to put San Diego art on the national radar? Is it going to encourage individuals in the public to buy art from all galleries in San Diego and not just the ones that feature this narrow range of work? With such a multitude of contemporary topics to explore (the border, gentrification, globalization, the impact of technology etc. etc.) and media to investigate (see above) is painting portraits of each other really a productive use of energy and resources and the best way to engage an intelligent public? Artists and people in the art community, more than any other group of people, should understand how much form influences content, and in turn perception. The young no-name artists and struggling galleries in San Diego deserve better than this.

Spun by Art as Authority at 02:57 PM | Permalink | Comments (13)

by Kevin Freitas





I went to the “Movers and Shakers” opening Friday night at Art Expressions Gallery, located off of Morena Blvd. in some rather remote light-industrial building complex. If success can be gaged by the amount of people who show up at a reception, then “Movers and Shakers” was extremely successful. ‘Twas elbow to elbow. I’m guessing, but there might have been a certain amount of star-struck curiosity in the air by the attendees, desiring as it were to get a glimpse of who’s who. Credit is due to Patricia Frischer and the rest of the organizing committee, who were able to turn out such a large crowd, given the difficulties of a last minute venue change.

I too am a Mover and Shaker, at least in the context of this show. A sampling of movers and shakers who live and work here in San Diego, had their portraits for the most part, painted by fellow artists who reside here. Mine was painted by Jim Yuran, owner/director of the Zedism Gallery located in Normal Heights; it hangs amongst some 40 other “Movers and Shakers.” As you might expect in any group show, there are works that stand out and others less so. Gerrit Greve’s portraits of Vasundhara Prabhu and Derrick Cartwright, both from the San Diego Museum of Art, are the most memorable to this viewer. The large scale frontal portraits and the scrubby brushwork reminiscent of Chuck Close, Pearlstein and others, capture the sitter’s importance which is exteriorized by a piercing stare. I’d say my portrait is pretty darn good, but as a critic, I’m not allowed to. The days of the court painter glorifying the King are obviously over, and though there was never any such pretension in this exhibit, it does give pause to the implied importance given to each individual’s pedigree. It was in the end, a show of portraits (or personalities, thank you Doug) as opposed to a portrait show, if that makes sense.

So, I repeat, I am a mover and shaker. If you can separate fact from fiction, and go about your business like I try to do, then you might see an opportunity such as this, as another step in a long procession towards achieving your goal(s). Obtaining them comes down to a series of choices everyone makes in order to get closer to those goals, some of which aren’t always decided by you.

My friend Ted Washington from Pruitt Igoe, wasn’t close to anything Friday night, as I approached him standing in the parking lot by himself. Ted wasn’t even close to getting into the show. He is however, a mover and shaker, not to mention, poet, writer, artist, musician, publisher and performer. I met Ted for the first time at the “Performance Slam,” organized in honor of the first year San Diego Art Prize winners, which was on view at the California Center for the Arts, Escondido last April. A series of performances in which he was also the Master of Ceremonies.

Ted and I started talking. After a few congratulatory remarks as to my new found status (which I’ve been receiving a lot of lately), though not really disparaging, they still smack of a certain unspoken criticism about a “system” of selection curiously out of synch, or should I say, out of touch. Ted listened patiently as I tried to convince him that collaborating with others on projects such as the movers and shakers, even participating in them, were a way of getting one’s foot in the door but also a way of making change from within. If one didn’t have a hidden agenda I reasoned, then you could participate but also constructively criticize the process or workings of the machinery for the good of the whole and everyone involved – both inside and outside of the inner circle. It now occurs to me suddenly, one problem that lies in these types of events, whether it is the San Diego Art Prize, Movers and Shakers or similar events, is the confusion and appeal they garner, being viewed from the outside as official and credible from a “selective” organization that “chooses” without really explaining their criteria for that selection. There’s an inherent officialdom in the process, which nobody really questions, holds the decisions handed down to be accurate or at least genuine, and generally assumes the governing body knows what they’re doing or has at least some authority to do so. Part of this thinking comes from the mystical and hands-off approach to art. This opaque process of selection should be rectified, or at least clarified. It might be helpful and instructive for those who feel excluded from the decision process.

In all fairness, I can’t emphasize enough that no one governing body is accountable to all the people all the time, especially in art, where it is less a democracy and more a matter of personal choice. There are no ethical or moral laws that dictate that you have to choose anybody or everyone. The point is a little transparency goes a long way as to why you made the choice you did.

