Finally someone else stands up and wonders what is going on in San Diego. I applaud anyone who stirs things up, asks questions and demands change. Why can't we support the artists here as well as anywhere else? Why is the art community so limited and inward looking? Being stuck in a cycle of showing work to each other seams to have contributed to lowering the bar instead of raising it. What do we have to do to the general public to pay attention to what artists are doing here?

We at SDVAN do not presume to know the answers to these questions, but we will not stop supporting as many artist and galleries and institutions as want to use our listing service. The nature of making art is often one of isolation. But we hope our efforts, if nothing else, leads the community to communicate with each other and stop working in such isolation.

Patricia Frischer, coordinator, SDVAN

What do we have to do to the general public to pay attention to what artists are doing here?

Patricia, here's a simple evaluation metric. When you get an idea for a future SDVAN event — art prize, portrait party, masque ball — ask yourself: what would Louis XIV do? Then do the opposite. I think that's David's point.

But this begs the question of why. The regional museums already do a great job serving the limited demographic that responds to such event forms. They're also doing a good job with parallel programs geared for young urban professionals. But it's not at all clear they're serving the Over Laps Art Show demographic. So maybe they deserve promotional support. But then again maybe they don't want it.

This in turn begs the deeper question of who exactly is the "general public" that the static visual arts should be promoted to. We know that this public wants art — just look at Night & Day — but it's also pretty clear that the static visual arts have been relegated to niche status in the culture, with only historical or subcultural significance. Music is huge; movies are huge; rap and Tarantino are historically significant.

I assert that for fundamental culturo-structural reasons it's delusionary to think that anything that static visual artists do in San Diego today can have any larger cultural importance, except as future symbolic documents of regional history (e.g., Belle Baranceanu, Border Arts Workshop).

I also assert that for fundamental ecological reasons the future of art is going to move further and further away from the plastic arts and towards music and performance, with any objects involved being transitory and 100% recyclable.

David White makes some very good points, but his beef is with CityBeat, not the Movers & Shakers nor the organizers of this show. It's so facile to set up a strawman like David does & then flog it to death. David, I am a real man, not a strawman, & "I am a picture of someone of note.” I am Mover & Shaker Philly Joe Swendoza & damn proud of it! I challenge David White to meet me face to face in front of the microphones of ART ROCKS!RADIO & let it fly. Does art rock or what?

What.

Philly Joe, My point was that the art itself sends a message. If the “straw man” is the show itself, than that only seems to help illustrate my point. Why have a show that is so facilely flogable, when it is possible to explore so many different avenues that would not be so. My beef is not with CityBeat, that part was more of a side note. The following is taken from the Movers and Shakers website: “Who’s Who in the San Diego Visual Art World”, “very important, influential or innovative San Diegans in the visual arts community”, “we are interested in capturing a period in San Diego’s artistic life.” This repeated reference to ‘San Diego’ and ‘visual arts’ implies a certain amount of inclusion, which the premise of the show contradicts. Please contact Kevin to get my contact info about the possibility of being on the radio show. Thanks for the comment. Art Does Rock! Go Chargers!

RG, Patricia: The visual arts are the ‘unpopular’ arts there is no doubt about that. I don’t think anything will change that and I think that is actually what is good about them. To really view a piece of art (in this sense), it has to viewed in the same location as that piece. This instantly lends it self to the local. Kevin’s reference to Millennium Park is a good example of this. I have seen images of the pieces in magazines, tv etc., but I did not really appreciate Crown Fountain by Jaume Plensa until I went there and saw all those little kids playing in the water between the two fountains. (this is also a good example of an innovative use of portraiture and public engagement).

Why not exploit the intrinsic tendencies these mediums possess to create a local sense of (artistic) identity, something that is nearly impossible to do through the popular arts. This identity cannot be predetermined, it must be encouraged though allowing artists an open framework to work in and not a predetermined, narrow, framework, which is what I thought Movers and Shakers essentially was. In my mind the art prize is much more effective at this. It is only through finding a local identity will San Diego get national recognition as a viable art town that cutting edge artists would like to stay and be involved in.

