solo art show exhibition orchestrated with 31 children as artists-March 2011

]]> http://shaunbenak.wordpress.com/2011/02/26/246/feed/ 0 indentity solo art show exhibition orchestrated with 31 children as artists-March 2011 http://shaunbenak.wordpress.com/2011/02/14/the-experience-that-exemplifies-a-solution/ http://shaunbenak.wordpress.com/2011/02/14/the-experience-that-exemplifies-a-solution/#comments Mon, 14 Feb 2011 23:38:15 +0000 Blinky http://shaunbenak.wordpress.com/?p=240 ]]> 120910

There has been a wide range of understanding and acceptance as to where the art world is and where it is heading. The section in the reading “when form has become attitude-and beyond” by Thierry de duve, offers a typical diagnosis of the modern art world, which concludes with a tease on how to cure it. The art world, more specifically in the US, is gross and commercialized to the end of its witty inception. In this essay, through the guise of my mentors and my own research and experiences, I hope to define an approach to a cure to the epidemic that, of course, begins with academia.

From the beginning of my path through art academics I have been disturbed by the structure of the system. I have spent the last three years or so desperately looking for answers and asking everyone all of the many questions I’ve had about what was going on and, more importantly, why. I have been very fortunate to find a circle of mentors during my undergrad who are as diverse from eachother as their practices in the art world. One of which is a writer, curator, and theorist. The second, a more traditional sculptural master. And the third a digital and new media pioneer.

This “tripod” of mentors, in their own views, applied their individual knowledge to my persistence and desperation of flow of questioning I have had about what is wrong with the art world, how did we get there, and how do we fix it. My BFA experience was that of research and denial. I was in denial about the idea that this epidemic was all over the country. I had felt that the midwest was somehow disconnected from the rest of the world. I was wrong in a way that i wish Nebraska had an ocean so that i would want to just stay there. Many of my peers were in the same thought process, but had no real outlet for their questions or how to deal with the flux of confusion as to how to participate in the world of art. So, to put it plainly, i began to put the idea of experiences into my “well” of knowledge and share those experiences with the students and faculty. This brought out the first of many solutions I have devised for myself to help bring out the possibility of clarity and solution to the problem. I call it teacher/learner.

When the time came to declare my concentration, I specifically chose digital. It was the most difficult for the faculty to put into context, and the feedback was so dry and television and internet based. I began to try to build bridges to other concentrations, like bringing in projection work to sculpture critiques. I did this with many concentrations, mixing digital with paintings and so on. It was interesting that the professors were into it, but didn’t quite understand how to discuss it. In the end there was a split between those willing and wanting to learn something new or different, and those who thought what they knew was all they needed to guide the students into the future. It was a battle, but, it exposed the issues of how the faculty needed to grow and continue to adjust to the ever expanding world of art, and not settle into their own tenured bubble of mentoring and teaching. The faculty should be taking seminar classes with the students from time to time. We are all in this together as an art culture, which is another issue. There is no real hierarchy of art credibility in academia. Many majors outside of art do this to keep the faculty from falling off into a monotonous abyss.

The second lead to a solution came from the first, the critique or feedback. All too often do professors use the identity of another artist to critique students work. I understand the idea of packaging a lengthy critique into a name of another, but it does not bode well for the student. It often disheartens them into thinking their success will ride on the coattail of others, and furthermore directs them onto a path of creativity that is not their own. This has been expressed many times by many students.

The solution to this is a return to formalism, or better the structure of the identity of formalism. I have been writing about this for some time now. I hadn’t used formalism as a base, but the content was the same. One of my mentors, Dan Siedell, posted this in his open studio blog earlier this year, titled ‘Rescuing Formalism’, he writes-

“Any intellectual position that becomes too easy to dismiss poses a problem, whether it is in religion, politics, or culture.  Such dismissals end up transforming serious intellectual positions, such as liberalism and conservatism, into caricatures to which only the silliest of ideologues could hold.  This does violence to the integrity of these ideas and those that are or have been deluded enough to hold them.

