Brian Sherwin -- Art Critic

Art Critic Brian Sherwin Interviews Art Critic Mat Gleason

2011-08-05T15:20:00.000-07:00

This article, originally posted on FineArtViews by FASO, is by Brian Sherwin, Regular contributing writer for FineArtViews. Brian Sherwin is an art critic, blogger, curator, artist and writer based near Chicago, Illinois. He has been published in Hi Fructose Magazine, Illinois Times, and other publications, and linked to by publications such as The Boston Globe, Juxtapoz Magazine, Deutsche Bank ArtMag, ARTLURKER, Myartspace, Blabbermouth, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Modern Art Obsession, Citizen LA, Shark Forum, Two Coats of Paint and Art Fag City.

Mat Gleason is known for being a bare-knuckle art critic. He founded Coagula Art Journal in 1992-- which has focused on giving the lowdown on high art for nearly two decades. Coagula Art Journal has been described as "the publication that the art world loves to hate, and loves to read" by the Village Voice-- and has been referred to as “The National Enquirer of the Art World" by the New York Post. Gleason describes Coagula Art Journal as an antidote to the theory-addled and fashion-driven forces in the world of contemporary art.

Brian Sherwin: Mat, you founded Coagula Art Journal-- a freely distributed contemporary art magazine-- in 1992. The publication, which is known for its tabloid style, has been praised widely for the love/hate relationship it has had with the mainstream art world-- including mentions of the influence it has had on art writing by art critics such as Jerry Saltz. Can you reflect on the founding of Coagula Art Journal? What spurred you to see it in print?

Mat Gleason: In college I had success publishing an underground newspaper so I kept the same model with a raw approach. I prefer immediacy in writing and art and reactions and was deeply into punk zines, so it was just a word dominated punk zine for the art world.

BS: One could say that the bare knuckle style of art criticism that has fueled Coagula Art Journal has been a direct influence on a new wave of art writers-- specifically those utilizing blogs and social media. After all, most art bloggers are very confrontational in their writing style compared to traditional art publication writers-- and are considered mavericks by 'professional' writers. Do you feel that you have had an impact on other art writers? Or is it simply that art writing, in regards to public critics, if you will, has reached a boiling point compared to the comfort zones traditional publications tend to embrace?

MG: We are all bloggers now. This is just the wave of things. I judge artistic influence by what things would be like if the artist had never existed. The blogging landscape in regards to art would be exactly the same if I had never lived so I may get points for doing a lot of things in the context of the art world first, before anybody, but there is nothing I did that punk zines and many other things also did. I did top ten lists to be ironic and now that is a staple of websites because it guarantees you ten page views per reader. Who the hell knew?!?

BS: In the past art magazines such as Art in America and ARTnews enjoyed a stranglehold on the ins and outs of the art world-- the Internet has changed that. Individuals have been able to ‘infiltrate’ the art world with blogs, Youtube, and other forms of online media-- giving readers/viewers information and fresh content faster than traditional print magazines can realistically do. In other words, print magazines can be a week or month behind breaking art news. With that in mind, do you think print art magazines will eventually be a thing of the past-- or will they always have their place?

MG: It will trickle on for a few years or so and then it will all be web. Actually, I am confident of that scenario but after what happened in Egypt last week – them shutting off the internet – I am not AS confident. I could see a president shutting down the internet and everyone relearning desktop publishing. It is a long-shot scenario, but other than that long-shot, magazines are as finished in 2011 as the horse and buggy was in 1911. Books too, they are going to find some exotic niche and stick around another century but then “bye, bye“.

BS: There are some art blogs that receive more traffic per month than art magazines have subscribers. In that context-- one can argue that blog readers are not as focused as print magazine subscribers-- that said, the strength of audience that some art bloggers have established can’t be denied. With that in mind, which audience do you feel is more important to the advancement of visual art within culture?

MG: My goal in publishing Coagula was to get readers to habitually pick up a copy when they saw a stack of magazines in a gallery or coffee shop or bookstore. So whoever creates a habit with people will win out. The stereotype of old art collectors only reading magazines ended last year with the iPad. Every single old art collector got one from their kids and is playing with it. One more blow to print.

BS: Within the so-called art blogosphere there tends to be a pack mentality-- it is not hard to observe art bloggers working together toward the goal of blog promotion while treating other art writers like outsiders. That mentality has worked well-- specifically for art bloggers based in New York. Do you think there is a danger in regards to that mentality-- or do you feel it is natural for inclusive groups to be formed?

MG: Well they never get organized enough to form blog networks – that might actually amount to something successful so you know New York Bloggers are congenitally allergic to it, so I see them more as high school popularity contests. And hey, I am there, too, screaming about who is going to prom as much as the next guy. The problem is that so many of them are in denial that they are operating at this level. Look at the Art Forum blog – it is all about who wore Prada glasses to the party and who wore a condom when they got laid at the art fair and who didn’t.

BS: Having written about art for half a decade I’m no stranger to receiving hate mail due to my opinions in regards to art and specific artists. I assume you have probably received far more than I since 1992. I’m curious to know-- does criticism or hostility fuel your motivation to go further with an opinion? Do you view it as a sign that you must be doing something right?

MG: I absolutely love arguing and love it when I piss someone off with my writing. I am highly suspicious of people who want to be my friend or get to know me or compliment me-- very paranoid at times. But when someone is angry and challenging me, that is the ultimate honesty in a person. I completely love and trust people who lay into me with logical arguments, personal attacks, or emotional rants. Years ago I did have to stop dating them, though.

BS: You have done work with other art writers, Alan Bamberger for example, who tend to rail against key aspects of the mainstream art world. Can you talk about your experiences working with like-minded writers? Also-- can you name a few writers that you feel may be of interest to our readers?

MG: Actually, I hate working with writers on one level because once in a while Alan will write something and I will be like “Fuck, I was thinking the same thing now I can’t write it” so when people have the same outlook on things as you it can be a bit cramped, sort of like sharing your studio with another painter and all of a sudden your images are in his pictures too.

I get obsessed with writers I hate more than ones I like. I read everything Christopher Knight writes in order to form an opposing view and I get angry when I agree with him, like I have a moral failing. I read sports blogs of teams I hate. It fires me up, very sort of taboo to be in the enemy camp. On the plus side, I have been publishing Gordy Grundy for years and he is a good read now that he is with the Huffington Post Arts Section, he writes like the last man in the world who is going to see the elegance of it all beneath the shit-stained surface and in spite of the absurdity of being an artist in this tape-recorded farce we call a culture.

BS: The Internet has also changed how success in the art world can be interpreted. Not long ago it was assumed that an artist can’t ‘make it’ unless he or she moved to a major cultural hub-- New York, Miami, Chicago… and so on. There was, and I’m sure still is in some circles, a hard-line view of what “success” in the art world means. However, with the Internet artists can reach a global audience-- and offer opinions and images that can impact readers from the comfort of their own homes. What are your thoughts on this? What is your definition of a successful artist?

MG: When you get laid because you are an artist you are a successful artist. I am a biological reductivist, it all comes down to propagating the species and shelter, so being able to afford a place to live and make art is the reward and the occasional art groupie is the bonus. The problem with the internet is that most art used to look terrible in jpegs so it was hard to judge but now the art looks so much better on the internet that it is easy to become seduced by mediocre art. But you didn’t get laid if it wasn’t in person.

BS: What advice do you have for emerging artists who face obstacle after obstacle in claiming their slice of the pie, so to speak?

MG: There is a whole culture built up that you can do it yourself. Most people are impatient so they do all this self-marketing and end up with half-assed art and half-assed self-promotion. Make the art and show up on time-- find people you trust to do the other bullshit.

BS: What advice do you have for artists in general?

MG: Art is not verbal. Do not submit your art to some political philosophy, trendy theory, art historical narrative, anything that has a structure someone else controls. There is a Coagula interview with Richard Serra in 1996 and we posed this same question to him and he said “Work out of your own work, don’t work out of anyone else’s work.” Of course, if every artist did that these laughably inadequate and out of touch art schools would be out of business, so they blab on and on about everything but the artist and the art. Look, don’t listen; think, don’t preach; draw, don’t trace.

BS: In closing, is there anything else you would like to offer in regards to your plans for Coagula Art Journal-- or any other advice you have for artists and writers in general?

MG: I am building an internet radio station CoaguL.A.radio with coverage of the art world. Print is dead except in the form of unique objects and editions so I will be doing more issues of Coagula that follow the format of a book rather than of a traditional magazine. I will give the artists the same thing I say to my girlfriend, she is an artist, before she goes to the studio every day: Make great art. Writers, well, don’t be boring, and if you reflexively attempt to rationalize your boring writing when confronted with that, realize that lots of us are on to you.

To learn more about Mat Gleason and Coagula Art Journal please visit his website at-- www.coagula.com

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin

Art Critic Brian Sherwin Interviews Gallerist Edward Winkleman

2011-08-05T15:10:00.000-07:00

This article, originally posted on FineArtViews by FASO, is by Brian Sherwin, Regular contributing writer for FineArtViews. Brian Sherwin is an art critic, blogger, curator, artist and writer based near Chicago, Illinois. He has been published in Hi Fructose Magazine, Illinois Times, and other publications, and linked to by publications such as The Huffington Post, The Boston Globe, Juxtapoz Magazine, Deutsche Bank ArtMag, ARTLURKER, Myartspace, Blabbermouth, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Modern Art Obsession, Citizen LA, Shark Forum, Two Coats of Paint and Art Fag City.

Edward Winkleman is a gallery owner, curator, author and blogger from New York. Winkleman's blog has long been a point of contact for artists who desire to learn more about how mainstream art galleries function. His blog features discussion about art, culture, and politics. Winkleman is known for being an art dealer who embraces social media and the Internet. He spearheaded Moving Image, an art fair focused on contemporary video art, and participated in VIP Art Fair.

Winkleman Gallery has participated in Art Chicago, Pulse, ARCO, NADA, Aqua and several other art fair venues. Exhibits at Winkleman Gallery have been reviewed in The New York Times, Art in America, The New Yorker, Artforum, Flash Art and several other art publications. Winkleman Gallery is located in the Chelsea arts district in New York City.

Winkleman tends to represent art that has an edge-- art that slices deep into societal exploration. He has represented Janet Biggs, Jennifer Dalton, Joy Garnett and The Chadwicks-- among others.

Brian Sherwin: Edward, your art blog is considered by many to be one of the most influential art blogs active at this time. Why did you decide to start blogging?

Edward Winkleman: I began blogging originally about politics, back in the early days of the George W. Bush administration when I couldn't find any semblance of the outrage I felt about our march to war in Iraq being expressed in the main stream media. Bloggers were much more willing to say the things the news anchors apparently were not, and it became a haven of sanity for me. Even when I disagreed with the other commenters, at least people were acknowledging what was going on. Most important to me about all that was that I was actively learning about things I wouldn't have known how to go about learning if left to my devices...the community of bloggers were very generous in pointing out the best summaries of issues and/or best critiques of policies.

It took me a few years to realize that this same resource could be applied to discussing art and the art gallery system. I launched my current blog in 2005 mainly as a marketing tool for the gallery, but it quickly evolved into a forum on how to navigate the gallery system. I've enjoyed being part of the discussion (loving galleries as I do) and so continue it today.

BS: A decade ago many art professionals scoffed at the Internet-- but today it is not hard to find some of the most powerful individuals in the art world utilizing the Internet to spread their opinions... art critic Jerry Saltz comes to mind. In your opinion, how has the Internet in general influenced the direction of the art world?

EW: The Internet has accelerated the pace at which like-minded people can connect. This is the case in all spheres, not just the art world. But being a visual world, first and foremost, the ability to share images online has helped artists find other artists they share affinitities with much more quickly than ever before and so I think that's speeding up how quickly ideas spread, are explored, are critiqued, and are processed via studio practice. It's also helping marketing people take an artist's advance and reconfigure it to sell soap (or whatever) more quickly too, so in that way it's blurring the lines between fine art and commercial art. With the good always comes some bad.

BS: The concept of selling art online-- at least where high profile galleries are concerned-- is an aspect of the art market that has had ups and downs in recent years. VIP Art Fair, which I believe your gallery participated in, is a good example. In your opinion, why are so many gallerists wary of adapting to e-Commerce and solid online promotion?

EW: The wariness is due to the fact that the ultimate art viewing experience is to stand in a well-considered, perfectly lit space with the actual art. This will never change for object-based work, in my opinion. So it's challenging to have a true experience of the work online. I think online sales and such are good when the collector has seen the artist's work before and knows how to translate the 2-D jpeg into a sense of what it must look like in real life, but ultimately I think the more images people view, the better they understand any artist's work, so it all contributes to education and appreciation, and in that sense is all very useful.