I guess what was so upsetting about the Movers and Shakers show was that it came at time when many of the “small” venues that operate under this premise of allowing emerging local artists an open framework are barely able to stay open and did not seem to even be on the radar.

Hey, David, great essay. On a great blog, thanks to Kevin and Richard. A few thoughts...

It's probably not fair to compare San Diego City/County to LA, NYC or even Cleveland. This is a Conservative place; we care about opera and theater, animals in the zoo and seals on the beach (both kinds), Chargers and Padres. We don't care much about visual art, never have (well, maybe we care about cowboy paintings). We have big houses that could show off nice objects, but we have few collectors here to model that. Why should we collect? San Diegans show status through their gardens, cars and toys, not through their art collections.

But if we did, it would be painting. So maybe the Movers and Shakers is a fair reflection of what we can handle?

Our art schools, junior colleges and universities are full of people studying art. We love to make it. Our museums are accessible. I do hope with time we'll grow up.

In the meantime, I continue to make, see, and collect art. But I'm less interested in those young “emerging” artists fresh out of school you think need support. Because after they impress with how smart they are, now virile, how high they can get and how beautifully they decorate their skin, they just haven't lived enough to be able to say much. And most of them will fade away, or move away, in a few years. Those artists who have been around the block, who have traveled, who maybe support a partner, kid or an aging parent, who have to pay for health insurance, and who may have a vagina... if after all that they STILL make art, those are the people whose objects, installations and performances interest me.

And if I overhear one more comment about the Chargers I'm going to throw my pretty plastic body in front of a bus...

love and kisses, Kloe

Kloe
I was kidding about the Chargers. Bad Joke. sorry. Where did those artists who are still around get their chance to start off? Of course there will be some good work and some bad, but nothing new is ever done without the risk of failure. Small venues give artists a chance to experiment and fail. And succeed. Also, those artists you mentioned above did not start out in a vacuum. At some point most of them had some encouragement, probably from a small local (where ever they are from) gallery. They also help to weed people out. I have seen many shows where the work looked somewhat amateurish but you could tell that there were interesting things going on with the creators thought process. I have also seen many shows at major museums where it was obvious that the artist had success with a certain idea and then just did that repeatedly and so the work was really boring. So is your solution that we should always give in to the status quo? Is this really all people can handle?

love what kloe wrote... and going back to original article, i completely agree about the inconvienance and harsh reality of absurd rent prices in san diego. i think the places dave mentioned (s.f, n.y., etc.) are so historically known that they can get away with the high cost of living, and that is something san diego lacks. i mean, what legend was born here? or experimented on our stomping grounds? in s.f. you can be walking down the street and just be inspired by the vibe of history. in brooklyn you can feel the culture, it's all over the sidewalks and graffitii'd on the walls. the "vibe" or "feel" i get from san diego is that everyone wants to appear wealthy, or intelligent, or healthy, or successful... and there are endless tanning salons and cosmetic surgery facilities to support that need.

therefore, the artwork produced, or i guess i should say distributed or showcased even, represent that. it's as if the buyer thinks, "what is the most i can get with X amount of money? what is "normal" art? something SAFE." portraits, or a painting that makes sense. to me, these reproductions (not from this particular show necessarily, just in general) are all facades to something brewing deeper, something that is not so nicely packaged, that people do not want to show. something that people spend lots of money trying to cover up. and the sad part is, that is where it's at. in that fear there is potential for great art. in that ugliness. having been basically born and raised in san diego, i plan on living in other cities, but my hope is that people like david continue to give san diego a new attitude about art. in my opinion, all art is self-indulgent, but if it is good art, then it is like food for the masses, and if even one person develops a creative thought or unique inspiration from it, then it is worth the hopelessness and the stress of living paycheck to paycheck.