This is precisely what has happened to formalism and its unsavory co-conspirators “autonomy,” “disinterestedness,” and “art for art’s sake” in art and aesthetics. Formalism holds that art is a self-contained entity sealed off from other objects in the world and that the experience of art is to be distinguished from other experiences in the world. A painting’s meaning, then, is determined through its internal structure, that is, the line, forms, and color that comprise it. The eighteenth century German philosopher Immanuel Kant is usually credited (or blamed) for developing the philosophical foundation for this position in Critique of Judgment (1790) and Clement Greenberg, the most influential art critic of the twentieth century and apologist for Abstract Expressionism in the 1940s, applied its principles in developing his own distinctive history of modern art. Despite the power of their thought and influence, both Kant and Greenberg are nowadays invoked by right-thinking critics, art historians, and curators (especially curators) only to be dismissed and to serve as foils for the more enlightened and progressive approaches to art, approaches which affirms its participation in a broader, less “elitist” contexts, whether the artist’s intentional and biographical context, historical and social context, or the viewer’s own interpretive context.
Although I too am critical of Kantian and Greenbergian excesses and distortions, I have recently come to acknowledge the importance of what I would call a pragmatic, or “soft,” formalism. A work of art’s value cannot be reduced to what exists outside it, whether that is what the work depicts, the intentions of its maker, its historical, social and political context, or the intentions of its viewers. The work of art has some internal meaning. It is a tense and dynamic hypostatic union between form and content, between its presence as an artifact and its capacity to reference the world of meaning and experience outside it. This means that even though a painting may depict a vase of flowers, a sunset, or a human figure it always remains a flat artifact, albeit a painted one. This is not merely Kantian or Greenbergian theory. This is the essence of painting, including cave paintings and icons.
A soft or pragmatic formalism that recognizes the internal formal mechanics of painting helps keep the attention focused first and last on the painting itself and on the painting as a painted artifact.  Deprived of this tether, many critics move a little too quickly from a painting’s form to its content and then from the painting itself to its myriad of contexts. Without a basic formalist vocabulary that can account for the union of form and content, that union that makes a work of art a work of art, and which can offer an analysis of the mechanics of how a painting works, then there remains in the end little reason to pay much attention to the object at all. The critic must tarry in the between of form and content.  Although his critical insights brought him into this between, Greenberg feared it and moved too quickly to the terra firma of pure form. (Philosopher William Desmond suggests that Kant too found himself in the between, the between of self and Other which terrified him and so his philosophical system is in fact an ingenious fortress to protect him from the between.)
Critics of Greenbergian formalism tend to err in the opposite direction. They dissolve this between by rushing to the safe havens of content, imagery, and context. This is often what those scholars and critics who are interested in art’s religious and spiritual meaning do.They will extract an image from a painting, like a cross (or, in my own case, a chocolate Easter bunny), and perform an iconographical analysis. The problem is that such analysis doesn’t actually require the particularity of that cross and its function in that painting. It thus becomes merely a visual catalyst for religious and spiritual reflection that exists outside the work. We thus can find ourselves in the uncomfortable position in which the work of art is actually powerless to do anything except move us toward something else, toward religious or spiritual meaning, for example, that exists outside or beyond the work.
Many critics who eschew formalism have immense trouble standing in front of a painting and talking about how it actually works as a painting—not as a visual illustration of the artist’s intentions, or as a door that opens onto political, social, or religious “content” but its internal mechanics as a painted artifact. When I am in an artist’s studio and she asks me what I think of that unfinished painting leaning against the wall, he is not asking me to riff on the iconographical meaning of the tree, seascape, or figure.  She is not asking me to reflect on her intentions or biography or to explore the institutional, social, and political contexts that determined its making. She is asking me whether the painting, as a painted artifact, actually works. Does this line work there? Does this color work there? If this sounds too “formalist,” then the baby has indeed been thrown out with the bathwater. The relationship between form and content, between presence and reference should never be ignored or dissolved. The responsibility of the critic is to keep alive the movement from one to the other and back again, which ultimately reveals what is truly remarkable about painting. This does not mean that the artist’s intentions, historical and social context, and the viewer’s “horizon of expectation” are in any way denied. It is, however, to assert that they proceed from and return to the dynamic between of the artifact’s form and content. And I am convinced that it is in this between that a painting’s distinctive embodiment of transcendence, where its particular religious and spiritual presence, is found. And this requires the critical language of formalism.”
Siedell has been a great help to my inquiries into the art world. I respect his ways of wanting to change the perspective of teaching. He intentionally moved from an area where ego and art have fused, to an area of great potential for growth and exploration. In a way he wants to build an academic style of fusing the theory and history practices of art with the artists. He expressed that for much of academic experiences in art kept both worlds from truly understanding eachother, and that he was working through ways to bring the communication and culture together.
He was doing much experimenting with the classes, not falling into the monotony of book guidance. He did alot of research and sought out multiple paths to understanding the content of theory and history. His critiques were nurturing that promoted the experiencing to truly understanding what was being said. He also works with many artists from all over, writing their essays and lectures, and participating in their work. The route he is taking becomes so much more credible than anyone I have ever seen or read about. He knew he understood the avenue of the critic, the theorist, the writer, and the professor. But he went even further down the chain to understand the artist and furthermore the student artist. The main faults I find, is that art professors are torn between being the artist and being the teacher. On one hand being the artist defines experience credibility to teach. On the other, the professor does not want to give out the avenues to success, as it is what they know and the fear that an up an coming student will take their spaces or fame. This has been clear throughout academia. It’s a huge conflict. This is without the identity of pop-up galleries. They carry no weight on the real idea of success as an artist.
Siedell works closely with another artist by the name of Enrique Celaya, which is why Siedell and I have become such good acquaintances. We, Enrique and I, both carry a fire to the disheartening destruction of the art culture through the academic process, and furthermore questioning the need for academia as an artist, other than the paper for a credibility swipe. Enrique, an extremely successful artist, and I a student in academia, both give Siedell an insight into the realm he is exploring from a theorist and writers view.