BS: Do you think at some point selling art online will become a common practice among gallery owners rather than being viewed as a mere alternative? Do you think in the future art dealers will conduct most of their business online rather than in brick & mortar spaces?

EW: For certain types of art, yes. Photography for example lends itself better to online sales than installation, so I could see more photography eventually being sold via online channels than in real life.

As for the brick & mortar question, it really depends on the type of art the dealer sells. Much of what we do in our space (like #class or our current exhibition of three films that are inter-related and installed to highlight how) wouldn't have the same impact if exclusively online, and in that way wouldn't convey the artists' real intent. As long as a gallery is committed to work like that, they'll mostly likely need to find a way to present it in real life. What I think you might see is a business model that includes brick and mortar exhibitions when needed and online exhibitions when possible (meaning, galleries not having full time spaces year round).

BS: Many artists have ill opinions of galleries in general. Many of those negative opinions are due to not understanding the business of marketing art. In other words, they have no clue about the risks gallerists take simply by representing an artist-- they don't look beyond the percentages. Can you offer some insight into the expense gallery owners endure so that perhaps artists reading this interview will have a better understanding of the percentage split?

EW: It cost our gallery $15,000 to $18,000 to present a solo exhibition. And we're on the low end of the spectrum. Therefore, unless the show sells $30,000 to $36,000 the gallery is arguably taking a loss in presenting that show (I say arguably, because galleries can sell other work out of their inventory, but they may not, depending on the market). Once an artist has reached a point that their work is consistently selling more than it takes the gallery to present a solo show, they should ask the gallery to reconsider the 50/50 split (in the artist's favor, of course). Until that point, in my opinion, they should recognize that the gallery is investing in them and be willing to be equal partners in the split.

BS: What advice do you have for artists who have yet to find gallery representation-- should they sit back, create, and wait for that day to come... or should they focus on self-marketing their art work?

EW: They should network with the artists and curators and collectors and writers who affiliate themselves with the galleries they believe (after careful research and real soul searching) would be a good match for their work.

BS: With that in mind, is there anything negative that you can think of in regards to artists selling art on their own-- anything that can be hurtful later down the road if picked up by a gallery? What do artists need to keep in mind when selling solo?

EW: I think there's nothing significantly hurtful about selling one's own work. It might lead to less studio time, but other than that, if you can, go for it. The only real downside is the loss of context and press potential that a gallery provides. If you get enough of that via museums or other venues, though, and still sell well out of your studio, then a gallery may be completely unnecessary for you.

BS: I'm sure you are contacted by hopeful artists all the time-- due to the Internet artists can easily contact art dealers, art critics, and other art world professionals with ease... I'm sure that is not always a good thing. With that in mind, do you have any advice concerning online etiquette that artists should adhere to when communicating online? Should artists resist the urge to contact an art dealer out of the blue, so to speak?

EW: I wouldn't dissuade anyone from going about this in the way they feel they must, whatever that may be. I would say, however, that galleries do get bombarded all the time by cold call submissions that are so entirely wrong for their program it makes you wonder if the artist even knows the first thing about the gallery, that they eventually grow weary and more and more don't even give the cold call a chance. Your best introduction is always via an artist working with the gallery or a writer or collector or curator who knows and likes the gallery. I'd highly recommend going that route if a cold call ends in silence from the gallery end.

BS: I can recall several instances of artists coming to me for advice about gallery owners who asked them to remove their online presence-- for example, one was asked to remove herself from all social art sites (Myartspace, DeviantART, and so on) that she had placed her art on, another was asked to take down his personal website, and a few were asked to stop blogging about their art. You are a gallery owner who happens to embrace the Internet... many of the artists you have represented over the years have had a strong online presence while being represented by you... can you give some insight into why some gallery owners are wary of artists who have a strong online presence?

EW: I have never discussed this with other galleries, but I suspect it's the desire to maintain a certain quality of presentation (which I understand). It's also, obviously, a desire to have the gallery serve as the first point of contact, which is how some galleries can truly do the most good for their artists. It's a case-by-case basis. I'd encourage any artist who thinks their gallery is wrong to insist on such matters to have a conversation with them about why and if they disagree with the response to discuss how they might best find a compromise.

BS: With the above in mind, would you say that artists seeking mainstream gallery representation should be careful about how they present themselves online in general? Or do gallery owners tend to understand that artists have their own life, opinions, and so on?

EW: It depends on so many variables, it's impossible to generalize. I would say an artist looking for a gallery should most definitely have a website. If I can look at a website and get what I wish to know there (images, bio, statement, press, etc.), it accelerates my decision making process in whether to advance to a studio visit. It's a professional requirement in my opinion for any artist looking to get representation.

BS: In your opinion, what are some of the best ways that an artist can promote himself or herself online? Should artists have a personal website? Should they utilize Facebook, Twitter, and other forms of social media?

EW: A well considered, medium appropriate website with great images and only relevant text is hands down the best. Social media are for networking, and I'd say a "reasonable" amount of self-promotion.

BS: What is your opinion of art blogs-- such as Art Fag City and Hyperallergic-- and the new wave of art critics and writers who have found a voice online? Also-- are we witnessing history in the making as far as the expansion of art criticism is concerned?

EW: Both the blogs you mention are exceptional. They capture the spirit of New York's younger art community brilliantly. I think both would be well served if someone (them or someone else) could find a model that helps the best online arts writers earn a decent living for all the hard work they do. Other than that, the more online writing the better, I say. The quality of such writing will sort out who survives and who fades away.

BS: Would you say that specific art blogs are becoming just as vital as traditional publications in regards to being a key source for information about art-- or do you think traditional art publications will continue to dominate the realm of art news, reviews, and debate?

EW: Traditional arts publications (like all publications) are seeing the need to have more of an online presence. It's simply where readers are gravitating for their information. I'd expect to see them work to find ways to bring their brand online without watering it down. If I had the solution to that problem myself, I'd be buying a house in St. Bart's now, I'm sure.

BS: Anyone who follows your blog knows that you often venture into political activism. In your opinion, why is it important for individuals within the creative community to make a stand on social and political views they believe in? Do you feel that art writers and artists should be more politically active in general?

EW: I don't know that I think it's important for others. It's simply important for me. I know a certain portion of my readership must groan and think "politics...again?" when I climb up on my soap box. I hate to disappoint those folks, but a blog is a "personal web log" so I'll keep mixing it us as I personally feel it keeps me interested.

BS: You published a book that focused on advice for people interested in opening an art gallery... do you have any plans to publish a book that is geared toward advice for artists directly?

EW: It's been discussed, but there are really great texts out there already on the subject.

BS: It is often said that an artist must move to New York if he or she wants to "make it". Obviously there are many ways to interpret what 'making it' in the art world means today. Is New York still the destination for artists in your opinion... or do you feel that artists should instead focus on what success means to them? How do you define a successful artist?

EW: That's a lot, and I'm unfortunately running out of time. I'll cheat here and point to a recent blog post I wrote about that...the 58 comments are definitely what to read.

BS: In closing, is there anything you would like to say about your gallery or your roster of artists?

EW: I LOVE my artists... they're all doing very important work in my opinion, and all the collectors and museums out there who are not currently buying their work will be kicking themselves down the road when their prices are much, much higher.

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin

Should President Obama say something in support of artist Ai Weiwei in China?

2011-04-07T16:36:00.000-07:00

Should President Obama say something in support of artist Ai Weiwei in China?

If you follow art news online you have likely heard about the arrest of Ai Weiwei in China. A handful of politicians, mostly from Germany, have spoken in support of Ai Weiwei-- demanding his release. As it stands there has been little information released about Ai Weiwei from Chinese authorities. All that is known is that he is being held-- and many fear that he may meet the same fate that so many creative individuals before him have met under the oppressive Chinese government. When I read the opinions about Weiwei-- and the list of those supporting his release-- it forces me to ask… what stance does President Obama have on the issue? I for one think that he should make his opinion known.

When I mention this people tend to respond with a variant of, "He is busy with an economic meltdown"-- to me that is an excuse. After all, if President Obama can make basketball predictions and other comments about sports during an economic crisis I’m fairly certain that he can manage to make a statement in support of Ai Weiwei and the global art community. It is the perfect opportunity for him to live up to some of the things he said about the power of art during his historic presidential campaign.

I would like to see President Obama stand up for art worldwide. Many within the art community voted for him because they thought he would be pro-art in general. I don't think anyone can deny the support Obama received from artists during his run for office. There is a debt due in my opinion-- a debt to the art community in the United States as well as to artists worldwide.

I don't think President Obama’s support will magically make things in China better for visual artists-- but the impact of his words would hit harder than anything said by art critics and others who have shown support for Ai Weiwei. Mr. President-- I’m asking YOU to make a stand.

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin

Interview with Mollie White (SCOPE Art Show)

2011-03-29T04:29:00.000-07:00

FineArtViews Interview: Mollie White -- Show Director for SCOPE Art Show by Brian Sherwin

This article is by Brian Sherwin , Regular contributing writer for FineArtViews. Brian Sherwin is an art critic, blogger, curator, artist and writer based near Chicago, Illinois. He has been published in Hi Fructose Magazine, Illinois Times, and other publications, and linked to by publications such as The Huffington Post, The Boston Globe, Juxtapoz Magazine, Deutsche Bank ArtMag, ARTLURKER, Myartspace, Blabbermouth, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Modern Art Obsession, Citizen LA, Shark Forum, Two Coats of Paint and Art Fag City. You should submit an article and share your views as a guest author by clicking here.

SCOPE Art Show is one of the most notable of the mainstream global contemporary art fairs. SCOPE Art Show holds annual fairs in New York, East Hampton, London, Miami, and Basel. Total sales at SCOPE fairs have reached well over $100 million since the fairs creation nearly a decade ago. Mollie White, the current Show Director for SCOPE, offered her time and experience to FineArtviews in order to answer key questions about SCOPE, how the internet is impacting the art world, and advice for artists.

Brian Sherwin: Mollie, you are the Show Director for the SCOPE Art Shows in New York, Miami, Basel, London and throughout the world. Tell our readers about your position with SCOPE-- for example, what responsibilities do you have?

Mollie White: As the Show Director, my primary responsibilities include finding and enlisting international galleries to participate in the various SCOPE Art Shows. I will often travel to different cities to visit art fairs, and gallery openings, so as to research and find new galleries. Once the galleries have committed to the fair, I act as a liaison to the rest of the SCOPE team, ensuring a seamless and enjoyable experience at the SCOPE fair.

I also work with each department, whether that be our operations team, marketing team, or design team, in furthering the SCOPE brand and overall experience of SCOPE both from the perspective of a visitor and a participant. This would include anything from placing galleries on the floor plan, to reaching out to sponsors, establishing partnerships, or working with the designer on an advertisment.

Lastly, I work very closely as one of the members of the SCOPE Foundation Curatorial body, to create the programming, or Special Projects, if you will, of each SCOPE fair. For example, in SCOPE Miami, those projects would include our partnerships with APT, (Artist Pension Trust), Artists Wanted and with the artists who created the political mural.

I am very fortunate to be a part of a great team and to be working closely with Alexis Hubshman, who’s creative vision and understanding of the contemporary art market, has lead to SCOPE’s tradition in providing a platform for a dynamic representation of contemporary art happening now.

BS: SCOPE is one of the largest and most global art fairs at this time-- featuring artwork in 7 markets worldwide. Can you discuss the goal of SCOPE in general. For example, is there a unified mission from one SCOPE show to the next?

MW: The goal of SCOPE has always been to provide an international, innovation and dynamic platform for contemporary art. To offer the premiere venue for R+D to an international audience of art collectors and art lovers alike. Over the last 10 years, we’ve expanded on the traditional art fair model by coupling it with museum-quality programming and events, which draw interest from the creative community at large. We work to incorporate art forms that are often overlooked by other art fairs—by integrating fashion, design and music in new and exciting ways.

BS: In your opinion, what makes SCOPE Art Shows stand out when compared to other high profile art fairs?

MW: I would credit the unique and dynamic qualities of SCOPE to Alexis Hubshman, who as both an artist and collector, has developed a total understanding of art practice and what it means to present and show successfully in an international art market.

For me personally, I find SCOPE to be the place of discovery. Having developed its own tradition of risk-taking, SCOPE is the center for discussion surrounding taste-making and developing trends.

Lastly, I would also suggest, that by hosting art fairs in five international art markets, SCOPE has built a very international group of patrons, in addition to its participating galleries.

BS: Mainstream art fairs in general have received some criticism over the years. Some feel that the fairs weaken the impact of art as a whole by having so much art displayed at once-- in other words, some art fair critics are concerned that art fairs place too much focus on art as a commodity. What are your thoughts on that?

