Estefan Gargost
Your opinion is welcome: estefan@gargost.com
Click here to read more articles by Estefan Gargost
Go to my art page: www.gargost.com
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|
Artomatic 2004: Hanging Is Too Good for It By Blake Gopnik I'll be at the front of the line. After all, it could hardly be more excruciating than this
year's Artomatic, the fourth edition of the District's creative
free-for-all, which opens tomorrow. Organizers have gotten about
600 local "artists" -- anyone who could ante up the $60 fee and
15 hours of his or her time, in fact -- to display their
creations. They're on show in the sprawling, scruffy building in
north Capitol Hill that once housed the Capital Children's
Museum and several charter schools. The result is the second-worst display of art I've ever seen.
The only one to beat it out, by the thinnest of split hairs, was
the 2002 Artomatic, which was worse only by virtue of being even
bigger and in an even more atrocious space, down by the
waterfront in a vacant modern office building. I won't dwell on the art. And I certainly won't name names.
No one needs to know who made the wallfuls of amateur
watercolors, yards of incompetent oil paintings, acres of trite
street photography and square miles of naive installation art
that will be polluting this innocent old building for the next
three weeks. There's something for everyone to hate. The rest
are works only a mother could love. |
|
|
Some of the uproar it caused: |
|
|
Gopnik doesn't get it. Yes, there's a lot of amateurish, very bad stuff at AOM, but he compares it to Medici Florentine altar painters? Some of the most professional and highly-trained artists of all time? That comparison is ridiculous. I'm usually pretty tough on art I see, but I understand that AOM is not a show at NGA or the Met. |
|
|
Where does all the money go from Art-o-matic? It would appear that someone is making something off of artists who think they can get recognition from this show, when they are obviously being ripped off. Explain to me why an artist should PAY to show their work??? Who is winning here? I bet it's not the artists. |
|
| And How I became the target: | |
|
Dear Mr. Gargost, I offer the following comments with great respect, sir: Must – Should – Should Always – Should Never - Never – Does – Does not – Don’t: Whenever I hear an artist using such words when talking about art, artists, art critics, art lovers and the meaning of art, I always find myself squirming in an uncomfortable reaction to the implicit written and unwritten rules and regulations about art that underwrite any admonition involving the use of such words. For the record I am an old-school anarchist (mid to late 1970’s) - politically, culturally, spiritually and artistically. I have no regard for rules and regulations about anything. I see laws (written and unwritten) for what they are: false mechanisms of repression and control dictated by hierarchical elements, managed by scribes, enforced by sycophants and worshipped by the masses on their knees. I believe in the concept of Freedom of Artistic Expression. I recognize the legitimacy of no authority or individual that attempts to regulate or control artistic expression. You say the following: We should always respect others’ understanding of art as well as their criticism. I could not disagree with you more on this statement as both an artist and as a human being. The Taliban had an understanding and criticism of priceless historic Buddhist statues in Afghanistan that compelled them to blow them up! Flash back: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines01/0301-04.htm Many artists, art critics, art collectors, as well as many non art-sensitive people and governments in this world, hold opinions about matters, including art, that are absolutely sick, vicious, stupid, insane, racist, tyrannical, ignorant, baseless and vile. People of conscience within the anarchist milieu understand that politically correct theories about life that advance a definition of cultural, spiritual and political harmony at all costs, even at the expense of enduring acts of violence against other people, including even the bombing of works of so-called controversial art, is a dead-end philosophy that ultimately leads to destruction, not creation. I absolutely reject the notion that I as a human being and as an artist am under some ethical and moral constraint to not speak my mind through my actions, words and art to challenge the stupidity that exists in this world; especially the stupidity that exists within the cloistered world of art, specifically including what I might regard as the racist, stupid, uninformed, or even boring and banal, art criticism by nationally and internationally published art critics. I don’t believe in the theory of the open non-judgmental mind in more than I believe in the theory of the closed judgmental mind. I believe in the theory of the evaluative critical mind. I subject everything I come into contact with, including art, to a critical examination of its place, purpose, message, intent and truth. I reject that that needs to be rejected (many times without any further comment), I accept and use that which makes sense, and I scream to the high heavens about those things that need to be called out and held publicly accountable (Witness my public stand regarding the WPA/Corcoran Association/The Board of Trustees of the Corcoran Gallery of Art in the matter of the firing of OPTIONS 05 curator, Philip Barlow – you can read my ANTI-OPTIONS 05 Littoral Art Project at http://www.antioptions05.blogspot.com to see how strongly I feel about this issue of corruption within the art world). As a human being and as an artist I strive to stay true unto myself and my art and I let the chips fall where they may no matter whose feelings get hurt. What I don’t believe in doing (Moral Rule and Regulation) is blowing-up others people’s works of art that I hate, despise and loath; I don’t engage in these actions, not because there’s a law that tells me it’s illegal, but because I have no fundamental respect