To respond on David's comment on "Movers and Shakers" concerning performance work/ portraits. There's not many writers that can speak to the dialogue of performative/performance work here in San Diego. Most writers stick to the safe stuff such as painting/sculpture and installation. I can't ever recall anyone attempting to reflect on any performance/intervention/video that might have occured in SD. The recent (David's Space) cage match would have been a perfect time and place for a dicussion on those forms.

FYI. Kevin, David & Philly Joe working on public forum to keep this debate going. Why? Because we must.

Patricia,

I read the article and your comment. I was tempted to write my own opinion but according to the rules I would have to be civil.

I don't care to follow rules that inhibit free expression. Therefore until I can be honest, creative, politically incorrect, and arrogant I will refrain from publicly commenting on the article. However I couldn't control my need for some kind of response.

FYI: David, no matter how thoughtful, caring, and dedicated he is, is as clueless about art as those in charge of most of the art exhibited. The public only respects (pays for) work they admire, whether it be a performance (theatrical, music or athletic), a poem, sculpture, or a painting. That means they see if they are skilled enough to think of the idea or create the piece. The further they are away from duplicating the creative effort the more they admire it and are willing to pay for it. That is why athletes get so much money. They can hit curve balls. Most so-called fine artists can't draw their way out of a paper bag, others only think about expressing themselves alone in a free-associative manner, some only do repetitive representational or derivitive abstract styles for interior decoration, and yet others do nothing other than copy conceptual drivel they see in Art magazines produced by galleries who cater to the perverse tastes of the jaded.

Many of the artists mentioned in the other exhibit as well as the M&S show have had the opportunity to join/support a guild/union/network, but preferred to keep to their little isolated cliques and never have the power or money that comes from sharing and communal activity. The M&S show, as I mentioned to many was a great event, and the biggest circle jerk I have ever participated in. I am sure David's exhibit, yet another little exquisite piece of trivia, was an enjoyable circle jerk as well. We both know that no one made any real money, the art didn't sell out, and the general public or media didn't show up. They won't, until we have power in numbers and stop this petty dialog about which show better serves the public or which style of art is art.

Leonardo and Michelangelo had the discussion long ago as to what human endeavor is the most challenging. Painting or Sculpture? It did not include writing, acting, cooking, playing the lute, philosophical pondering, installations, splattering paint, fighting, throwing rocks, artsy photos, that other machine made stuff called digital, or videos showing boring loops of idiots doing nothing. As an athlete, painter, writer, sculptor, and musician, the answer is simple. The brush is the most challenging tool in the entire human arsenal.

My message to David is to go forge my portrait (you don't even have to be original, just let's see your skill level) and then come back and tell me all about what is art and what serves our community best.

Dennis

Hi Kids and whippersnapers!

Say, thanks for using my portrait of Jonathan Segal as a part of your "flag" for your article. It's probably self-serving to say it's the most visually attractive work I've seen on your whole damn site.Now about my portrait-a few words about intent--something I've never done on a portrait let alone on a painting. A full-length painting in oils on canvas -life-sized-of a formally dressed gentleman is nothing if not a sign of wealth and power. and it was intended to be seen by indescrimanate viewers the majority of whom are--in reality--not as fortunate, as wealthy, or as powerfull as the person depicted. Elitist, self-indulgent, Louis IV, yes----but it also happens to be where the money is. I didn't sign on for this bullshit with the intent of starving in a ghetto room,OK? Class structure is a fact---or to put it into David White's ballpark, reality. What is reality,Mr. White? I'm most certain that you won"t find it in a vidio screen. What is a reality is that vidio is becoming ubiquitous in all the puzzle palaces of wealth and power in the San Diego art scene--SDMCA,UCSD,SDMA--so quit whinning and get in line with the hundreds of young artists in San Diego and with some luck--or device--you might hook-up or get a teaching job. Your grandfather's story was probably more for your benefit than you were--or are --aware. I'll bet your mind was on a video game. and out of all 23 of your alternative media options, including finger nail clippings, only collage was one that the wealthy and powerfull--you know--the ones with money--will probably buy.....in San Diego or any other city. If you want to make your art for any indeterminant future----make something beautiful that sells. The rest is just working for the MAN.

