Hangin' with the homies @ Pace

So we thought it was a bust in Chelsea.. and then this happened... but it was still kinda a bust.

It ain't over!

So I went to Ohio, which is why I haven't posted anything.

Hey Michael, what's your excuse?

"Painting, What It Became"

Carolee Schneemann recently had a show of her work at P.P.O.W "Painting, What It Became."

My question is what DID it become? My Answer: It's unclear

Here's why:

P.P.O.W.s press release reads :

"P.P.O.W Gallery is pleased to present Painting, What It Became... this will be Schneemann's first exhibition that exclusively surveys her paintings"

Well, OK. Everything makes sense so far "Painting, What It Became", a show of paintings.

It continues: (In fancy language)

"Carolee Schneemann's paintings from the late 1950s and 1960s have been a largely overlooked aspect of her oeuvre, relegated to the margins, considered early or immature work, as opposed to ingenious corollaries to the Kinetic Theater, Judson Dance Theater, performances, films she was producing simultaneously, and/or as harbingers of what was to be produced in the decades to come... Its aim is to reconsider Schneemann as a painter, who never ceased conceptualizing all her work as always related to the painterly gesture, to prying open 'the frame', and to conceiving of the body as tactile material; that is, as paint, canvas or paintbrush."

To paraphrase for those of you who don't speak "Fancy language" We're suppose to accept her installations, performances, films and photographs as paintings. Okay... except for one little problem.

Installations, performances, films, and photographs... aren't Paintings.

That's like saying.. I want you to watch television and pretend it's radio. WTF? You can have television broadcasts on the radio, and you can have radio broadcasts on the television, but you can't watch the radio. (technically you can but nothing would happen.) You can take a photograph of a painting,you can make a sculptural painting, and you can make a film of a painting, but this entire "my body is a canvas, thus if I put stuff on myself then I am a painting" just doesn't convince me.

I can put a baby on my head, but that doesn't make it a hat.

Here we see a free-standing paintstallation, a TV, a drawing, and some photographs

I can accept the paintstallation as a painting, even the drawing. But I cannot accept the TV or the photographs.

Here were have a paintstallation (wall) and an installation (floor) I can accept the wall (hesitantly since in person it's completely a sculpture, it just so happens its a rectangle hung on a wall) But the TV with the mop on it? No. That is not a painting.

There's a painting! With two collages (acceptable as paintings) and a video, shown on a television... not a painting.

Voila! Two paintings... and a paintstallation (which is really a sculpture who's pedestal is the wall).

Is this what painting has become?

I'm so distracted by the question of "what is painting", "what is art" that as much as I enjoyed the show I'm left feeling completely puzzled as to why the title would be "Painting, What it Became." Maybe it's just me being narrow minded about things, or maybe I'm just being too open minded. I either want NOTHING to be a painting or for EVERYTHING to be a painting.

Claes Oldenburg wrote a list in 1961 entitled "I Am for an Art"

The following is an excerpt:

I am for an art that is political-erotical-mystical, that does something other than sit on its ass in a museum.

I am for an art that grows up not knowing it is art at all, an art given the chance of having a starting point of zero.

I am for an art that embroils itself with the everyday crap & still comes out on top.

I am for an art that imitates the human, that is comic, if necessary, or violent, or whatever is necessary.

I am for an art that takes its form from the lines of life itself, that twists and extends and accumulates and spits and drips, and is heavy and coarse and blunt and sweet and stupid as life itself...

I am for the art of conversation between the sidewalk and a blind man's metal stick.

I am for the art that grows in a pot, that comes down out of the skies at night, like lightning, that hides in the clouds.

I am for art that is flipped on and off with a switch.

I am for art that unfolds like a map, that you can squeeze, like your sweety's arm, or kiss, like a pet dog. Which expands and squeaks, like an accordion, which you can spill your dinner on, like an old tablecloth."

I Am for an Art" originally appeared in Environments, Situations, Spaces, and was then reprinted in Store Days: Documents From The Store.