The third potential to a solution is intuitive and progresses the understanding of ones own experiences in life put into a formula to help with the progression of content in works of art as a student. It is merely a bouncing off point to express to the artist-to-be that there is a deeper and bountiful amount of imaginative content and expressions that every individual, who cares to tap into it, has. It’s in no way mechanical, but it difficult to embrace without the mentoring to show how it works and where it comes from. It is psychology and philosophy based, and I have used it and shared it with those who have a hard time coming into their own as a creator with a dynamic voice.
When the idea of this formula was introduced to those of us in a theory and practice seminar, not one person got it. It was shadowed by the artist who became the example. I took it and turned it I to a formula that can be better understood by the processes an artist type uses.
It is one thing to teach the foundations of art as building blocks for the future to mold, but it is another to express teaching in a way that guides potential down a path of the typical currents that is now. We should be fighting for our future, not accepting what is. The professionals were right though I thought it would only be 5 years before all of this gets old. They said 10, I was close. I truly see the future of academia and art leaving state universities, and only existing in the private and direct institutions, like art institutes. The commercialized art world e live in here in America is progressively getting stale and old, and just like the economy people will begin to stand up and fight for what art should be like.

The conclusion to finding a solution to the diagnosis to this essay by De Duve is that there is no way to solve this right now. One needs to stand up for what they believe and suffer throughout feeling of being outcast by the majority who honestly probably have no reason to be in the art world. Commercialized art is where we are at right now, but it won’t be forever. The more the populations grow, the more we will be inclined to separate the artist from the commercialized artist.
The three models of art practice are rather unnecessary, these models should actually be combined to express a more complete identity of artists in the future. There’s a top and bottom, and the bottom represents dabblers and weekend warriors. The top is something that cannot be categorized or clearly defined or understood…just embraced.

I’d like to end with another blog writing from Siedell-

Art is not merely a profession, a career. It is a way of life, a way of understanding life. This way of life indeed involves the development of a  particular profession and a career. Yet it cannot be completely defined by it. In other words, it is insufficient merely to state that one is “majoring” in art in order to get a job, or have a career. One does not become an artist, art educator, art historian simply by completing a major, or even even completing an M.F.A. or a doctoral dissertation.
To devote one’s life to artistic practice, to the study of art, to the teaching of art is to devote one’s life to something that does not pay well and does not enjoy much social respect or understanding. And therefore it requires that one be committed to it in a way that can withstand the difficulties, challenges, and disappointments that will occur.