MW: I believe there are valid sides to every story. With that being said, I would argue that Art Fairs have carved out a significant role in how they have influenced contemporary art history. I feel that, like Museums, Art Fairs (both mainstream and otherwise) can be used or seen as an international reflection of contemporary art practice- providing a venue for the truly brilliant artists of our time. In the end, it is up to the individual and community to use the resources, whether commercial, academic, or historic, to broaden our understanding of art happening now and how that relates to the tradition of art history.

BS: Others feel that art fairs in general are changing the schematics-- if you will-- of the global art market too quickly, as if there are unwritten rules that art fairs are breaking. Those with ill feelings towards art fairs are normally gallery traditionalists who find little room for change within the art market as whole. With all of this in mind-- what do you have to say in response?

MW: I don’t believe that Art Fairs are responsible for the changing schematics of the global art market. In fact, it is just that- the art world is, and will continue to become, more global, reflecting greater changes in the global economy, as well as our use of technology and global communication.

BS: Some individuals are wary of the Internet and the influence it has had on the art market. That said, it is obvious that the Internet will have a huge impact on how the art world of the future is shaped. SCOPE has long embraced the Internet-- and now there are ventures such as VIP Art Fair and Art.sy on the horizon. I can recall when individuals within the mainstream art world scoffed at the Internet as a viable means of gaining exposure and selling art. That said, have you noticed a shift in how individuals within the core art market view the Internet? Are minds starting to be changed?

MW: As you mentioned in a previous question, there is a tradition in the schematics of art dealings; however, there are core principals of that, which can still be maintained through the use of the internet. I would say that the internet allows for a greater outreach and sense of community.

Having developed a strong following of young patrons,(who I would say have, for the most part, embraced the use of the internet), SCOPE prides itself on utilizing all of the fantastic tools that the internet provides- to reach out to these art enthusiasts, as they assume a more prominent role as collectors.

With all of that being said, I personally very much value the human interaction and dialogues that ensue when discussing and viewing art in person and, therefore, hope that the internet will not conflict with that tradition.

BS: Other ventures, such as MyArtSpace, have placed a focus on the importance of artist social networking-- while others, such as FASO, have placed importance on the need for artists to have personal websites to serve as the spearhead of their online art marketing efforts. What are your thoughts on that? Should emerging artists devote time to social networking? Should they utilize Facebook and Twitter? Should they have a personal website? Do you think a strong presence online will eventually be a key factor in how successful an emerging artist can be overall?

MW: Absolutely. Having a website as an artist is one of the greatest tools for self promotion. It can be your calling card, so to speak, a reference page to refer people to when discussing your art. MyArtSpace is especially interesting as it has established itself as both an extensive database, as well as a networking tool- connecting artists with curators, museums, galleries, patrons, art fairs, etc.

BS: What other insight can you offer concerning the art world we know today? What about predictions for the art world of the future?

MW: There are many components and layers to the art world; and I, therefore, wouldn’t attempt to predict how it would evolve as a whole. I would only reiterate that the art world will continue to reflect the evolution of the global economy, community, and use of technology.

BS: In closing, is there anything else you would like to offer? Perhaps you have some advice for emerging artists in general?

MW: Only to say that there are many resources at your fingertips. Organization and using those resources are going to be key in self-promotion and development. And good luck!

You can learn more about SCOPE Art Show by visiting, http://www.scope-art.com/

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin

This article appears courtesy of FineArtViews blog by FASO. FineArtViews is available as a free email newsletter about art, marketing, inspiration and fine living for artists, collectors and galleries (and anyone else who loves art).

This article originally appeared at:
http://faso.com/fineartviews/26859/fineartviews-interview-mollie-white-show-director-for-scope-art-show

For a complimentary subscription, visit: http://faso.com/art-marketing-newsletter/

Brian Sherwin / Tonya Hoots interview with author Anne Bishop

2011-03-11T08:07:00.000-08:00

The cover of Twilight's Dawn by Anne Bishop.
Cover: Art by Larry Rostand -- Design by Ray Lundgren

Anne Bishop is a New York Times best-selling author. Bishop has steadily made her mark in the fantasy genre since the release of her first novel, Daughter of the Blood, in 1998. Since that time she has authored over a dozen novels, including the award-winning Black Jewels Trilogy. Her most recent novel is Twilight‘s Dawn, a book set in the Black Jewels world.

Anne Bishop is known for creating character driven stories that explore good vs. evil themes-- as well as the complexities of relationships-- in a way that is uniquely hers. The characters and worlds that she has created in her novels are detailed-- bold worlds where a reader can explore his or her own imagination page after page. That is no easy task considering that the fantasy genre is often burdened with mediocre concepts, dry characters, and familiar plots.

Due to Anne Bishop’s originality she is considered by many to be one of the most influential fantasy storytellers writing today. Bishop offered her time to answer a few questions about her writing process, influences, and advice that she has for emerging authors.

Brian Sherwin: Anne, your books are known for meshing themes of sensuality and violence-- The Black Jewels series is a perfect example. In your opinion, what do you think attracts readers to these extremes within the context of your novels?

Anne Bishop: I can’t speak for other people, but sensuality and violence were not an unusual mix in the historical romances I was reading twenty years ago. So for someone who liked fantasy, horror, romance and “women‘s fiction,” putting elements of those genres together to create a violent, sensual, gritty world wasn’t that big of a jump. I think the attraction is being able to take a ride with powerful, dangerous characters in a place that exists only in imagination--the supreme exotic locale. It is writing about the play of human emotions--the joys and triumphs as well as the heartaches and failures--in an otherworldly setting that intrigues me. Perhaps that is the same reason readers are drawn to the stories.

Tonya Hoots: What do you think attracts readers to the fantasy genre in general? Why, in your opinion, do people need fantasy within their lives?

AB: Fantasy contains boundless possibilities. It contains the delight--and the fear--of things that are Other. In a background where anything can happen, the things we fear can be given tangible form and be defeated (sometimes). We also have a chance to explore the human heart without the constraints, and pain, of the real world. Wonder exists within the boundaries of the genre, and that makes it fun.

BS: Your novels tend to place more of a focus on relationships and characters than on hard-line adventure that many fantasy authors tend to focus on. What interests you about solid character development and exploring the relationships of characters in general?

AB: While I enjoy straight action/adventure stories once in a while, I mostly read stories to tag along with characters I like while they’re having an adventure. If I can’t connect with the main characters or they don’t intrigue me in some way, the story isn’t as enjoyable. So basically I write character-driven stories because those are the kind of stories I like to read.

TH: With that in mind, of the characters you have created within the context of your stories which do you tend to associate the most with-- and why? Do you have favorites?

AB: I identify with all the characters to some degree, good and bad. I have to see with their eyes and live in their skins in order to tell their parts of the story. Some days that is a very uncomfortable thing to do. Favorites? Daemon Sadi from the Black Jewels books. Sebastian from the Ephemera books. Morag from the Tir Alainn books.

BS: Tell us about your writing process. For example, when working on a new novel do you follow a specific formula for the progression of the novel or do you write in a more loose-- dare I say sporadic-- nature? Do you start out with a complex set of ideas to draw upon or do you keep things simple during the early stages of a novel?

AB: I would describe my writing process as happy accidents combined with rummaging through the mental attics combined with playing in a fenced-in yard. In other words, an image or idea will intrigue me enough to wonder about it or want to play with it. Then I let that image or idea float in the brain, attracting other images and ideas. Some things fit; some things don't.

When that world or place gains sufficient “weight,” I begin to make conscious decisions and choices about how things work--magic systems, character personalities, what the land looks like. I decide what rules the world, people, magic, etc. have to follow (and that I, as the storyteller, have to follow). Then I start telling the story to see what happens because I learn at least half of what I need to know about the world as I tell the story.

My stories are very organic and can take months or even years to develop, but once I reach the point where it‘s time to write, I write four days a week and have a set quota of words that needs to be met every week in order to make my deadline. The other days I spend taking care of mundane tasks, Life, and writing business, as well as gathering information I’ll need for the next scenes I’ll be writing. Basically, once I start a story, I’m always in the story to some degree, even when I’m not at the keyboard.

TH: Do you prefer to write a series-- such as The Black Jewels trilogy --or stand alone novels? Furthermore, can you discuss some of the complexities you face when writing a series as compared to writing a stand alone novel? Is there a difference in your writing approach from one to the other? Which is more challenging in your opinion?

AB: I’ve never given any thought to the difference between series and stand alone. All stories need a character, a place, and a conflict; they need a beginning, a middle, and an end--or at least a resolution of the secondary story arch if the big arch spans several books. So I write stories. Some of them are 1000 words long; some require three books.

My approach to building the story up to the point of writing isn’t any different. The main difference is that a novel is a marathon, a pouring out of creative energy over months to go from first sentence to last. Something smaller, like a novella, provides some resting time before the next project and can be less demanding physically.

BS: Can you discuss some of your influences? Furthermore, do you draw inspiration from visual art or other forms of self-expression such as music?

AB: There were a lot of early influences. Rod Serling, Alfred Hitchcock, Robert Bloch, Ray Bradbury, and Jane Austen. The Black Stallion books by Walter Farley, and the Anne of Green Gables books by L.M. Montgomery. Andre Norton’s books showed me that stories could take place beyond Earth and could be about people who are not from our world. And there were the Brothers Grimm and Bullfinch’s Mythology. In general, every book I’ve ever read has taught me something about Story.

As for inspiration from other forms, pieces of my worlds have been shaped because of a photograph or picture I saw in a book or magazine. Tir Alainn began because of a cloud formation that looked like the cliffs of another land sitting on the horizon. The fire dance in The Invisible Ring was inspired by a
Loreena McKennitt song. There is no rhyme or reason for what produces the vibe that translates into Story, but when something does tug at me, I pay attention.

TH: What are you working on at this time? Can you give us some insight into your future goals?

AB: I’m finishing up the third book in my Ephemera world. After I turn it in, I’ll see what ideas are ready to bloom into stories.

BS: Finally, do you have any advice for authors who are having difficulty getting published? Furthermore, do you have any advice for developing characters that readers will associate with? Do you have any words of wisdom for emerging authors in general?

AB: Patience and persistence are writing tools just as much as the ability to create characters and plot. Keep writing and submitting your work. Keep working to improve your skills with every story you write. Learn how to do the nuts and bolts of your craft so that you can focus more on creating the characters and story--and getting what you see in your head on the page. It can take years of effort to break into the professional market, so first and always, write because you want to write.

You can learn more about Anne Bishop and her novels by visiting her personal website at www.annebishop.com

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin & Tonya Hoots

The arts writers ‘strike’ against the Huffington Post is absurd!

2011-03-03T03:03:00.000-08:00

The arts writers ‘strike’ against the Huffington Post is absurd!

On March 1st I read an article on The LA Times‘ Culture Monster blog titled, ‘Arts writers declare ‘strike‘ against Huffington Post‘. The article explored a ‘strike’ declared by writers for the websites ArtScene and Visual Art Source against the Huffington Post. Long story short-- the ArtScene and Visual Art Source writers agreed to be volunteer bloggers for the Huffington Post in 2010. They agreed with the understanding that the content they provided would not be paid for. Furthermore, they agreed knowing in advance that they would not be considered employed by the Huffington Post. Apparently this agreement is now in the wind. The volunteer art writers want paid-- and they are waving the banner of writers rights to position themselves as victims.

The call for ’strike’ was prompted by the Huffington Post’s recent sale to AOL for a reported $315 million. It appears that the volunteer contributors from ArtScene and Visual Art Source feel that their free contributions to the Huffington Post deserve some credit for that sale. My understanding is that these writers did not provide original content for Huffington Post-- they simply agreed to have their content republished on the site. That said, the writers-- according to Culture Monster-- are demanding that a pay schedule be proposed and initiated for all contributing writers and bloggers. Furthermore, the writers are demanding that paid promotional material be removed from editorial content. As an art writer I feel that their demands are ridiculous.

Upon reading the Culture Monster article I was quick to respond. However, my comment has yet to be moderated-- though I notice that comments made after my contribution have appeared. I can only assume that for whatever reason my comment did not make the cut. My comment below:

“I think a few of you need to cut the BS. You may want to cut this BS (me) after I get done saying what I want to say. Ha! Anyway, I'm an art writer-- I write for pay or I write for myself. If I write for free it is because I'm benefiting in some way. All of you knew what you were signing on for. You all benefited from a platform that helped you to receive a constant flow of readers-- numbers that most of you would have been unable to accomplish on your own. That is why you agreed to write for free. So cut the BS.

It is unethical to take on a free writing gig-- the reward being a high level of exposure for your writing-- only to end up demanding pay. You should have had the details worked out from the start-- or simply refused. The fact remains that there are many art writers who would gladly take on the level of exposure that you have all enjoyed.

"Being asked"... would you jump off a cliff if someone asked you to do it? I have to ask-- why did you agree to write for Huffington Post if you were not happy with the terms in the first place?”