Ted was more precise in saying all this is fine and dandy, but give an artist a one-person show and see how quickly the borders of friendship and collaboration shut down. Ted wasn’t being mean, just pointing out that we’re all movers and shakers in our own endeavors and some make choices that are less altruistic than say what you and I might do. However, it is still ok in the sense that everyone decides what they want out of an artistic career and decides how they’re going to go about getting it. If it works for them, then that’s just fine. And while Ted thought that the selections made in Movers and Shakers were a fairly decent cross-section of the upper, middle and lower artistic classes in San Diego, certainly not an accurate portrait due to the exclusion of others, it was good enough. The only true litmus test he felt anyone had to pass, including himself, was the test of quality. Consistent and unwavering actions and quality in each and every thing you do. It is certainly something I think should as well remain immutable.

So let’s be clear here, what would the San Diego art horizon look like if none of these events existed in the first place? I don’t have a large enough perspective on the San Diego art scene just yet nor have I nearly learned enough of its history. I can’t say. There are plenty of you out there that do and that weren’t part of the Movers and Shakers exhibit. Am I sounding apologetic, no, I just don’t believe we’re taking this as seriously as we should be. Meaning, here is a golden opportunity to hold each other responsible for the activities were performing or producing. Here are 40 loosely defined movers and shakers, there are plenty more, and even though they were asked what their vision is for the future of San Digo arts, I for one don’t believe, that we all want and need more public sculpture. What we should be doing is going around asking the old guard, the present guard, and the future hopefuls of the San Diego art world – and I don’t mean gate keepers - to tell us their stories, record them, learn from them, and use that knowledge as a guide, a reference, and a gage to maintain the quality Ted speaks of. I say don’t shoot the messenger, but do question the message, demand clarification, but never question someone’s desire to bring something new to the table, whether its an event, going to the studio or opening the gallery doors. Refine the process not the initiative.

We can hold each other responsible for what we’re creating in San Diego, only if we’re capable of holding ourselves responsible individually. “Ask not what your country ….” Um, you get the picture. The use of language and labels in this context, the anointment of (thanks Lynn) individuals is very powerful and loaded. It can be construed as “truth” and should only be used in limited quantities and for special occasions, veritable occasions. I’m not denigrating the attributes of each of the movers and shakers, nor what they’ve accomplished. I’m saying we all have the responsibility to look around at our peers and see how we can help each other all become movers and shakers.

Finally, I’ll leave you with a bit of news, passed on to me by fellow Art as Authority colleague Richard Gleaves, gleaned as it were from the pages of SignOn San Diego titled, “SDMA curator Hertz opts for new post in S.F” (written by Valerie Scher). You can read the entire excerpt here, and this quote, “I've had an amazing opportunity here to exhibit a range of work, from collection-based shows to international artists to local artists,” said Hertz. “I thought I could stretch out as director of visual arts (at Yerba Buena), taking the ideas I've developed here to the next step. My first love is exhibitions and I'll be able to focus on the most cutting-edge, the most recently produced art.”

Does this mean we’re still working out the kinks? Visions are only as good as the foundation you can build them on, otherwise, people walk.

Spun by Art as Authority at 06:54 PM | Permalink | Comments (12)

by Richard Gleaves





The Last Day (2001)

Eleanor Antin's show at the San Diego Museum of Art is currently the best in town, and maybe the best in the country.

Her large-scale staged photographs thoroughly master the vocabulary of classical painting — symbolism, allegory, posture, eye gaze — then redeploy it to address contemporary social and conceptual issues.

For instance, The Tragic Performance uses posture and gaze — and crucially the line of a shadow — to systematically enumerate the roles defined by the nexus of artwork, artist, and audience. How does one respond to Angels in America when HIV-positive? Or in love with someone who is? Or a connoisseur of theatre? Or a Kushner fan? Or a critic? The answers are all here, carefully encoded in a single image.

A curious omission in the show is its failure to include the image The Last Day in the photo series The Last Days of Pompeii. This series is Antin's historical remapping of the classic cautionary tale onto the carefree lifestyle of Southern California wealth, with the image in question depicting the apocalyptic aftermath.

The Last Days of Pompeii was shot at a home in the wealthy San Diego community of Rancho Santa Fe. Six years later wildfires burned through San Diego, destroying hundreds of homes in the region, including many in Rancho Santa Fe.

Spun by Richard Gleaves at 02:41 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)

Spun by Art as Authority at 11:32 AM | Permalink | Comments (0)

by Kevin Freitas

Spun by Art as Authority at 05:26 PM | Permalink | Comments (2)

Uncle Freddy's Gallery
September 20 – October 18
Exhibit Opening: Saturday, September 27, 6:00 – 9:00 p.m.

2635B Highway Avenue Highland, IN 46322
Tel. 219.923.1909
www.unclefreddys.com

WALK THE TALK discussion series
Join Gregg Hertzlieb, Director/Curator of the Brauer Museum of Art for an insightful and scintilating discussion about this exhibit.
Tuesday, October 2 at 7:00 P.M.

Spun by Art as Authority at 04:47 PM | Permalink | Comments (0)