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.