There are certain properties of certin materials that just don’t work well in the nude, or unframed. They need to be encompassed/encased by some measure. It is just a fact of aesthetics and visual values. I understand the rebutt is the conscious intention of doing just the same. We teach infinite, but the social/cultural ethics and codes of all conducts says different, regardless of how ridiculous it may seem. And so to say, if you are young and in school for art, you should not be there. It is the struggle and the raw fighting for existence, which is what art is about, through the hoops of living within and understanding what is there to justify yourself. All great artists run this route. No matter how special your life is, you have not lived until you start breaking the 30 and 40 barriers. You become the human again. It’s just a fact. Our America makes it happen this way as intentional as taking the first step, and that’s all they did was do something first. On a side note, maybe that’s an example of why doing things first isn’t always a good idea. That speaks of art.
We intellectualize art to it’s fearful bits, but it gets so far that it loses it’s shine/interest at the most basic level. We should be trying to dismember the gesture of theory/academia with our own personal experiences, thoughts, fears. And not some idea that because- you saw this or you read that-rationale. We’ve come to a stalemate where at one point there was a true philosophical in nature interest in art and artists. It was something that was strong in progression and interest. But, the cat never caught the mouse. Hot on it’s tail-always! Never ever caught that fast fucking mouse. Touched him way too many times, but that another day. Wow! I love Tom and Jerry for just that same “formula” right there. Loved speedy gonzales too. But today the cat ate the fucking mouse, went into “all” futures, ate all “potential” offspring. Every day in a seminar or theory class seems like a bunch of them are writing books, they’ve got all the research and everything. One hour of reading is definitely a project that could have had a good start.      

Art and music both do not fit aNy model of contemporary ideals or structures. Ther is no model. It is what can one do to get by and continue to feel alive by doing what they love, and having the intelligence to know when an opportunity, that fits into the ideals of the self, can make you wealthy enough…for a short time. Ultimate wealth to ones own perspective is not a fathomable goal. Some of The fathomable goals for , let’s say an artist, is to know all will change sooner than you think, become diverse in your practices and thoughts, yuor true self-as a conflict-will never let you feel true success as an artist. True self, I said. One will likely never really know this until near death. The art world is so diverse and branched to infinite values of abilities. One can say and write and do anything, as long as they know how to sell themselves at least as someone interesting enough to want to come and show appreciation to. It’s been this way for awhile, but the US is known as one of the worst social artists countries in the world. Unfortunately it is good for the art world. It helps the most serious to have such an enormous entity of reflection to affirm themselves by. It is very nurturing for those existing outside of the framework of American academia. The fight needs to exist. The yes needs a no to exist. So, under the cloud of engaging in an academic environment, attack me and my practices professionally, but do not layer rebuttles with personal ridicules, rude beratings, or demeaning or derogatory patronizing’s to try to make any point. There is no place for that In academia, which was, or should have been, learned and explored as an undergrad. This is a key component to the healthy growth of any academic practices, which in return reflects the evolving of our society. Acknowledge the converstion, see if it works within the frame of thought of your choosing, if it doesn’t work, acknowledge that fact and express what works for you…and that’s that. Again, theory is simply a suggestion of practices and expectations existing during some moment in time in the art world.     

of recent movies bearing any real interest, southland tales is the most underrated, under experienced, and quite often misunderstood, exceptional movie of the new millennium. so, i had to find and embed the most spiritually lifting moment in the movie. enjoy!!!

p.s.- i don’t listen to j.t.’s music and probably never will, but when it comes to him acting he seems real humble and is a total trooper when it comes to the roles he plays in any movie he’s been in in this past decade. honestly, he’s probably the best musician/actor of late. i can’t even think of anyone who compares at all. will smith was probably the last one, but his music meant little when he was blowing up in the theaters and he always either saves the world or makes you cry, not much else. j.t.’s more of a co-star, an excellent one, and he does it with humbling charm that adds to the variety of his depth as an actor. much respect to that man. you go brother! again… enjoy!!