Obviously my comment is borderline controversial since there is this idea floating around that all art writers should ban together in the face of opposition. For example, I discussed the issue on my Facebook page and a commenter was quick to play the victim card for the ArtScene and Visual Art Source writers, stating, “Will the Huf-Po still be a viable source of good info? I don’t understand how big companies can swallow little ones up and claim to be streamline... its like "BIG GOVERNMENT".. Doesn’t work for today's economics.”. Needless to say, I was not overly impressed with this persons view on the issue. He, like many, have missed the point-- that being that said writers willfully agreed to the terms knowing in advance that they would not be compensated.

These writers and the two websites involved were not ‘swallowed’ by the Huffington Post-- they agreed to provide content for free. It is not like the Huffington Post forced them to provide content. At the time I’m certain these art writers agreed to the terms out of desire for exposure and being included on a popular media site.

Will the Huffington Post still be able to provide viable art content if these writers leave? My guess is that there are hundreds of other art bloggers who write just as well who would gladly write for free in order to gain the exposure that these writers were first attracted to. It is not an uncommon practice-- contributing for free in exchange for exposure and being associated with a top brand. In other words, Huffington Post will not have a hard time replacing these volunteer writers if needed. Not to mention that sites in general rarely pay to re-post content if in fact that was the extent of their contribution.

The key point to remember is that these writers agreed to the terms. They agreed to provide content for free. If they desired money they should have stated that from the start. Now they are waving the banner of writers rights in order to gain support for paid positions-- when they knew from day one that it was not a paid position. As you can tell-- I'm frustrated by the unprofessional behavior these writers are displaying.

A few of these writers are claiming that Huffington Post is insulting all writers. Fair enough-- but they forget to stress that they knew what they were signing on to when they agreed to provide content. Their behavior is like doing community service only to demand a tip! To me that is unethical-- these writers, in my opinion, need to question their own integrity. Their behavior is very manipulative-- they are trying to muscle the Huffington Post by playing on our heart-strings. The ode of the poor writer... what did they expect? They agreed to provide content without compensation!

I have focused on art writing for half a decade-- the blunt of which has involved writing for online art-focused companies. I know how the game is played-- and, having been a Senior Editor in the past, I know how demanding volunteer writers can be. Honestly, if these writers don’t like the terms of their agreement they should just part ways instead of trying to shake down the Huffington Post.

The 'striking' writers are playing the worlds smallest violin-- and anyone who has worked in this industry can see that for what it is! They agreed with the terms offered by the Huffington Post because they wanted exposure-- and it is highly likely that they would have never enjoyed the exposure they have had if it were not for their involvement with the Huffington Post. It is almost as if these art writers are crying foul after they have already enjoyed their side of the bargain.

It would be different if the Huffington Post once paid them and stopped suddenly. As a writer I’ve had that happen to me in past-- and I parted ways with that company soon after. However, that is not the case here. These writers were not duped. They were not tricked. They knew what they were doing-- and they did it for exposure. Suddenly exposure is not enough. Fine. Part ways instead of making a controversy where there is none.

We live in an age of cultivated controversy. People are quick to wave the banner of their assumed rights when in reality greed is the motivation. The economy is tough-- these writers no doubt want more income rolling in. However, making absurd statements that fly in the face of the terms they agreed to is not the way to handle it in my opinion. If they expected pay they should not have signed on to work a free gig in exchange for high exposure and high brand association. It is as simple as that. They took advantage of themselves and now they play the role of victim!

In closing, call me a jerk if you want-- but the art writers 'striking' at Huffington Post knew what they were signing up for. They are either naive OR it is a pr stunt. Perhaps the powers that be at ArtScene and Visual Art Source should be questioned about that? That would be a more interesting controversy to expose-- if one exists-- rather than the absurd call for ‘strike’ that these writers have hyped. Furthermore, perhaps someone should explore why Culture Monster has apparently been very selective about which comments pass moderation. Is it California art writers protecting California art writers from criticism? There-- I just cultivated a controversy-- though I don’t think it is as absurd as the demands being made of the Huffington Post.

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin

Interview with Alan Bamberger

2011-02-10T08:40:00.000-08:00

FineArtViews Interview: Alan Bamberger -- Art Appraiser, Consultant, and Author by Brian Sherwin

This article is by Brian Sherwin , Regular contributing writer for FineArtViews. Brian Sherwin is an art critic, blogger, curator, artist and writer based near Chicago, Illinois. He has been published in Hi Fructose Magazine, Illinois Times, and other publications, and linked to by publications such as The Boston Globe, Juxtapoz Magazine, Deutsche Bank ArtMag, ARTLURKER, Myartspace, Blabbermouth, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Modern Art Obsession, Citizen LA, Shark Forum, Two Coats of Paint and Art Fag City. You should submit an article and share your views as a guest author by clicking here.

Brian Sherwin: Alan, you have been an art consultant since 1985 and have written about art business since 1983. You are also known throughout San Francisco for being an astute art critic. Thus, you have no doubt observed how art marketing has changed over the years-- specifically since the advent of the Internet and the bombardment of social media that our lives tend to be linked to today. In general, what are your thoughts concerning the meshing of traditional art marketing with the Internet?

Alan Bamberger: The internet is an incredibly valuable tool; use it. Artists can reach more people than ever with their work-- no matter where they live-- as long as they have an internet connection. You don't necessarily have to be in a big city anymore, or know the right people, or play the game according to other people's rules. If you have talent and you put it out there into the electronic ether, sooner or later they'll find you.

BS: Would you say that the Internet has made your job as an art consultant easier? Or does technology-- in general-- spur challenges that were not present before? If so, can you explain?

AB: The Internet has made it far easier for me to put my point of view out there. My writing is generally not the type of writing that arts publications chase after-- because it's not the kind of writing that contributes to advertising revenues. But I don't write to contribute to someone else's advertising revenues. I write to help people understand the art world better. And that's another reason why publications aren't that thrilled with the stuff I write-- plenty of arts professionals don't want educated clienteles; it's easier for them to take advantage of people who don't know anything.

My goal is to inform people with my writing-- to make them better artists or collectors or people who just plain appreciate art. So readers get exposed to my point of view, hopefully they learn stuff that they didn't know, and if they like what they read, they hire me-- and plenty of them do. It's just that simple.

BS: In your opinion, what are the advantages and disadvantages of utilizing social networking and a personal website for art marketing and exposure efforts-- specifically in regards to the efforts of emerging artists who are seeking recognition for their artwork? Is it important for an artist to be active on social networking websites like Facebook and to have a personal website?

AB: Advantages: You show your art, you place it in context, you give a little background information about yourself, and you let people decide for themselves whether they want to know more. You keep on producing and adding to your website or Facebook page or Flickr page or whatever-- CONSTANTLY-- so that people can see you're dedicated, productive, and committed to being an artist. And don't ever give up!

Disadvantages: Some artists get caught up in this "Look at my art and tell me what you think" kind of presentation-- soliciting responses, constantly asking people to do stuff for them, give them free advice, talk about them and their art (and nothing else), and rarely giving anything in return. If you approach the Internet like that, all you become is a pest.

BS: As an art writer what is your opinion of the success of art blogs compared to traditional art publications? Do you feel that art blogs are having an impact on art criticism as far as the public is concerned? Do you think that specific art bloggers will find their place in the history of art writing?

AB: Blogs work. But you have to dedicate yourself to it, post regularly, develop your own unique perspective or story line, and keep at it. That's how you get readership; that's how you get a profile. Back in the old days, the main way people got their art news was through a very limited selection of publications-- or from the local newspaper's art critic. Now it's a free-for-all. Anyone can play the game, and as with all games, the best players inevitably win.

BS: What advice do you have for emerging artists in general? Do you have any suggestions for gaining exposure or selling art?

AB: An art dealer once told me, "No art sells itself." And he's right, but that doesn't mean you hawk it like timeshares or used cars. Perhaps the most important key to "selling" art is giving people reasons to care. With all the other stuff out there for people to care about, why should they care about your art? Why do you care about your art? That's a great place to start.

If you can convey and convince, in a simple sentence or two, why people should care about your art the way that you care about it-- you make sales. The same can be said for gaining exposure online or in a more traditional manner. You have to give people reasons to care. I offer hundreds of pages of advice on my site.

BS: Point blank-- who are the most influential artists exhibiting at this time in your opinion?

AB: I don't see art that way. An artist may produce a brilliant body of work one year and a complete yawner the next. I prefer the overview-- watching everything happen at once, witnessing the evolutionary progression of it all, experiencing the totality of artists making art and of people responding to it. I could care less who's doing what this week... or next week... or the week after.

BS: As for the services that you offer-- do you work with emerging artists or do you prefer to work with artists who have traveled a few blocks on their own, so to speak?

AB: I work with anyone who's committed to making art and to surviving as an artist.

BS: Finally, what advice do you have for art collectors who are interested in discovering new talent online-- but are nervous to take that first leap of making an online purchase? Furthermore, do you think e-Commerce is a valid edition to art marketing in general-- or should artists focus on traditional routes for sales?

AB: Buying art with a keyboard and mouse is the new frontier of collecting. I cover this in Chapter 11 of my book The Art of Buying Art. The chapter covers basic facts about how online art buying works, how it differs from buying art in traditional ways, and how to progress from looking at art for sale to locating art you like and considering specific pieces for possible purchase.

This much I will say about buying art online-- you have to know what you're doing, know what you're looking for, know what you're looking at, be able to ask the right questions and evaluate the answers, be able to research what you're thinking about buying (not just take the seller's word for it), corroborate any claims that sellers make, and on and on. If you're an amateur who thinks you're going to beat the Internet bushes for bargains, think again. There's no shortage of unscrupulous sellers lying in wait for suckers like you.

To learn more about Alan Bamberger, visit his website at www.artbusiness.com.

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin

This article appears courtesy of FineArtViews by Canvoo, a free email newsletter about art, marketing, inspiration and fine living for artists, collectors and galleries (and anyone else who loves art).

This article originally appeared at:
http://canvoo.com/blog/26582/fineartviews-interview-alan-bamberger-art-appraiser-consultant-and-author

For a complimentary subscription, visit: http://canvoo.com/fineartviews/

Artists Need to Face Reality: What is Success?

2011-01-30T14:57:00.000-08:00

How to be Truly Successful as an Artist by Brian Sherwin

This article is by Brian Sherwin , Regular contributing writer for FineArtViews. Brian Sherwin is an art critic, blogger, curator, artist and writer based near Chicago, Illinois. He has been published in Hi Fructose Magazine, Illinois Times, and other publications, and linked to by publications such as The Boston Globe, Juxtapoz Magazine, Deutsche Bank ArtMag, ARTLURKER, Myartspace, Blabbermouth, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Modern Art Obsession, Citizen LA, Shark Forum, Two Coats of Paint and Art Fag City. You should submit an article and share your views as a guest author by clicking here.

The reality of being an artist is that success on a grand-scale is often far from reach. It is not uncommon for artists, especially emerging artists, to beat themselves up with worry over why they have not reached what they consider success. It is not hard to become bitter if you spend your time comparing yourself to wealthy famous artists-- especially if you are suffering financially for your dream as so many artists do. Thus, the first step in becoming a truly successful artist is to let go of your art star fantasies and work toward redefining your view of success in a more realistic manner.

I’m of the opinion that it is best for an artist to accept that only a small percentage of creative individuals will rise to become world renowned artists with huge bank accounts in their name. That said, an artist can be successful in his or her own right-- it is all in how we interpret success. Unfortunately, many artists get star struck by a bar that has been raised so high that one could create groundbreaking works of art daily and never reach it.

The fact that so many artists spend their days reaching for that bar to no avail has much to do with the consumer-driven money culture that we live in and the inclusive aspects of major media sources. Thus, the second step toward becoming a truly successful artist is to acknowledge that the value of your art is not found on a price tag, bank statement, or high profile review in an international art publication. The value of your art is found in your will to create no matter what life obstacle is thrown before you.

Point blank: Chances are you will not be as known as Pablo Picasso-- but that does not mean you will never reach a level of fame among your peers or become an influence on others. Chances are you will not be as wealthy as Damien Hirst-- but that does not mean you won’t eventually make a living, or at least establish an alternative source of income, from marketing your artwork. Chances are you won’t find yourself in the art history books of tomorrow-- but that does not mean you should stop seeking being written about today. Thus, the third step toward becoming a truly successful artist is to accept these common truths and to take advantage of realistic opportunities that you can take advantage of today.

In closing, true success for an artist, in my opinion, is the strength to push on with your art when the world is not at your feet. Most artists will never receive the spotlight they deserve-- but an artist can easily leave his or her own mark within the global art community, so to speak. Leave fame and fortune up to chance-- focus on creating art and gaining exposure for your art today. Take as many steps as you need to realize that you can truly be a successful artist beyond the bar that has been placed above you.