Dan, I fail to see what the youth innuendo in your opening greeting has to do with much. I'm also pretty sure video and the Internet have been around as long as you have, meaning, new technology is not a "youth" movement but only the logical progression of a products invention, marketing and accessibility.

But let's cut to the chase Dan, if there is one of several works in the Movers and Shakers exhibit that is un-attractive, the portrait of Jonathan Segal certainly qualifies alongside the equally un-impressive portrait by Alida Cervantes of Jean Lowe. For all intents and purposes, the work chosen for "Who Do You Love" at L Street Gallery was purely a promotional one. There was no qualitative criteria for the artwork selected, the only exception to this rule being - as I've said before - the paintings by Gerrit Greve.

"A formally dressed gentleman is nothing if not a sign of wealth and power" fair enough, but it doesn't always make it a good painting. The problem is I believe, that "Jonathan" has no allure, no indication of class, power, hierachy, social stature etc. but all the trappings of stereotypical cliches you find in mediocre painting, bad theater props, poor design and the like, that are elements used to characterize "wealth" or in other words - an expensive suit, nice shoes and a cigar. My point is this, the rather innocuous handling of the paint and background, the pretentious pose, and lack of any symbolic references (clues as to what this individual does in life) stops the viewer from even caring or appreciating who this individual is. The lack of interest is not only a formal painting problem but a metaphorical or even symbolic (representative) one. I have zero interest in learning the history of Jonathan Segal because he has no visual presence or voice as a painting, silenced as it were, by the artist's hand.

Caravaggio, Manet, Sargent to name but a few, have successfully portrayed "class" far better and with intent, (if this is what you're shooting for) than anything that is being said about Jonathan in this painting. Funny, I just met a young SDSU painter last night, Jesse Mockrin, who does portraiture of "wealthy" individuals and has managed to portray a certain level of gluttony and contentment, angst, power and all the other anxieties and pleasures her models have within, that infuse the onlooker with a curiosity and interest in someone who is a virtual unknown. Through the handling of the paint, gestures, skin color, hair etc., I can actually sense their class, state of mind, and social stature, without any glib and impersonal cliches and props to guide me. The simplicity and ease at which Jesse uses oil paint on canvas is truly remarkable and convincing. Portraiture may be considered a bastard child in our times, replaced by all the ubiquitous video and youth you believe is running roughshod over traditionalist art, but you would be wrong. Jesse's work and this is the key, extends beyond any title or entitlement. She's simply a great painter.

Finally, your comment "I didn't sign on for this bullshit with the intent of starving in a ghetto room" begs the following question "Did Jonathan buy his portrait?" If not, why not? If so, why? The corelation between what an artist chooses to make and how (the medium) has no bearing on whether it will sell or not. You want to make that compromise, swim in warmer waters, or chase the almighty dollar, I say go for it, good luck, and I wish you well. Look, there are obviously no guarantees that art will sell, you have no control over this in San Diego or anywhere else. What you do have control of is the quality of the work you produce, your integrity, and the responsibility to educate yourself and the buyer/public about what you do and why art is important to everyone. Art has rested upon its laurels for long enough, the luxury of calling something you make art is over, the unfortunate lapse or just plain avoidance of bringing any critical debate to the table by the artist, public, or critic is unexcuseable, and lastly, the ivory tower we call the art world needs to be torn down.

We all do ourselves a huge disservice when we get in line, think about the future instead of thinking about what's on our easel, and continue to believe that some rich collector is going to save our asses. Make better work and you'll posses all the richness in the world.