“every time i see him in a movie i crack a smile with a light giggle and say something nonchalant like “no shit…dude is so cool.”"-scb

i don’t think anyone tried, being that it’s funny how people tend to respect the works of art as if they were brittle or to fall apart at the touch -a tendency to follow some unwritten rule-, but if they did they might have seen something else with the crossing of the projections in a vertical plane somewhere near the front of the stereo. it would have been neat to see someone stand there in the plane with all projections on them. maybe it’s too high or hard to find. maybe that is why there might be chairs. it really is interesting how controlled people acted with the chairs and the light line of the projections. i witnessed them cautiously ducking and leaning out of the projection path, sitting in the chairs physically motionless except for their heads. any time anyone has ever asked about people possibly getting in the way of a projection piece or project, i always said that i don’t care and that i’d like it if they ever did, but how much more do i need to control them by having to directly say that maybe they should get to know me i like THAT idea!

it is interesting that it would only take a person in front of the projection to break the plane. all of this is minus the set-up, which i can now more understand to be an important part of the aesthetics of the piece.

as examples, these ideas about the piece might not be intentional, but i have total respect for the creativity that comes out of me. in the process of working i usually dont see ALL that can be seen or is being done. i consciously get enough to know that it is going in the right direction and it will be satisfactory enough. in the process there are many moments of excitement, but not until it is “stopped” do i get this feeling that tingles my whole face and rings down my spine. and at that moment, i don’t usually “see” it, i feel it. i know i will always want to do or fix or figure out more, and, as with the thesis piece i am glad there is a limit on time with getting done to help curb that want. honestly, the perspective that i have, at 10 pm 2 days after it is all done, is so much more interesting to me than what is there right now. the only issue is that it breaks the wall plane that i am currently vested in conquering. i did kind of promise myself i would break that plane from the get-go when i get into grad school, and that was part of the challenge of deciding what to do for this. i really want to conquer the basics of using projectors and get a basic, yet solid, grasp on the aesthetics and the appeal of composited projected media as a medium that can be contemplated as deeply as a painting or sculpture.

anyway, many of the ideas, or revelations that come about after it is all done can be linked to a strong and truly creative mind, really strong, and not just the conscious part either. it’s also the part that works with or without you, and you never know when it is going to interject and help you, or teach you, or show you something. and when all is said and done, you know it showed up, regardless of how worried you were that it wasn’t going to come out and participate. in return, it also gets you to believe, to some degree, that it will always be there. these ideas that come out about the piece are examples of the conscious mind learning from this “intuitive force” that tends to do more for you than what you actually think you are doing. it is THE beautiful unknown that has ones best interest in mind, and always knows what its keeper likes. and so often it is better than you and it proves it. i noticed some of this in the beginning of my thesis piece when i was arranging the projectors and the pedestals. i get it when i am out taking pictures. there are many examples i have experienced. this “force” is an integral part of what “actual” creativity involves, and it is what seems to be a necessary ingredient in the process of defining anyone who is to be taken seriously about their work. let me explain.

take three colored transparent squares and set them side by side: one red, one yellow, and one blue. these are the tools for creativity. -more can be said about that some other time-. overlap the red onto the yellow and do the same with the blue and the yellow, leaving room for the yellow to show thru in the middle. 5 colors. this is creativity “101″ there are boundaries, limitations to how far you can go with your creativity, and in that respect a conscious spin on so many things, from the plan in the process, to the content of the work, even to the medium being worked in. now move the blue over the yellow and onto the red until the yellow shows thru on the side, equalling the amount of red showing on the other side. we moved one square. this is one-third of the tools for creativity. it created about one-third more colors. the movement of the blue square represents the one-third of the creative process that works with or without you. it adds to the range and longevity of ones creative abilities. it is something not everyone has or can do. if you have it, it is there if you think about it. it’s not the norm. no matter how much of a conscious spin academia tries to push on you it’s there, helping you, evolving you…securing you.