----------------------------------------------
This article appears courtesy of FineArtViews by Canvoo, a free email newsletter about art, marketing, inspiration and fine living for artists, collectors and galleries (and anyone else who loves art).

This article originally appeared at:
http://canvoo.com/blog/25557/how-to-be-truly-successful-as-an-artist

For a complimentary subscription, visit: http://canvoo.com/fineartviews/

Does Original Art Exist?

2011-01-27T18:45:00.000-08:00

Art and Art Criticism: The Specter of Originality by Brian Sherwin

This article is by Brian Sherwin , Regular contributing writer for FineArtViews. Brian Sherwin is an art critic, blogger, curator, artist and writer based near Chicago, Illinois. He has been published in Hi Fructose Magazine, Illinois Times, and other publications, and linked to by publications such as The Boston Globe, Juxtapoz Magazine, Deutsche Bank ArtMag, ARTLURKER, Myartspace, Blabbermouth, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Modern Art Obsession, Citizen LA, Shark Forum, Two Coats of Paint and Art Fag City. You should submit an article and share your views as a guest author by clicking here.

Thinking to myself today I pondered on the issue of originality. It is not rare for me to find individuals making bold charges online about how their art or opinion is original-- and just as many more who are quick to suggest the opposite in response to said bold claims. At the heart of the issue I’m left asking, “Does it matter?”. I’ve decided that originality, if anything, is a specter casting itself over society as a whole-- just as it has always done. What is important is the manner in which artists and art critics convey their personal adaptations of past ideas and influences.

The hard-line approach that so many people tend to have concerning how they define originality alarms me-- especially when one considers the bombardment of influences that we all endure on a daily basis. Everyone is born into influence-- we soak in the world around us like a sponge. Thus, to suggest otherwise is to suggest that one is something beyond human-- and I feel that plot is best left for fantasy novels instead of describing one's artwork.

To deny the influences that surround us is to embrace and display ignorance of the human condition. Everyone takes in the influence surrounding them. Think of it this way, if a young child is placed in nature to fiend for herself she may, if she survives, take on the influences of the wild. In other words, she will interpret the traits and meaning behind the behavior of wildlife and convey them in her own manner strictly for survival. In that sense, do we not do the same thing on a daily basis living within the context of society? Do our children not do that when nurtured by a television set? Think about that.

We are constantly hit with a bombardment of ideas and interpret-- and therefore utilize-- those ideas based upon our individual inclination. Thus, that individuality-- the unique way that we solve problems with the information registered within our brain, so to speak-- is as close to originality as we will ever get. If you go by a hard-line definition of originality it is clear that nothing we create is truly original.

With that in mind, the outcome of any form of production-- meaning the work we do, be it a painting or essay focused on art criticism of a painting, does not amount to pure originality. Some where-- some how-- there was a conscious or sub-conscious path of ideas that sparked the thought resulting in said painting or art criticism. In that sense, it is naïve to claim otherwise aside from legal purposes. We humans are natural borrowers as dictated by our intellect and how we put our thoughts to work. Thus, the bold claims of what is, or can be, considered original really boils down to a mute point.

With the quest for originality comes great irony. For example, all attempts to avoid what has been done before-- the concept of avoiding itself-- is not original because others have long taken on that task. Every artist is linked in some way to artists from the past-- even the idea of picking up a brush to paint is learned based on influences. Furthermore, any art critic-- whether ranting about art on the street or writing for a mainstream art publication-- is not exactly being original in his or her presentation. After all, every art critic owes a tip of the hat to La Font de Saint-Yenne and Denis Diderot-- and certainly there were other forms of art criticism long before their writing.

In closing, there is nothing original in saying that nothing can be original-- even that form of criticism has been done long ago. On that same note, there is nothing original about boldly claiming that ones artwork is truly original compared to documented art history as we know it-- because that has been done before as well. Originality is a specter-- one could question, philosophically speaking, if originality exists. What matters is our individual approach and the manner in which we release our experiences and influences upon a canvas or in words. That is the triumph of art and art criticism-- anything else is a moot point spurred by ego.
----------------------------------------------
This article appears courtesy of FineArtViews by Canvoo, a free email newsletter about art, marketing, inspiration and fine living for artists, collectors and galleries (and anyone else who loves art).

This article originally appeared at:
http://canvoo.com/blog/25524/art-and-art-criticism-the-specter-of-originality

For a complimentary subscription, visit: http://canvoo.com/fineartviews/

Brian Sherwin examines how the personal life of an artist shapes the perspective of viewers.

2011-01-27T17:57:00.000-08:00

Artists' Personal Lives: Does it Play a Role in How You View Their Art?
by Brian Sherwin

This article is by Brian Sherwin , Regular contributing writer for FineArtViews. Brian Sherwin is an art critic, blogger, curator, artist and writer based near Chicago, Illinois. He has been published in Hi Fructose Magazine, Illinois Times, and other publications, and linked to by publications such as The Boston Globe, Juxtapoz Magazine, Deutsche Bank ArtMag, ARTLURKER, Myartspace, Blabbermouth, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Modern Art Obsession, Citizen LA, Shark Forum, Two Coats of Paint and Art Fag City. You should submit an article and share your views as a guest author by clicking here.

I was recently involved in a debate concerning the fact that many people appear to make value judgments on art based on knowledge of the artist's personality, beliefs, and life choices. In other words, someone may or may not view a work of art in a positive manner based strictly on what he or she knows about the personal life of the artist behind the artwork. It spurs me to ask, does the personal life of an artist play a factor in how you view his or her artwork for better or for worse? Sometimes it does seem that people critique art solely on what they know about the artist in question instead of focusing on the art itself.

As I stated within the context of the debate I was involved with-- this can even be broken down with famous artists-- for example, many fans of Frida Kahlo note that knowledge of her personal life impacts how they view her art. The same can be said-- for better or worse-- concerning Pablo Picasso and knowledge of the volatile relationships he had. On that note, those who enjoy Mark Rothko's paintings often know details of the hardships he endured-- would people experience strong emotion before his paintings if they were not aware of his struggles and suicide? With that in mind, should art speak for itself-- or can the voice of art, so to speak, be strengthened or weakened by details of the personal life of the artist behind the artwork? This is an issue I feel deserves to be explored by any art admirer.

I can recall a project that I was involved with while taking a college level psychology class that explored this issue. We showed a group of people images of art without saying who the artist behind the artwork was. I recall that we had to make sure that the people involved did not recognize the artist's work. The two artists that stick out in memory happened to be Adolf Hitler and John Lennon-- two names that need no introduction for very different reasons. The goal was simply to see how people reacted with their art criticism after finding out who created the art.

Those who observed Adolf Hitler’s artwork before knowing he was behind the creation of those images were impressed by it-- noting a strong sense of architecture and space. Those who observed John Lennon’s artwork before knowing he was behind the creation of those images were not very impressed at all-- most asking if they were drawings by a child. In fact, I recall that a few individuals doodled quick sketches mocking the examples of Lennon's art that were shown. At that point they were not aware of who created the images.

After showing the work and documenting the views that everyone had we revealed the artists name in connection to the examples of images shown. We then followed up on the study a week later. At that point when Adolf Hitler’s artwork was shown people tended to mock it and mention how it was technically flawed and mediocre as a whole-- completely opposite of what they had said before. When John Lennon’s artwork was shown again people tended to suggest that his works displayed a strong use of line and mastery of gesture drawing-- Lennon went from being viewed as a ‘bad artist‘ to being viewed as highly creative just because his name-- and thus all that is attributed to it-- was revealed. Those who forgot the names of the artists after a week tended to stick with their original statement-- and criticism-- concerning the images.

It was an interesting psychological study to say the least-- I would go as far as to say that it revealed how personality, or the actions of an individual, can influence how people view their art. Prior to knowing the names behind the artwork it is safe to say that a few individuals may have enjoyed Adolf Hitler’s artwork long-term while continuing to mock John Lennon’s artwork. Once the names were revealed-- and thus everything those names represent brought to the table-- people changed their value judgment of the artwork shown. It forces me to wonder how often we do that with other artists.

In closing, I’m not going to suggest whether it is acceptable or not to place value of artwork strictly by what we know about an artists personality and life. That said, the role of knowing said information is obviously an important aspect of how we take in, so to speak, art that is viewed. It leaves me to wonder if the power of art is found in the personality and life choices-- both that of the artist and of the viewer-- or within the image itself. Perhaps it is a meshing of both? Consider this food for thought.

----------------------------------------------
This article appears courtesy of FineArtViews by Canvoo, a free email newsletter about art, marketing, inspiration and fine living for artists, collectors and galleries (and anyone else who loves art).

This article originally appeared at:
http://fineartviews.com/blog/25584/artists-personal-lives-does-it-play-a-role-in-how-you-view-their-art

For a complimentary subscription, visit: http://canvoo.com/fineartviews/

VIP Art Fair Failed? Hype Failed Today -- Thoughts on the Collectors of Tomorrow

2011-01-26T11:12:00.000-08:00

VIP Art Fair Failed? Hype Failed Today -- Thoughts on the Collectors of Tomorrow

Criticism over the implementation of VIP Art Fair has been growing steadily since its January 22nd launch date. The NYC art world rumor-mill suggests that several art dealers involved with VIP are demanding a refund. On top of that-- there are rumors that collectors who experienced the site will no longer deal with VIP in the future due to frustration. Based on comments I’ve read at Art Fag City-- and a few other art blogs covering VIP-- it is clear that people tend to view VIP as an over-hyped and poorly developed venture. Blind praise is quickly turning into frustrated rage.

VIP Art Fair represented a jumping point for the indoctrination of the viability of e-Commerce meshing with traditional art market structures within the mainstream art world . This idea-- this hope-- was enforced by Paddy Johnson of Art Fag City, New York gallery owner Edward Winkleman, and several other influential art bloggers as well as notable art magazines in print. Many of these art writers have been known to be skeptical of art sites that focus on selling art online in the past. There must have been something about VIP Art Fair that opened their eyes to the importance of exploring online market structures within the context of the mainstream art world.

I suppose what attracted the blunt of these writers to VIP Art Fair--compared to other online ventures they have scoffed at in past-- happened to be the people behind its creation. Mainly the founders-- Jane and James Cohan-- individuals who are close to the pulse of the NYC art world. I always find it interesting how support for an idea from key individuals tends to unlock the perspectives of those who travel in the same circles. That said, name recognition can only go so far.

Due to name recognition alone-- after all, little was revealed about the structure of VIP Art Fair early on-- VIP was able to attract 140 art dealers with over 9,000 works of art listed on the site-- some of which were priced at over one million dollars. That said, name recognition alone does not always amount to a well designed website-- anyone who visits Saatchi Online realizes that in a heartbeat. Name recognition, if anything, tends to spur hype. Needless to say, the hype built up over VIP Art Fair was high-- I suggest that is largely due to the micro-celebrity appeal of the creators of the site rather than the concept. The concept itself is not exactly original.

One thing I found interesting about the blunt of articles written about VIP Art Fair is the blind ignorance that so many writers revealed concerning the concept of selling art online. Most showed little to no knowledge of how long e-Commerce and art have meshed together. Some went as far as to suggest that VIP Art Fair is “revolutionary” for offering art within the scope of e-Commerce. Others defined the site as “groundbreaking” or “thinking outside of the box.”. True, the focus of being an online art fair is interesting-- but aside from that the art dealers involved could have found many of the same capabilities on other art sites.

Honestly, after reading several articles about VIP Art Fair it is clear that a few writers thought this was the first time a site was designed to promote and sale art online. In other words, most mainstream art world writers appear to be clueless about an aspect of the art market that has been around for over a decade in various forms-- an aspect of the market that artists have long embraced. With that in mind, it is almost as if these writers want to change history-- to make art dealers the gatekeepers of the online aspect of the art market.

Did VIP Art Fair pave the way for selling art online? No. I realize that some individuals would like to think otherwise-- but that is simply not the case. Artists-- and even a number of art dealers-- have been selling art utilizing the Internet for over a decade. In that time they have been scoffed at by core circles of the mainstream art world-- called “amateurs” or worse. Furthermore, many entrepreneurs have explored-- and continue to explore-- the potential of creating and maintaining an online path of art marketing. Most of the popular art sites that focus on selling art online have been around long before the Cohan’s dreamed of VIP Art Fair. Most of them have endured the worst form of criticism from the mainstream art world-- in that they were not shown consideration for their efforts. That said, I will say that the hype surrounding VIP Art Fair has proved one thing for certain-- there is a clear line of bias within the mainstream art world.. One that exists physically as well as virtually.

To be fair I will say that the fate of VIP Art Fair can’t be decided so quickly in a negative manner. Good site design often involves a trial run of mistakes and errors. Thus, writers should be cautious of criticizing VIP Art Fair harshly-- especially when one considers that the site was launched less than a week ago. Launching a website can be compared to a trial by fire. If VIP takes it one step at a time they may end up with a winner after the smoke of criticism has cleared.