whatsoever for any person, persons, group, government, artist or artist collective who would do such a thing. Blake Gopnick is certainly entitled to his critical opinion about Art-O-Matic. His critical opinion is also subject to an intense, intellectual and thoughtful analysis, as well as disrespectful, satirical and distasteful parody. In short, art criticism is a perfect target for artists to attack and address in their art. Nobody, least of all an artist despised by Mr. Gopnick, is obliged to respect Mr. Gopnick’s opinions about art anymore than Mr. Gopnick is obliged to respect the art and ideas of every artist who approaches him for his imprimatur. Artists need to stand up for higher principles than the false immediacy of politically correct doctrines that seem to be so highly valued in the insulated world of those who pose no risk, and dare not to pose a risk, to the established order. Theo van Gogh was recently slaughtered on the streets in Amsterdam by a bunch of radical conspiring religious [bleep] that hated him and his art and who believe they have the perfect right to kill anybody they target to advance their sick agenda. I have no respect for the cowards who committed this crime and have no desire to understand and respect their view of art and art criticism. I am deeply troubled that the art world has yet to rise up and demonstrate its collective outrage over what happened to Theo van Gogh. But the deafening sound of silence over this matter is not a mystery to me – the art world establishment has boxed itself into a corner with its politically correct doctrines and now finds it almost impossible to defend controversial artists such as Theo van Gogh and what should have been his basic right under the concept of Freedom of Artistic Expression to express himself, even if some of his views were indeed intended to be insulting to certain people. The reasoning among the politically correct art elite goes something like this: “Well, it’s a real shame about van Gogh, but he really brought it all on himself with his outrageous words and art and should have been more sensitive about offending the deeply and sincerely held religious views of some people. If his art had just been more culturally sensitive, this horrible crime probably would have never taken place.” Respect is something that is earned: “Never respect anybody that doesn’t respect you back.” – Tre’s father to his son in John Singleton’s Boyz N The Hood. Some comments within your essay have opened the door to this response. I think it extremely important that an alternative view of an artist who respectfully disagrees with your more salient points be placed into the public record. Sincerely, James W. Bailey |
|
When I as an Artist decide to make my Art public, I am also opening the door for criticism to flow in and out. The Artists in Art-O-Matic should have no complaints from Mr. Gopnik's criticism. If you are to take offense at what others have to say about your Art, then don't share it. Criticism allows us to grow. This criticism doesn't always come from outside but from within. Trust me, we all have a great many number of friends that in an attempt to maintain us in friendly terms they will tell us whatever it is we want to hear. If your friends tell you that they love everything you have, then they are not being honest. Personally, I do not enjoy all of Matisse’s work, or Picasso’s, or Rembrandt’s. When I visited Art-O-Matic I was unimpressed by a great deal of the work, and was pleasantly attracted to some of the work. Likewise, I don’t expect to have individuals love all that I create.
The question you should ask yourself as an Artist is this one: Do I paint for the sake of expression or to make a dollar? If your main, if not sole, interest is to strike it rich and gain recognition with your Art, then you’re touring the wrong sea, and criticism will leave a bitter taste in your mouth. If you create under the influence of creativity with your hands being guided by emotions, then criticism should never affect you.
Don’t get me wrong, you will not always create simply when creativity urges you. Oftentimes when commissioned to create artwork we will need to summon creativity when she hasn’t yet visited us. This is when technique and quality are most dire. And I believe that is where a great number of Artists seem to err most, for technique and quality should never be placed at a lower priority than inspiration and subject. When I look at art that is created utilizing media that are not compatible something in my chest sinks into a void. Just this past Summer (2004) I visited an exhibit on 14th Street, NW DC. The Artist had collaged magazine clippings unto a painting. I was consumed by the thought of the acid from the magazine photos seeping into the acrylic paint, or the fact that those images will fade long before the rest of the painting will (and I mean at least hundreds of years of difference). This made me wonder how much the artist knew about the media she chose. Was she intending to have her artwork transcend her mortal life, or was it expression with the intent of being temporary. And then I start wondering if the buyer who just spent a great deal of money on one of these pieces will know that in 10 years or less there will be significant, and obvious, deterioration on the color and quality of the images.
Art doesn’t always have to say something, nor does it have to last forever. Art does not need to be attractive or pleasant to all. Yet the art we create should allow the viewers, whether a connoisseur or not, to feel that we respect that which we create. They must be able to see that we understand the media we choose. They must feel that we are being honest in the product we present, and that they will not be disappointed with its quality as time goes by.
While Art-O-Matic was not teeming with art that met even the minimum standards of a curator or an art critic, such as Mr. Gopnik, it did have art worth seeing again, and even following the artists as they evolve. We should always respect others’ understanding of art as well as their criticism.