heres the thing, and please dont get me wrong as none of this is really “against” nobody, as it is truly for something. it is about defining and recognizing the serious passion for art and of artists in the present, with a significant amount of respect to the past and what will come in the future. this idea of defining can help positively affect what art galleries and art shows should be. it can help bring about a newer, more enlightening respect and appreciation towards artists, even if it was just done within the american culture. it is a serious reflection that generates serious standards for serious art and artists.

when i began the BFA i wanted to have my concentration to be in both digital media and sculpting. i also thought about painting. looking back i think this is actually where i began, in some small measure, to be concerned or curious about what is up with all systems/aspects involving the identity of art and artists. anyway, what happened was i had to choose, and, in a larger way than i had actually noticed back then, i thought it was ridiculous or not right. it is fine arts, it should be all arts, or at least a good range of it. i am being labeled in a way that wasn’t a good enough reflection of what i can do, or how much of it i wanted to study. there are, or should be, abilities that true artists have that would allow them to excel in any concentration of art. begin the process of finding a concentration in grad school. as far as i can tell, fine arts grad programs would seem an ideally inviting force for any aspiring artist to want to quickly find a more defined concentration to sink their teeth into, or why go. undergrad schooling can be summed up as this, “it’s not what you can do and how well you succeed at that, it is what you need to do to make sure you do succeed”. it is just a label to help confirm the believability of some form of discipline in what you “will” do. and, in part,  with that summation, it looks to be logical to have a broader spectrum of concentrations in the BFA. it is interesting that choosing digital art can actually mean digit-ALL ART. it can easily be mixed with most other mediums, but how many professors even mix mediums, and, why aren’t more of them pushing the boundaries in their works? i dont know what grad school is all about, i havent been there, yet. i heard it’s hot!

this was the first time ive actually tried to stick to the ideas of doing installations and i think this is where i want to be. honestly, this is what everyone should do at some point or other in their career as an artist. to help more clearly define artists, i am really leaning toward the idea of having artists prove themselves and their abilities by doing installation-mannered works. -as an example- if you’re a painter, paint on the walls of the gallery or use a fresh canvas and create one week before the event. prove your abilities. show your worth to have the title as an artist and be able to put a price on your time and work. maybe artists should be certified annually, or something similar, by a collection of people in an organization who can verify or deny some sort of licensing to be able to sell, or even show, their art with some credible seal of approval applied. none of this is saying don’t continue to do what you want, but every so often we should all have to prove ourselves as professionals, in some professional organized forum, to help more clearly define the times we are in with art. this organization bit truly does seem to reflect the present day, we are vaguely doing it with the ideology of academia in art already. whether anybody wants to believe it or not “we’re all on the boat, it’s just that no one is rowing” toward a more accurate discovery of how we should be wanting to define ourselves in respect to art and artists.

i want to be an artist someday, but i struggle with believing in what it is to be one at this time. maybe that is what my niche is, and maybe that is how my work can be defined. -the struggle in believing what it is to be an artist-

nov. 20, 2008
thinking about what i do, more-so what i am trying to do, and the medium i am currently investing my time in, is that maybe, a serious maybe without the aspect of the limitations of resources available to me, maybe i am directly attracted to the larger scale and all the creative space that can, with the right resources, portray such a wide range of varying amounts of information. instantly i think about a large painting idea. it’s always in the works and i constantly have ideas that i write down about doing some. BUT, there is something about this coming from me bit in my working with digital media. painting does come from me, but it is something like -a mechanical ability that is trying to “work with” the minds control and how it interprets and sends the information to do so-. there is this “something” about being able to “project” actual real world experiences, or references, and how much closer the viewer can come to grasping some of the relationships between what i have actually seen, or witnessed, and what i interpret them to be in my works. not even saying the simple fact that -motion- and -change- in video work provides the space with literally infinite possibilities. needless to say what breaking the wall plane can add.

nov. 26, 2008
thinking about grad school is exciting to me. i really want to perform and do well. i can imagine things going well once i am there, but for now i get both nervous and excited… alot. when i think about it i start to run through some beautiful ideas that i hope to be able to do. i really welcome the challenge of succeeding at this. i think i can produce some really interesting work and i think this is the route to take to be able to do what i want with the abilities that i have. right now i feel i’m setting up a literal foundation of understanding what art and artists are perceived to be, locally and abroad. i’m learning so much, and molding that with my own passion for creativity has made me a more well rounded person when it comes to art and all that surrounds it.