So I don't really know where I'm going with this aside from raising the question about whether it's necessary to draw arbitrary lines between all of the different art forms, or whether we need separate categories for our puny little minds to be able to properly comprehend what's going on. I would argue that drawing lines just gives people more reasons to argue. It's not like we're talking about the Israeli/Palestinian conflict here... I mean maybe Art is just Art.

All of that aside the show I'd call the show a success, despite of it's inconsistencies between content and concept. At least it got my wheels spinning.

And speaking of spinning....

The Art of Brotherhood

Not too long ago I bumped into the brothers John and Hank Green on youtube.  The brothers banded together for the year 2007, made a pact to only communicate via non-textual information and they vlogged their way through the entire year.  

Now, I know it must sound dull, but this is one of the most profound and meaningful uses for the Internet that I have seen thus far.  Here we have two men, who apparently didn't know each other that well at the beginning of the project, and as the year moves forward as viewers start becoming interested not only the incredible pace at which Hanks speaks, not in Johns quirks and crazy eyes as he travels through the year finishing the revisions on his book, "Paper Towns" but in the sheer knowledge and silliness shared between the two of them.  Here are two grown men who think it's OK to refer to their wife and sister-in-law as "The Yeti."  

And somewhere between the songs about anglerfish and Helen Hunt, and videos of John devouring blenderized happy meals and smearing peanut butter on his face as he discusses Rwanda, something happens.  They become just two guys going through their daily lives, but doing so in a way that is just a little bit more fun, a little bit more honest, and a lot more intelligent, and the viewer is invited to participate.

I won't pretend I was there for the beginning, but the development of the fan-base and continued recruitment of the self proclaimed "Nerd Fighters" is apparent in all of the immense offspring that the brothers Green have managed to sprout.  Fan sights, tribute videos, video responses... they're ALL OVER THE INTERNET.  Search for "Peeps" in youtube and just try to find a video that isn't showered with spock hands, kids chanting "Nerd Fighters" and doesn't give a shout out to John and Hank.  

To see siblings using new media to do something that's real, honest, and intimate... There's no fancy makeup for the camera, no magical editing.... it's not reality TV... it just IS reality.  I think this is what we need more of right now.  It's like saying "Wake up... everything around you is waiting!"

I'll only speak for myself, but I know what I seek the most out of life is meaning.  I want a brotherhood, a connection, and if I can't have it with my own peers I can at least use the Internet to find like-minded people to connect with.  I want an age of intelligence where silliness is celebrated, and people can disagree but still respect each others opinions.   

You don't need to watch all 462 of their videos to realize that's the idea.  

They've got all the strife, soul, and worldliness of Picasso's "Guernica" with all the glitz, love, and familiarity of Klimt's "The Kiss".

It's Art.

Sure I can't react to them on their composition, form, light, color, design, or even by their concept, but what I can react to is their ability to make me transcend my emotions.  This is not the movie magic manipulation achieved by the addition of those heart-string-pulling songs at just the right moment.  When I watch these videos I'm moved, over and over and over again and while I struggle to put my finger on why, I reject the idea that there's anything wrong with my reaction.  Why isn't youtube a legitimate creative outlet?  

I could go on, but I wont.  Investigate. Indulge. 

Introduce yourself to something new.  

http://www.youtube.com/user/vlogbrothers

http://www.youtube.com/user/maureenbooks

http://whoisamy.wordpress.com

http://www.DFTBA.com

http://www.ecogeek.org

E l e c t r i c i t y

ITS ELECTRIC

Pleasant thoughts about Amy Pleasant

I want to take a moment to recognize the work of Amy Pleasant.  She just had a show that is no longer up, featuring drawings, paintings, and a site-specific wall installation at Jeff Bailey Gallery.

© Amy Pleasant

Now, if you know me personally what I'm about to say may confuse you, but to be honest between Mickalene Thomas, Raquib Shaw , and the heavily ornamented, and flamboyant stuff that's been surfacing all over the place I'm tired of looking at glitter and sparkles and rainbows. 