As it stands, one can assume that VIP has already introduced art collectors who would have otherwise not considered buying art online to the possibility of that process being a viable addition to the global art market. If those collectors can’t find what they are looking for on VIP Art Fair perhaps they will find it on other art sites that offer e-Commerce capabilities or-- dare I say it-- purchase directly from an artist after viewing his or her personal website. In that sense, VIP Art Fair sowed seeds of change within the mainstream art world that may benefit artists overall in the long-term.

VIP Art Fair may have failed in the short-term. However, the implications of what VIP Art Fair could mean toward introducing high profile art buyers to the potential of buying art online is a true success. I’m certain that curious VIP visitors may end up exploring what other art sites have to offer. People also need to keep in mind that a younger generation of art collectors is just on the horizon. I predict that the art collectors of tomorrow will bypass gallery structures all together in order to buy directly from artists online. Perhaps the art dealers involved with VIP Art Fair realize this possibility and are hoping to stake a claim.

In closing, the art collectors of tomorrow will expect the mainstream art world to be ‘connected’-- they will no doubt scoff at art galleries and other art world related ventures that fail to utilize the Internet head-on. They will certainly expect artists to have a personal website. Furthermore, the art collectors/buyers of tomorrow will have been raised frequenting many of the art sites that the traditionalists of the mainstream art world scoff at today. Who knows-- the mega art collector of tomorrow could be a teenager using DeviantArt at this very moment or a baby laying in her crib as her parents peruse VIP Art Fair..

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin

The Hypocrisy of Our Times: Political Rhetoric fuels opinions against Political Rhetoric and Gives Strength to Censorship

2011-01-11T10:14:00.000-08:00

The Hypocrisy of Our Times: Political Rhetoric fuels opinions against Political Rhetoric and Gives Strength to Censorship

I try my best to stay out of politics-- sometimes it can be very hard to do… Especially when art writers that I know tap into stories that spark national outcry in order to twist the story in a manner that promotes their own political views. That said, the recent tragedy in Arizona has revealed the hypocrisy that is crippling our nation as a whole. What could be used as common ground to discuss the importance of supporting mental health, community, and personal responsibility is instead being used to point fingers of political blame.

The key problem is simple-- and all too common. Individuals are using this tragedy to empower their political motivations and leanings instead of discussing the one fact that we all know--- that the killer, Jared Loughner, was mentally unstable and that individuals in his life failed to offer him help and support that may have prevented the tragedy that occurred in Arizona. I don’t think anyone can be blamed for Loughner’s choice-- however, I will say that perhaps his family, friends, and community could have done more to help him… Especially since it is apparent than many individuals in his life were aware of his personal problems.

What interests me about this situation is that both sides of the political fence are trying to play the killer, Jared Loughner, as being an extremist in order to support their own political agenda. Supporters of the political left are claiming that Loughner is a “gun-totting right-winger with racist views” while supporters of the political right are claiming that he is a “left-winger fueled by anti-Christian and anti-American ideology”. The common ground-- as far as I observe-- is that both sides of the political fence are claiming that political rhetoric spurred Loughner’s brutal action-- which left several individuals dead or injured. Unfortunately, writers are choosing to rail against political rhetoric with political rhetoric-- which is unto itself a form of defeatism no matter how you try to slice it.

It may very well be true that political rhetoric sparked something in Jared Loughner’s troubled mind. However, Loughner’s mental troubles were obviously present long before the new wave of young politicians, specifically the likes of Sarah Palin and Gabrielle Giffords, were at the forefront of key national debate. That said, it alarms me that individuals, even within the core art blogging community, are trying to twist the details of Loughner’s motivations in order to show support for the political ideology they adhere to. For example, I know of one writer who has stated that Loughner is a “right-wing extremist” and that Republican politician Sarah Palin should “take responsibility” for Loughner’s actions since she used promotional material depicting gun crosshairs over Rep. Gabrielle Giffords district.

The problem with fighting political rhetoric with political rhetoric is that it often reveals hypocrisy-- at least to those who are able to think for themselves. That goes 10 fold when a writer based within the mainstream art world chimes in on a story like this for political gain. I say that because the mainstream art world has been fueled by political rhetoric for decades-- it has thrived on political rhetoric… specifically left-wing political rhetoric. Thus, I find it both shocking and amusing when an influential art writer suggests that individuals should be held ethically, civilly, and criminally responsible for the political rhetoric they release upon the public visually if violence occurs. It amazes me to observe how quick some people will rush to open Pandora’s box.

Have people forgotten all of the artwork and art exhibits that involved images of President Bush in situations that involved great peril? What about artwork that targeted Sarah Palin in ways that one could interpret as being derogatory toward women in general? What about all of the artwork that one could interpret as calling for the end of Christianity? If Sarah Palin should accept blame for Jared Loughner’s actions and “step away from politics”-- or be charged with some form of hate crime as others have suggested-- does that mean that artists, curators, and gallery owners should accept blame-- or be charged with some form of hate crime-- if a mentally unstable individual targets Bush or other individuals who fall on the opposite side of the political fence? Who is to blame if a mentally unstable individual blows up a Christian church shortly after viewing an art exhibit that depicts Christianity in a derogatory manner? I’d say the individual who resorts to violence is to blame-- especially when there is no warning sign in advance.

One can easily connect the social dots in order to find potential reasons for violent behavior. Unfortunately, that connecting of the dots often diverts attention away from the real issue at hand-- in this case, the fact that Jared Loughner is mentally unstable to begin with. Loughner’s adherence to specific political, social, and religious views does not change the fact that he is mentally disturbed. That said, reason is not a factor if someone is truly mentally unstable. In a sense, Jared Loughner is beyond reason-- which can be hard for a rational individual to understand.

I think people need to focus more on individual responsibility instead of waving fingers of blame-- especially if they are pointing simply to serve their own political motivations. A mentally unstable individual may or may not have a clear motive when he or she commits violent actions against another person or group. Furthermore, I think it is a very dangerous game to play when respected members of the mainstream art community suggest that certain political imagery should be censored in order to cater to the sensitivities of mentally unstable individuals such as Jared Loughner.

The issue at hand should not be about whether Sarah Palin was irresponsible with her choice of promotional imagery. Until more is revealed that suggestion is nothing more than forced connection of the dots, so to speak. Placing blame on Palin is simply a distraction from the obvious-- the fact that Jared Loughner is mentally unstable. Palin’s image may or may not have triggered his actions in the same way that a violent movie or episode of a children’s cartoon may or may not have triggered his actions. In the end it still boils down to choice-- his choice.

In closing, for all we know a spilt cup of coffee that morning may have spurred his final decision. Yet people blame an image-- a choice in design. People blame others-- they make a killer into a victim based on the possible influence an image may have had on him. People call for those behind the creation and use of the image to be punished. That, to me, is the equivalent of playing Russian roulette with political censorship. With that mentality the image that is censored tomorrow may be your own. People need to accept that politicians, like artists, benefit from the freedom of speech and expression that is grounded in our Constitution.

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin

Articles by Brian Sherwin on FineArtViews update 1

2011-01-09T05:49:00.000-08:00

I’m taking this time to inform my readers about articles that I have written for FineArtViews. FineArtViews is a free daily e-newsletter about art marketing by Clint Watson. Watson, a former owner of a national art gallery, is an expert at selling art and the founder of FASO-- a site dedicated to creating affordable websites for visual artists.

FineArtViews offers an eclectic combination of articles that focus on various aspects of art marketing and creation. Below are a few topics that I’ve written about for FineArtViews-- feel free to click on the titles in order to read these articles at the FAV blog.

Art and Art Criticism: The Specter of Originality by Brian Sherwin

Copyright Registration: Protecting Yourself as Well as Your Collectors by Brian Sherwin

Artist Websites: The Pillar of Your Social Networking and Online Art Marketing Efforts by Brian Sherwin

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin

Art Museums: Compromise is the Key to Public Support for Art

2011-01-06T07:08:00.000-08:00

Art Museums: Compromise is the Key to Public Support for Art

Towards the end of 2010 situations involving the motivation behind specific works of art and arguments over art museum exhibit content were at the forefront of many online debates within the circle of artists and art writers that I frequent. Debate concerning these issues are common throughout the year-- sparked by one controversy or the other. However, the end of 2010 brought with it an ignited powder-keg of hardcore debate. One could say that the year in art went out with a bang. That said, it is my hope that the dialogue continues-- specifically, the conversation about what should be expected from public funded art museums and other public funded art spaces.

Concern for public reaction, interpretation, and point-blank outrage is often at the core of these issues. The situations and names of those involved change-- but the heart of the debate is often the same. Very few solutions are agreed upon in this on-going cultural struggle-- mainly because those within the context of the debate tend to adhere to one political/social/religious extreme or the other. The conflict of viewpoints concerning art is so solidified that finding common ground is nearly impossible. In fact, the few who offer balance are often lashed out at by all sides of the so-called culture war.

With all of this in mind I think it is important to focus on the spearhead of these issues-- which happens to be the public at large. After all, a work of art-- or an entire art exhibit for that matter-- fails to be controversial if a portion of the public does not find it offensive. Thus, the struggles facing art/museum culture can’t really be appreciated unless we consider why some portions of the public in general appear to be anti-art. I am of the opinion that throwing words like ‘bigot’ around as if they are answers is simply lazy.

In my opinion, the problem facing art in the United States is that the public-- in general-- has failed to view artwork as one the purest displays of our personal liberty. The public-- in general-- has failed to view art as a symbol of the freedom we all share. This goes 10 fold for artwork that conveys a message that conflicts with our individual viewpoints.

I believe there are key factors that muddy the waters of our creative reserves:

* By indulging in the freedom and choices that we enjoy we have inadvertently become a nation that clings so tightly to what we consider our personal rights and privileges that we often fly in the face of those same freedoms and choices-- displayed in opposing ways-- by fellow citizens. We have forgot to be tolerant of the diversity that is spurred by our Constitution-- which is itself an example of cooperative understanding and mutual compromise.

Our nation was designed to offer choices. True, there have been many snags throughout our history-- slavery for example-- however, the focus of the Constitution has always been on individual choice. With that in mind, it goes without saying that we should respect the choices of others-- even when it comes to art.

* I think the public-- in general-- is tired of seeing the limited space that is available for art, specifically public funded spaces, used as an obvious front for one political/social agenda or the other. Art exhibits tend to cater to one-sided social and political extremes-- which is acceptable. That said, it is not acceptable when a public funded art exhibit spaces tend to exhibit the same one-sided social, political, or religious views throughout the year. At some point the one-sidedness becomes a whitewashing of our collective history. The end result-- some individuals grow to have no interest in art.

It should come as no surprise that some individuals are not supportive of art when you consider that their viewpoints are constantly mocked in the spaces they help fund. As it stands, there are portions of the population who have to sit back while their lifestyle choice, religious choice, and political choice are constantly bombarded negatively by institutions that should, in my opinion, represent them just as much as they represent others within the context of our diverse society.

Point blank-- the diversity of opinions and ideas that form the foundation of our nation is rarely acknowledged within these public funded exhibit locations. (I do realize that sometimes that is to be expected depending on the mission of the space). I have no doubt that this plays a major factor in why so many taxpayers loathe the fact that their hard earned money is used to fund institutions that offer space for art exhibits-- or fund art exhibits directly-- that oppose their personal views and choices be it political, social, or religious. If the complexity of opposing views were truly honored I feel that more people would say “I get that!” to themselves when visiting art museums and other locations that tend to receive public funding for art.

Unfortunately, portions of the population are not represented visually in these public funded spaces-- and I don‘t think they will be anytime soon. Anyone who truly supports our freedom and liberty should be disgusted by the stranglehold of political, social, and religious-- anti or otherwise-- thought that is currently dominating our public funded institutions. We should expect a true reflection of who we are as a people visually when visiting these locations. These public funded spaces-- specifically museums displaying artwork by living artists-- should not be used as a source of, dare I say it, one-sided propaganda that fosters cultural and historic trickery.

The fact remains that the majority of art museums receive public funding as well as the benefit of tax exemption of donations of money and art. With hundreds of thousands of dollars coming in from government grants and other sources I fail to see why so many art museums have not acquired artwork by a variety of living artists that represent the diversity of social, political, and religious thought that has made our nation what it is today. I don’t buy into the suggestion that all ‘good’ artists and ‘good’ art falls into one political or social box-- anyone who can put their own social, political, and religious thoughts aside with respect for liberty as whole would agree. With liberty comes compromise-- sadly, we are seeing little to no compromise within the majority of art museums nationwide.