i have this huge interest in getting people to view or participate in some of my pieces. some feel like little “happenings”, some feel like events, and others more like large exhibits. i really want to expand my knowledge on the use of space. i feel that i want to get to a point where the entire space can be viewed as the art, but also have the aspect of semi-participation that allows the viewers to get a completely different perspective in witnessing the works, thus producing an external and internal experience -like the lab coat projection ideas-. in working with people i want the ideas to be something fun or surreally interesting and often being unique to the moment, sharing actual experiences…leaving a video -i directed- in their heads for a time;)

dec. 14, 2008
i haven’t written for about three weeks for fear of what i would write as i was experiencing information and moments involved with art that were leading me to even say, in my own mind, that i hate what is going on with “artists” around me and i want to quit. of course it is hardly possible for me to EVER quit, but the thought pulls at a desire to change certain aspects about me that have to do with art. whether it will or even can happen, has become the frustration of understanding my own identity as an artist-to-be.

in an effort to understand the things that “bother” me, i have noticed some very positive changes in how some people understand me and have grown to take me seriously when it comes to art. these people contain more hope and have a willingness to try-to understand or evolve-regardles of the actual outcome. it is the respect of wanting to be involved or even trying that i have for those people. but, the challenge is there when it comes to those who have continuously built up this naive and conflicting database of information about art and then prove it, but never acknowledge those facts. they and their work seems to become a circle they spin in that never grows or changes color, but they again claim to know so much, or enough to have something they feel they will enlighten me on. it is sick, as these speakers will never choose to be listeners and absorbers of aspects about art that can truly help them-extreme stubbornness-. it’s as if someone was to become a fireman and chose to not want to learn how to use and control the fire hose, with all the pressure and force it contains that can hurt you, and the reason is the fact that they’ve used a hose before so it doesn’t seem necessary.

the frustration is not about the desire or failure to help those people-though i naturally have those thoughts about many things-, the frustration is why they don’t want to help themselves grow and learn, to escape this plateau they’ve built, especially since they have already chosen to participate. many of these people have expressed great accomplishments and now live and die by those socially sensitive remarks/moments about their endeavors, never wanting truthful feedback and criticism as it seems to warrant them defensive and argumentative responses-never actually trying to listen as i have experienced-.

oddly enough, this all circles around my participation in the student show at the bemis and what i have learned about the level of much of the art/artists that exists here and the desire to become a “true” artist. it was both humbling and disheartening, all in one experience. it really made me think and more thoroughly acknowledge the decisions that i make about my participation in art experiences. my participation in the show was purely for fun and was initially understood by me as a time-out from my desires and goals as a future artist, but then became a lesson in self respect and responsibility. i definitely need to pull it together and stop playing with what surrounds me in respect to art. patience, patience, integrity, integrity. this should be the only time i hurt my creative soul. i have no real reason to do it again.

through all of these challenging and potentially harmful experiences that i have been having, there is an enormous upside that came out of it all. this has become the most raw and emotionally derived understanding i’ve probably ever had. it is those who have no real interest and/or are naive about art. the innocence they portray with their comments and their questions, which can be interpreted as shallow and negative, have now become golden moments of feedback and criticisms. they lead me to produce thoughtful and nurturing responses that build into a more personal and deeper understanding of what i do. priceless!

in the end my thesis experience was an intermediate success, as it should be, but is also an absolute success in working with what resources and technologies were available. the black painting i wanted to do around the piece is for another time and i accept that more now. in doing this exhibit, i came out of it with more knowledge and newer ideas and a better understanding of the directions i can take my works. i have already thought of the idea of bypassing using a computer and finding new ways to project and build the content for future works. some of which could have only come about through the actual experience of doing the thesis exhibition.