Come'on people, aren't we in a recession?  

Pleasants work is self reflective, quiet, and lovely, for lack of better words.  It's painted freely, but not without care.  

© Amy Pleasant

I think the main success is in her touch being as intimate as her subject matter.  (a kiss. a drip. embrace. echo of the pass of a brush)  Her work is stripped down to the bare bones, but doesn't leave me wanting any more.  The level of affection in the subject of her work isn't overly saccharin, but is still filled with warmth.

Maybe I'm partial to shit about love and compassion because I pass an egg every month, but as a human being I'm also partial to things which reflect the human experience.  Most people know what it's like to be held, and most people know what it's like to be kissed, and most people enjoy both of those things.  At the most basic human level Pleasants paintings put me in the same place a really great song does; a great misty nostalgia of pleasant past times.

Poster Boys, or Poser Boys?

There's an interesting show up right now at the Marlborough Chelsea gallery (545 West 25th st.) of Michael Anderson's "street" poster collages that brought up a lot of questions and I'm going to attempt to get to the bottom of some of it.

I don't know how many of you are aware of what's going on right now in the subways, but there's this guy "Poster Boy." "Poster Boy" is a 20 something guy who cuts subway posters and collages them back together in different arrangements to be witty social commentary. They're pretty damn cool, and though I've never seen one in person I always keep my eyes peeled in the hopes that someday something will subtly catch my eye and make me realize, "Holy shit, that's really not suppose to be like that."

© Poster Boy

Really cool right?

Michael Anderson, on the other hand, began his career long before "Poster Boy", but I'm not convinced his work has the same power, or even the same potential for power that "Poster Boy's" work does. Here's why:

1."Poster Boy" takes pieces of the subway, and rearranges. He acknowledges with his work that advertisements really belong to the public. We are their purpose, so we always have the potential to alter it.
2. He honors the fact that the posters are meant for the dungeons, tunnels and piss scented rat caves and he leaves them there, all while re-defining and re-igniting an exploration of public art.
3. His work is performative. When people bare witness to an action it's much easier for them to imagine themselves doing it. (It is rumored that "Poster Boy" impersonators have been popping up all over)
4. Political commentary is meant for the masses, not for galleries. While Anderson's collages are undoubtedly beautiful, he's taking something meant for the masses and giving it to elitists.
5. Anderson showed up to the exhibition opening in a head to toe track suit, complete with cocked baseball cap. This may have been a nod to the "street" but lets face it, how many "Jenny from the blocks" really go to the Marlborough Gallery? It's that Post-modern irony seeping through again; track suits don't belong in galleries, just like subway posters don't.... but there they are.

© Michael Anderson

What I see in Anderson's work is beauty, composition, color, repetition, narrative, a homage to the great DADA artists, surrealist painters, and Picasso. As much as Anderson himself may see the work as being about "what it's like to be alive today," I think it's more of a statement about art its self. Anderson's work has very little to do with the actual ads. Sure, he rearranges them to make narratives, but they don't speak to subway/street culture. They are familiar, but I'm speaking to their familiarity as a lower middle class white female. I think perhaps Anderson's artist statement about the work being about life, suits "Poster Boy" more appropriately then it suits himself!

I've fallen in love with both of these artists. "Poster Boy" for bringing art to the subway, and Anderson for bringing the subway to art. The potential for great collaborations aside, I wonder what would happen if the two met. In some great world they'd get together for drinks at a bar and Anderson would talk all about how great it feels to be a sell out and "Poster Boy" would talk about the state of the states, and both would discuss how the people have the power, if only they knew how to get together to use it.

If you want to know more about Poster Boy here's a start:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/04/arts/design/04post.html?_r=1&8dpc
http://www.nypress.com/blog-3216-poster-boy-ready-for-his-close-up.html

If you want to know more about Michael Anderson:
http://www.chamuconegro.com/