Art museums have an educational, curatorial, and scholarly mission that is far more than a string of pretty words used to snare grants and other sources of funding. Our museums, in general, should be expected to adhere to the mission they have set forth. True, there are museums devoted to specific social, political, or religious ways of thinking-- but there are many more that should be focusing on a wide range of viewpoints visually. Sadly, many professionals working within museums obscure the mission of the institution they represent by tossing it aside for their own restrictive bias.

I’m sure some of you are asking yourselves “How does this situation change-- how do we get the public, as a whole, to support art?”. I don’t have all the answers-- but I certainly have an opinion on the matter-- the blunt of which would involve activism in the form of contacting political representatives and museum directors to express our concerns and requests:

* In my opinion the directors of art museums should not be allowed to use their position for political grandstanding. It often seems that museum directors cultivate social, political, or religious one-sidedness if you look just under the surface in regards to the art exhibits that take place. Our art museums should be places of research and education that uphold a clear observation of the various viewpoints concerning society, politics, and religion that dominate our culture. Anything less, as I mentioned earlier, is cultural and historic trickery spurred by one-sided zealotry.

To put it bluntly, there are many people who are turned off by art simply because the extreme views of a single individual can influence the direction of a museum as a whole. If an art museum director is unable to place his or her social, political, or religious bias aside he or she should be fired immediately and replaced by someone who will hopefully acknowledge the complexities of our liberty. After all, museum directors are technically serving the public as a whole. Again, I do realize that some museums have a specific social, political, or religious mission-- thus, I want it to be clear that I’m talking about museums that do not have a solid direction in that regard.

* In order to continue receiving public funding it is my opinion that art museums-- and other forms of public funded art spaces-- should be expected to acknowledge a true sense of diversity as reflected in the variety of art exhibits that take place throughout the year. In other words, art museums should be expected-- if continued public funding is desired-- to display a wide range of social, political, and religious viewpoints visually or endure a 100% cut in public funding.

The reality of facing a 100% cut would no doubt spur art museums toward utilizing art exhibit curators from various backgrounds of social, political, and religious thought. Again, I’m talking about museums and other public funded art exhibit spaces that don’t have a specific social, political, or religious direction as supported by the mission of the museum or alternative exhibit space in general.

* There should be a stronger focus on exhibiting regional significant artworks with the same acknowledgement and respect that is shown to nationally significant works of art. In other words, if you want the public to be excited about visual art you must tap into their surroundings. Devoting more art exhibits to ‘local’ artists-- or acquiring local art for the museums collection-- would no doubt foster a stronger bond of communication about art within the community itself.

This approach would also be of historic and cultural relevance since it would document the visual history of specific areas while making artists who may have otherwise been unknown into household names within their surrounding communities. It would foster a sense of pride about art and the exploration of art in general.

Obviously key professionals within the mainstream art world don’t want this change in what is expected from art museums and other public funded art exhibit space to occur. After all, I’ve mentioned this form of balance with colleagues during online debates and it almost always results in someone stating that my opinions-- if made a reality-- would “destroy art” in some manner. I’m not sure how a greater depth of how viewpoints are explored in our museums would “destroy art”. In fact, I’d suggest that the strict devotion to one-sidedness has done more to “destroy art” in the eyes of the public than I could ever do on my own. That said, the open-mindedness of acknowledging that opposing viewpoints deserve to be seen within our public funded institutions should not be as feared as it is.

I honestly think that some of these individuals are more worried that the mainstream art market (specifically in New York City) would be destroyed-- or the validity of their views on art would be questioned-- if my opinions were to become the status quo. I say this because many of them-- including art critics, gallery owners, curators… and even artists-- appear to be more concerned about the mainstream art market than they are concerning the impact art can have in national debate on key issues that spur opposing views. In other words, they are content with their social, political, and religious viewpoints dominating art museum culture because it strengthens their own validity and bank account. If the shoe were on the other foot I’m certain that they would support my call for balance.

I realize that with a new year hot stories from 2010 often start to dwindle out-- especially within the context of the short-term nature of our online information driven lives. That said, I don’t mind being the one standing with match in hand in order to spark further debate. We need to tackle these issues while the topics still have momentum. For me it is not an issue of one social, political, or religious agenda dominating art museum culture-- I’m not suggesting that specific extremes should dominate over all others within our museums-- it is about expecting room for various viewpoints to be explored visually within our public funded art spaces.

In closing, our art museums-- and other public funded art spaces-- should strive to represent the public as a whole by having the courage to explore opposing views visually instead of catering to specific percentages of the population. The key to public support for art is found in compromise-- in a balance of viewpoints explored visually and exhibited-- which is a pure reflection of our liberty.

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin

The Broken Road: Why do I live in a society that fears ideas?

2010-12-30T06:29:00.000-08:00

The Broken Road: Why do I live in a society that fears ideas?

The art censorship scandal that occurred at the National Portrait Gallery has spurred much debate about free speech and constitutional rights-- all noble fights to wage for the greater good. However, I can’t help but observe an underlining sense of fear rooted in the core of some of the strongest individuals involved from both sides of this struggle. I for one don't fear ideas-- but I do fear extremes that desire to dominate all aspects of culture and thought.

It appears to me that contradictions are running rampant within the context of the debate due to hard-line extremes. That said, there is more than a few good servings of hypocrisy-- from all sides of the debate-- to go around. In my opinion, the social and political zealotry that has dominated the debate is a recipe for cultural disaster. Sadly, we live in an age of social and political extremes. Thus, it is not surprising that the ‘battle’ has went beyond the intention of the exhibit.

I doubt very much that the late David Wojnarowicz would be happy with the fact that his artwork is being used to spur division instead of rational debate concerning key issues. In fact, the debate has become less about what his video, titled ‘A Fire in My Belly’, was about-- and is instead being used as a rattling of blades from both sides of the political and social divide… Two extremes that will most likely never come to an agreement on the opposing views they hold close to their hearts. After all, agreement from either side would no doubt mean the defeat of one view or the other-- a silencing of ideas.

The end result of this debate amounts to a mess of people who are all afraid that their personal opinions-- as reflected in public exhibits or in other ways-- will somehow lose footing within the context of society. To put it bluntly, people from all sides of the debate are striving for a stranglehold over thought-- a control of culture… the left-wing extreme desires to dominate just as badly as the right-wing extreme. Both extremes are inherently evil in the face of balance-- and dare I say, peace.

The far left and far right-- always at each others throat. Are they not the same breed of lion when the day is done? Do they not both desire to cage the ideas of the other while escaping their own? Do they not both impede the travels of those who desire to walk down the middle of the road? It is all rooted in the fear of personal choice. Total opposition rules the day. That said, tolerance-- even tolerance of intolerance in some respects-- should be the victor. In other words, balance is often the only peace that one can find-- yet we find ourselves within a society that is constantly on the edge of struggle.

I for one find this behavior-- this fear of ideas from both sides of the social and political fence-- to be petty… Especially in the United States of America in the year 2010-- now leading into 2011. Have we not learned anything in our brief history? At some point people must agree to disagree-- and learn that balance is the reality that binds us.

The fact remains that the blunt of our nation is split on key issues and most likely always will be unless harsh words become hardened fists or loaded guns-- and I don’t think any of us want that. True, some ideas must be silenced for the greater good-- especially if those ideas promote physical violence toward a specific group. That said, when such a large portion of the population is split on key social and political issues it just seems reckless to take a stranglehold mentality when dealing with opposing viewpoints/ideas as a whole.

While reading comments discussing the NPG/Smithsonian debacle I noticed that one commenter was wary that the censorship issue at the National Portrait Gallery-- which is arguably a right-wing victory in the so-called Culture War-- may lead to Creationism being taught in public schools. In other words, the commenter is afraid that the ideas and theories that he supports will somehow lose domination in regards to the education of our youth. I have a different opinion on the matter-- I feel that there is room for various opposing ideas and viewpoints to be taught so that the young can learn and come to their own conclusions while improving their critical thinking skills.

Education, in my opinion, should be about learning-- not indoctrinating our youth with one opinion or the other based on political extremes. Education should not be about securing future votes for one political party or the other for that matter. Education-- via means of study-- should be about individual choice and personal growth based on what the student has learned from a plethora of ideas and viewpoints.

As I read the comments I could not help but wonder… Why do so many people appear to be afraid of opinions that are different than their own? Why have we become a nation of various extremes-- unwilling to bend? Why do so many appear to fear a balanced debate on key social and political issues? Why do so many strive to hide specific ideas/viewpoints away from the public as a whole? Perhaps it has always been that way.

The more I think about it-- the more I become ashamed that I live in a society that fears ideas. I’m wary of any society that slaves itself to social or political extremes as dictated by one political party or the other. I sometimes wonder if the rest of us will be able to press forward past the cracks these two extremes have placed in the road before us. I don't fear ideas-- I fear extremes... A balance must be found.

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin

Should the Director of LA MOCA, Jeffrey Deitch, resign or be fired?

2010-12-29T16:34:00.000-08:00

An anonymous street artist supports Blu while challenging the authority of Jeffrey Deitch

Should the Director of LA MOCA, Jeffrey Deitch, resign or be fired?

There has been a steady flow of debate concerning Jeffrey Deitch’s decision to whitewash a mural outside of LA MOCA. The commissioned mural was destroyed before being finished due to concerns that it would cause public outrage. Deitch felt the theme of the mural would be considered insensitive since the location was near a Veterans Affairs hospital and a war memorial to Japanese-American soldiers. However, no complaints were made to warrant consideration of the murals destruction-- apparently Deitch was taking a preemptive strike to ward of controversy. Deitch has stated that his decision was a “curatorial choice” and should not be confused with an act of censorship. Needless to say, many-- especially in the street artist community-- disagree with Deitch on this issue.

The street artist behind the mural, known as Blu, has stated that Deitch’s curatorial choice is nothing more than pointblank censorship. That said, many art writers and other professionals in the arts are defending Jeffrey Deitch's decision. In fact, some are going as far as to suggest that the mural in question was not deserving of a commission in the first place-- in other words, they are directing criticism at the art itself instead of criticizing the censorship that occurred. The irony being that if the situation had been different-- for example, if a Republican politician had been involved in spurring Jeffrey Deitch’s “curatorial choice"-- I have no doubt that those protecting Deitch would instead oppose him. It sickens me that the fight against art censorship in general has been boiled down to political lines.

Details of the incident are sketchy at best. However, this much is known-- Jeffrey Deitch failed to communicate directly with Blu about the direction of the mural. By his own accord Deitch failed at minor tasks that one would expect a museum Director to handle efficiently-- and without taking drastic measures. There was little to no public discourse over the direction of the mural-- no filed complaints-- that would warrant consideration of the murals destruction. Furthermore, when alarmed Deitch failed to offer Blu a chance to create a second mural or to discuss the direction of the commission in general. Deitch whitewashed the mural and apparently hoped the debate over the decision would be whitewashed as well. It leads one to wonder what else Jeffrey Deitch has failed at as Director of LA MOCA.

As I write this there are many voices calling for the resignation or firing of staff involved with the National Portrait Gallery / Smithsonian censorship of a controversial video by the late David Wojnarowicz. It forces me to ask-- why are some of the strongest voices against that form of censorship mute over the censorship that has occurred at LA MOCA? Why are these individuals not calling for the resignation or firing of Director Jeffrey Deitch? It leads one to feel that the fight against art censorship in general is politically aligned-- spurred by one-sided cowards who choose their battles rather than fight art censorship head on at all fronts.

As it stands, we have individuals like ArtInfo’s Tyler Green giving Jeffrey Deitch the benefit of the doubt-- going as far as to suggest that it is more of an issue of Deitch not being prepared as Director than it is an issue of censorship. Others, like Paddy Johnson of Art Fag City, have tip-toed around the issue by declaring it dishonesty on Deitch’s part rather than dealing with art censorship head on. Both have suggested that the situation at LA MOCA has been blown out of proportion-- in fact, Paddy Johnson described the issue as being a “big who cares”. I enjoy their opinions in general-- but on this issue I honestly feel that they have dropped the ball.

In my opinion, these individuals have bombarded the opposition to art censorship with contradictions that are fueled by personal reasons instead of thinking of the bigger picture in regards to art censorship as a whole. You can’t fight one issue of art censorship only to cut and run when a less politically controversial situation arises-- unless you are selective in what you consider the censorship of art… In which case, perhaps some of these voices should remain silent until they are able to fight the greater fight over art censorship in general.

Fortunately, some are making a stand against art censorship even when it is not popular to do so-- for example, Hrag Vartanian of HyperAllergic has been exploring the censorship of Blu’s mural in detail and has spoken out against Jeffrey Deitch. Vartanian does not appear to care what the gatekeepers of the mainstream art world think-- in that sense, he is exactly the type of voice we need at this time. True, it can be damaging for an art writer to speak out against a powerful figure such as Jeffrey Deitch. That said, in my opinion Vartanian is a strong writer because his integrity comes before fears of whom he may upset or how it may harm his career later down the road. I wish I could say the same for other high traffic art writers-- but I can’t.