‘when did we become so naive as to let our societies crush the credibility and stature of real art and artists?’, and why? it all seemed to become defunct and fall apart once technologies started advancing in art and for societies as a whole-as it is all relative- (1960′s-ish). did it all move too fast, for those who’ve laid out guidelines and criteria in the past, to keep up and adapt formal intellectually sound meaning behind the integrity of art and artists? is money the main underlying factor to the destruction of the necessity of being a full-blooded artist to make art? the answers are so black and white, but the responses to those answers are so childish and evasive, that it would seem to take a near miracle to restore what’s been lost.

‘who gave the kid a crayon?’

when i see peoples work, such as students, for example, too often and almost always i am struck with the question of ‘what am i missing’ or even further ‘what allows them to publicly display these things’. a situation of audacity or ‘balls’, and when there is a price placed on it, it instantly becomes warranted as credible art. it has a price, it is tangible, it is an object that can be purchased and owned, its likely one of a kind, it is art, etc… if not, then it just becomes a mere display of the appreciation of creativity and the pieces themselves, then, not art. sure those students would not want to hear that, but need to, and also need to understand the effects of art as it is created. beginning with that, instead of teaching someone how to use a paint brush, seems more relevant to the esteem of art and artists. ‘let those who don’t live and breathe art, think twice about what they create and how they ever decide to present it, it’s not fon-du.it’s for the good of art as a whole, with all connections in tact, and could furthermore place a seriousness to the understanding of what an artist is and exemplify how critical it is to maintain a societal respectability towards those who are actually creative, and live and breathe art every waking moment, because without those kind of people throughout history, art would be nowhere.and in this day and age, it seems more and more those kinds of people are overshadowed by ‘learn-ed’ art and artists.

‘let’s just keep pumping them out!’ `: )~

in what way do we declare something as art when we often cannot deem its creator an artist.it is easy for a student who, lets say, took a few art classes in college to say ‘i made a few art pieces back in school’.it sounds common.but why is it art?and if its not,what is it?…dabbling in some art…presently, beautiful aesthetic art is tainted with a comical childish sense.as well as the artists themselves, who see themselves influenced by dreams, fantasy, etc. without a serious reflection to history, religion, politics, art influences, etc..or some form of philosophical reference or derivation,the art is just as good as someone who dabbles.so, the credibility becomes an enormous uphill battle to get others, who are generally appreciators of art, to see what you see, or believe and accept your passion as something as credible as those with serious respectable reflections. it often seems that craft also has to be far more developed to equal the credibility to be named as a serious artist.if not the worked can easily get pushed down.which is interesting that one can use a serious reflection and get away with a lot less craft, and also have the content pretty much laid out for them just by picking a good solid serious reflection to ‘dabble in’ and be declared as a real credible artist.it is almost, or is actually,like you can level up,like some sort of game, your knowledge on something, based on those main serious reflections, and ‘mechanically’ become successful as an artist.what is the route you take?the one that is,or, can be laid out for you and all that is necessary is for you to build upon it to somehow find that space to place your own stamp on OR the one you live with day in and day out that generates personality, ‘the heart and soul of you as a unit’, and forces you to react to your creative eye and instigates you to develop something even unknown to you, but the outcome is beautiful and personally unique to you and time itself. the second sounds skiddish, but carries more of the reinforcing elements on ‘who is an artist?’. which is odd that the second takes so much more ‘out of the creative element’ work for success, than does the first.it is almost an intention to ruin dreamers and actual creative people who carry it in their blood. but, what do you do?the longer you last, it seems the more you get pulled into the conscious side of it all…and the work ends up leaning towards the serious reflections.the young wont understand and the old wont care, its those of us in the middle who need to make the changes for the rest to see, but it takes a strength to not succumb, and that is where things tend to fall apart for current day creative people, aside from the fact of too many of us are too socially sensitive to be intellectually critical of publicly displayed works.i bet if even half of the people who displayed their works, received true criticism, their work would not have been displayed, probably by their own choice, but i would bet that they would come back with works far better than their initial ones. and thats what it takes. its so easy, but so hard for people to take and give nurturing respectable criticism. there’s a reason for it and ‘artists’ need to know its for the good of art, both historically and for the integrity of art and artists.

‘anymore, it doesn’t seem to matter, if you’re one in a million…million wins.’ -think about it-

…