It seems to me that the paradox of too much good will creates a barter economy that treats the art community almost as a ghetto that can benefit only through a trickle-down economy, which is what a barter economy is.

    — "Philly Joe" Swendoza

The above excerpt from Segment 2 has a semantic value of precisely zero — read: nonsense — rendering it excess carbon dioxide.

Such non-statements confirm my long-held suspicion that the self-labeled "Philly Joe" and "Ally Bling Bling" are parasite clowns feeding off the art community.

Spare me.

I'm pretty sure I've never seen Philly Joe wear a red rubber nose or suck the life-blood out of anyone - I can't speak for Ally - the point being: keep the larger picture in view of what so many of us artists are willing to do for individual fame and fortune (at our expense) and unwilling to do for the larger art community (which arguably costs us the same amount of energy and pay). It's a zero-sum game at best. The problem isn't the excess carbon dioxide produced by one, it's us idling our minds away waiting for someone else to open the garage door before the carbon monoxide kills us all.

Am I the only person who thinks that insisting on art's exchange value leads to a philosophical dead end? Especially now.

Aside from ruling out entire disciplines and genres of art that place an emphasis on the experience over the object, it's swimming against the tide of history. We're in a freaking recession. Give it away! Let's learn from non-western traditions. The potlatch idea is much more suited to the times we're in.

True Kevin, but wearing a red rubber nose would be a much more interesting piece of artwork than a Jamie Roxx painting, which does suck the lifeblood out of any concept of "art" (not to mention makes me want to just leave the garage door closed when seeing one). Philly Joe endorsing work like that removes any art credibility.

In response to the broadcast and "Meet the Press":

An overall issue seems to be that the conversation starts from an unspoken premise that a work of art is a "thing" that floats in a system that has control over it, and that the work itself and the artist, through their work, has no chance of return influence. (Another unspoken premise: "art" is a euphemism for "paintings" with the occasional freestanding sculpture thrown in.) Why cant the artwork itself be a part of the dialogue of the broader community? Why can't work respond and challenge the limitations of the system it operates in and is an integral part of? Art coverage that is "almost like aesthetic exercises of writing essays" (from Segment 1) could address all of these issues since "the heart of the community" should be the critical thinking evoked by the art itself.

Another issue that never seems to be raised is that the conversation is always on San Diego and not on engaging in the larger world or larger concepts in art, which could be encouraged most readily through additional critical art writing (in some media outlet), placing things that happen here in SD in a larger framework. This was evident at "Meet The Press" with calls from some panelists and audience members alike for less/no art jargon etc. True that jargon filled writing is just bad writing, but a little "art jargon" could go a long way in giving the art scene here a little credibility outside SD, possibly raise the bar of expectations of the viewing public, and push artists to look at their own work a little more critically.

...and maybe that would lead to the tools to understanding why, for example, something like a Roxx painting (er, eh, glorified poster?) Suxx the lifeblood out of art...

...even if it sells without the slightest hint of goodwill.

http://www.sdcitybeat.com/cms/story/detail/?id=6437
link to Roxx article

http://www.moversandshakers.sdvag.net/RoxxB.htm
Swendoza by Roxx

I realize that there exists a definition of community broad enough to encompass all who are passionate about art in SD, or any city for that matter. But is such a definition useful? Why not recognize that there are many art communities (art worlds) in SD. This is true even in the medical community, where everyone who calls themselves a physician must be vetted with degrees, etc. How much more problematic is it for artists who don't have to be vetted in order to practice? So let Philly Joe do what he wants to. If you find him boring blow him off.

And to take David's comment on jargon further, the nice thing about jargon is that it helps keep out the riff raff. Sure, it doesn't substitute for real thinking. But if there exists many art worlds, even in SD, can't one of them think in a cosmopolitan manner? Who knows? It might be contagious.

Where Art Fashion and Music collide! *


* Post intended for purposes of commentary only, and should not be construed as product endorsement.

I think it's a simple matter of promotion. There's promoting that advocates a certain product or artist, for example Jamie Roxx, that would come very close to being considered "endorsement" (think galleries). Then there's the brand that Philly Joe practices, which I would argue is a service to the larger community, a sort of LIVE press release for anyone who comes on his show. I can't really say what Philly Joe likes or dislikes, he doesn't say either at least on the radio, because it isn't the goal of his show. It's not about what he thinks, it's about promoting what you do. The opposite is true when Philly Joe needs a little bit of promotion for himself and Art Rocks! Radio (think Movers and Shakers as David pointed out). Other than Roxx being a terribly untalented artist, I'm guessing Philly Joe didn't really care one way or another - it was free publicity.

We can argue all day about whether the service Philly Joe provides is beneficial to the community or not. If it's just about spreading the word, than I think it is. His recent attempts to address some of the issues that affect SD's art community via "Raging Art Bull" is a way I believe, of him coming to grips with how he feels and trying to learn a new language of opinion and criticism instead of promotion. Maladroit certainly, but we've let others get away with far worse.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bb5WttmRnx8

Cool video. He can barely contain himself and seems ready to spurt by the end!