"Driscoll's new sculptures, by contrast, are purely formal. They are like drawings in space, extending from the wall as tightly wound swirls and looser masses of fluid line – all made from painted aluminum tubing.

They are better as a concept than as realized sculptures. For all of their intricate line and spectrum of colors, they look self-conscious and inert, which is uncharacteristic of the artist."
-- Robert Pincus 6/2007

more here.

I encourage everyone to see this show of new work by Tom Driscoll in the fall of 2009. The new works are cast epoxy with hidden treasures and they are mysterious, sexy and clever. I think Richard Allen Morris might surprise us with what he decides to show with his old friend's latest work. I am excited about this combination which is based in a deep shared history. I would never have discovered this artist without the SD Art Prize process. He has shown sparingly over the years and this new work is some of his best ever. We are casting light with the SD Art Prize, not just on the young but on all those who may need to emerge from the dark. Take a look at one of his new works on the SDVAN website http://www.sdvisualarts.net/sdvan_new/artprizeartist.php#Tom

Patricia,

Morris is perfect for things like this: I expected the unexpected, and he delivered with style.

I liked Driscoll's 2007 OMA installation a lot, have not seen anything else by him, and am looking forward to the show.

Thanks,

RG

Dear Patricia,

I'm not entirely in agreement - no surprise there - with your assertion of the Art Prize's ability to lead us, so to speak, from the artistic dungeon to the penthouse. Richard, I'm not sure who should be thanked since we have not yet received a gift or for that matter, an opportunity to be pleasantly "surprised" by the "selection" of the artists for this prize. All quotation marks and inuendos are intentional.

A couple of things: first, there hasn't been one iota of in-depth coverage - other than this blog - that has spoken about those emerging artists that the Prize is allegedly shedding light on. Specifically, the 13 artists in New Contemporaries II who in comparison to the almost daily and lofty allocades that rain down upon MacConnel, Morris, Dick, and now Driscoll - are still in the dark. The strength of that light on these young artists, that of a flashlight I believe, isn't justified I hope, by the opportunity to have been nominated and another line on their resume. There needs to be some real concrete results from their participation - future shows, sales, gallery/museum representation, community/collector support and press are some things that come to mind.

MacConnel and Company do not, at this point in their careers, need any of this. What they should be doing is digging deeper instead of going to the same caserne of "old friends", "shared history" or as Robert Pincus points out, an "avid admiration" of each others works. I unfairly take his words out of context as a way of suggesting that this admiration can often get in the way of good judgement. Is it always about pragmatism as Eleanor Antin candidly admits or is there something in there that has to do with art?

I could go on.... I can only reiterate what has already been said by others on this blog: a clear definition of what an emerging artist is - Driscoll and Dick are clearly not - and how after being defined as one, they will be represented and rewarded in the context of a prize. A possible solution would be to create two seperate categories - one for emerging artists and the other for established artists who clearly demonstrate their prowess, retrospectively speaking of course. This would allow for a broader educational appeal and public interest that would also insure an objective doctrine (i.e. their place in art history) beyond the current penchant towards friendly convenience.

Everyone likes to point out that MacConnel and Morris were in no way obliged to choose from this pool of artists. I ask, what if they were? What would have happened? Likely nothing, unless of course, you thought the sky would fall.