In closing, I personally think that more individuals-- specifically those who have influence online-- should be directing their sights toward Jeffrey Deitch and what has occurred at LA MOCA. I’ve read all of the excuses as to why Deitch should not be a target of criticism and so far none of it stands out. The incident at LA MOCA is pointblank censorship in my opinion-- and clearly shows that Deitch is making a spectacle of his position of authority. With that in mind, I personally think that Jeffrey Deitch should resign from his position at LA MOCA unless he wants his validity-- especially concerning street art-- questioned.

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin

Opposing Views: Who Determines Art Exhibit Content? by Kimberly Reed-Deemer

2010-12-27T16:49:00.000-08:00

Opposing Views: Who Determines Art Exhibit Content? by Kimberly Reed-Deemer

I’ve decided to start a blog series that focuses on opposing views-- the target… My views. For the debut of this series I offered artist Kimberly Reed-Deemer the chance to discuss her thoughts concerning my views on the issue of public funded art.

Kimberly Reed-Deemer is a New Mexico artist with a background in fine art, paleoanthropology, scientific illustration, and museum design and construction. Kimberly takes issue with some of the opinions I expressed in the following articles:

Brian Sherwin: Art writer to be feared? Thoughts on public funded art exhibits…
http://briansherwin-artcritic.blogspot.com/2010/12/brian-sherwin-art-writer-to-be-feared.html

Brian Sherwin on Art, Politics, and Censorship
http://briansherwin-artcritic.blogspot.com/2010/12/brian-sherwin-on-art-politics-and.html

Kimberly Reed-Deemer’s guest blog article is an insightful read-- I hope that you enjoy it as I have.

Who Determines Art Exhibit Content? by Kimberly Reed-Deemer

I share Brian Sherwin’s view that publicly funded art museums and exhibit spaces should represent a cross section of perspectives, but I arrive at this conclusion along a path slightly different from Brian’s. Being an unabashed political and social liberal, I have an obligation to address issues of justice when I encounter them, which is one of the reasons why I support opening publicly funded museum exhibits to include a diversity of viewpoints and perspectives, even those views I vehemently oppose. This doesn’t mean I attribute a blind equivalence to all perspectives, however. On the contrary, not all perspectives are of equal merit, and this is precisely why they must be examined in the open light of public discourse, and especially in comparison to competing views where rigorous analysis will identify and discredit flawed perspectives.

If competing views aren’t given an open airing they don’t simply disappear, but are driven underground where they continue to spread one way or another throughout American culture, minus the necessary critical examination. I see this occurring all the time, for example, in the form of forwarded ‘hoax’ emails and poorly developed polemic dealing with a variety of hot button issues and hammered out in fanatically red 24 point font, some of which have been circulating around and around the country for years. Some of which have real consequences in the form of policy, legislation and elections (remember the 2010 mid-terms?). Which scenario is more conducive to the goal an open and well informed society?

Unlike Brian, however, I don’t directly link funding sources, either public or private, to arguments regarding diversity in museum exhibit content. In theory, it sounds reasonable that taxpayers have a right to expect publicly funded museums exhibits to reflect their concerns and perspectives. The funding source rationale for exhibit diversity, however, opens a problematic door where money, in effect, buys exhibit content, the most obvious issue being that advocates of perspectives backed by the most money buy greater influence over exhibit content than those with fewer financial resources. Furthermore, in an American political environment with conservatives pushing the country toward ever smaller government and lower and lower taxes (at least for some clever and influential people), an argument for greater exhibit representation based on taxation would seem to be a rather slippery talking point.

Under a system that would link taxation to the right to determine museum exhibit content, those who most successfully avoided taxes couldn’t complain when publicly funded institutions represented the views of those constituencies who were left shouldering the lion’s share of the nation’s revenue obligations. Moreover, do all taxpayers have an equal right to determine the content of the exhibits their taxes fund? Or do those who pay a higher absolute dollar value in income taxes or pay a higher percentage of their total income have more of a right? Ask a different constituency and get a different answer. When a given exhibit’s funding comes from both public and private sources, the situation becomes even more complex. What money has greater sway over content? Public or private? Exhibit content would thus seem to be best dictated by other criteria, but how then should it be determined?

It may be a radical proposition, but I think the first consideration in determining art exhibit content has to come from artists themselves. Public funding of the arts was initiated by Republican Senator Jacob Javits as a cultural tool designed to combat Communism (Plattner, 1996:38-39), so unfortunately there was a distinct political agenda influencing publicly funded art from the very start. Art museum exhibit content, however, should reflect not what politicians, political parties, special interest groups, museum directors, art curators, art critics and individual taxpayers want artists to do, but what artists of all persuasions are actually doing, what they are concerned with in their work! And not just what some artists working in traditionally hegemonic urban centers are doing, but what artists working all over the country are doing. Maybe it’s an artifact of my background in anthropology and because I’m an artist, but in short, I see museums and exhibit spaces as open platforms for presenting to visitors what artists are actually doing. These venues ‘describe’ what artists are generating, rather than ‘prescribe’ what artists should be generating.

My husband’s museum methods course at Northern Illinois University was organized around the decision making process as it pertains to all aspects of museum operations, including exhibit design and construction. The museum's mission, its collections, its size, its financial resources, the size and expertise of its staff, and the physical characteristics of its facility are some of the practical factors that determine and constrain exhibit content. A museum’s mission statement sets the framework for the exhibits it presents and the activities it engages in, and a museum can’t be expected to mount exhibits that are well beyond the scope and intent of its stated mission.

The same can be said for a museum’s collections, although traveling exhibits, temporary exhibits, and loaned collections allow a museum greater freedom to reach beyond the constraints imposed by its collections. Some limits have to be drawn when, for example, representing the full range of viewpoints regarding a given issue would require more space and cost than a museum or exhibit venue could realistically manage. Few of these factors, however, are so constraining as to mean that art museums and exhibit spaces can’t accurately reflect the full range of art being produced in America. If they aren’t then perhaps there needs to be some serious reform.

People who care about art in this country can perform a reality check on art museums and art spaces, both publicly and privately funded, and make their opinions known to the art establishment and its gatekeepers. As the art world becomes increasingly decentralized, more and more artists are opting to represent themselves through home studios and galleries and artist web sites. Not all artists can afford to maintain their own web sites, but enough are doing so that concerned individuals can readily research the art that is currently being produced in any geographic location in the country and see how it squares away with the work that art museums and art spaces are presenting. If what one sees in museums and exhibits spaces is inconsistent with what artists are actually producing, then people can voice their observations directly to these institutions and stop visiting them until change occurs.

To learn more about Kimberly Reed-Deemer please visit her website at, http://www.reed-deemerartstudio.com/

Brian Sherwin: Art writer to be feared? Thoughts on public funded art exhibits…

2010-12-20T12:05:00.000-08:00

Brian Sherwin: Art writer to be feared? Thoughts on public funded art exhibits…

It has come to my attention that certain individuals within the professional mainstream art world are wary of my opinions concerning the state of the art world today-- mainly my suggestion that public funded art exhibit spaces should have to explore a number of opposing social and political themes in order to continue receiving public funding. I'm not going to make a name-dropping game out of this-- these people know who they are and how to reach me if they want to pursue a direct debate on the issue. That said, I do wish to explore the matter and defend my opinion.

My suggestion is very liberal at heart-- in that I think the public would be best served by being introduced to a number of viewpoints in a visual manner based on common themes from both sides of the social and political fence as reflected in the core of national debates on key issues. To me that is balance-- and I fail to see why anyone who truly supports art would oppose my position unless their own social and political view comes before art in general and are already being served by the state of public funded art exhibits today.

I feel that my views on balance within the context of public funded art is a true reflection of the liberty we should expect in the United States-- and a true documentation of the social and political thought of our times. Sadly, art exhibits in general today tend to promote a one-sided view of social and political thought-- and many individuals, especially professionals within the arts nationwide, have become comfortable with that status quo.

Unfortunately, said acceptance of hard-line, one-sided art exhibit dictations that support their personal social and political views rob the public from exploring a plethora of socially and politically inspired viewpoints that serve as the foundation of our republic. In my opinion, said one-sidedness should not be tolerated within the context of public funded art exhibits-- and the professionals and institutions who utilize public funding while appearing to cater to one-sided social and political agendas should be called out to explain themselves. It is our money-- they should give us an answer!

In my opinion, some art professionals display a clear inability to look at the bigger picture of art-- and what it means to the public as a whole. Instead they focus on their personal views-- and therefore influence the direction of exhibits and thus visual debate… And more importantly how the history of art is documented for tomorrow. Point blank-- some art professionals place their own social and political desires before the power of visual commentary-- the strength of art-- and the needs and expectations of the public in general. In other words, institutions that utilize public funding often leave the public with one-sided views and one-sided art history. In the case of public funded museums I would suggest that many have failed at their mission in that respect.

Sadly, many of these self-serving social and political elitists, or dare I say political extremists, hold positions of influence within the arts-- they serve as curators, directors, and art professors within public funded institutions and places of higher learning throughout the nation . The individuals I speak of place art within a cage-- only allowing it to see the light of day if it embraces their personal agendas.

The proof of their public deception can be found within the public funded exhibits they are involved with-- just look at the exhibit history, look at the themes that pop up over and over again. With that in mind, I would like to point out that a professional who is unable to present social and political viewpoints that he or she does not personally agree with for the sake of public debate is simply a coward. They should leave their social or political bias at the door when utilizing public funding. If they don’t-- we, the public, should demand it.

With all of this in mind-- I think some people fear me because I don't reduce art to political extremes and social agendas that favor one side. I call for a balance of themes-- and for art that is not always comfortable. I would like to see a true reflection of the societal and political conversation spurred from the public as a whole exhibited in our public funded exhibit spaces-- and because of that some imply that I'm an enemy of art. No, I'm an enemy of extremes-- and an enemy of individuals who reduce art to a one-sided political tool in the name of culture only to serve their personal viewpoints and agenda while excluding any form of visual opposition. In my opinion-- the culture of today is inclusive and opposition of opinions should be expected and presented within the context of public funded art exhibits.

I also take this stance because I support visual artists in general-- and I’m concerned that some artists are being passed over based on social and political lines alone. In my opinion it is naïve-- and in most cases self-serving-- to suggest that all artists have a liberal bent as far as their personal viewpoints on society and politics are concerned. To imply that all artists follow cookie-cutter ideologies is insulting to visual artists and art in general. Art is as complex as society in general-- you can’t simply whitewash art to fit your social or political needs.

My point is that artists are individuals at heart-- it is not like all artists are wired the same or connected in thought. That said, I know artists who conceal their social, political, and even religious views out of fear that said views will be held against them by art professionals. The fact that this ‘keep it in the closet’ mentality occurs is a clear sign that things need to change within the art world as whole-- and I think reform concerning what is expected from public funded art venues in order to continue receiving funding is the first step. The playing field, so to speak, needs to be balanced. The hypocrisy and contradictions of some art professionals should be put in check.

I know where some people will go in response to this-- they will say that I’m being “closed-minded”, ask for “proof of prejudice”, or point out the “New York City art scene”. To those individuals I say:

1. How am I being “closed-minded” when I’m suggesting that more views should be explored visually in our public funded art venues?

2. The only proof needed is to look at the themes that are predominately explored in public funded art exhibits-- especially exhibits involving living artists or art from the last three decades. The proof is in the exhibit history of public funded institutions. In fact, I would suggest that YOU have the burden of proving that my calling out of art world prejudice based on social, political, and religious views is not warranted.

YOU can start by naming one public funded art exhibit at a major art museum that has explored pro-life themes directly or one public funded art exhibit at a major art museum that has made a mockery of a religion other than Christianity. Don’t use the cop-out of saying “There are no artists exploring those themes!” or “There is no ‘good’ art exploring those themes!’. If you do you are simply proving my point because I can promise you that you are wrong.

3. As for the New York City art scene-- it may very well be that the powerful art galleries and art magazines in New York City have a liberal bent-- but to me, the idea that the New York City art scene, no matter how globally intertwined or thought-provoking it happens to be, defines art as a whole within the United States is absurd and perhaps reveals a deeper agenda fueled by some individuals within that specific group of art professionals-- which branches outward across the nation.

Obviously, based on reading opinions from key New York City art figures, they want people to believe that all artists walk on common societal and political ground. If you don’t believe me-- simply mention the needs or direction of “conservative-minded artists”, or artists who are critical of a religion other than Christianity within the context of society, in any debate spurred by a New York City art world figurehead and see how far you get before being asked to refrain from being involved with the debate online or asked to leave the building.

Censorship of opinions that point out established art world prejudice are common. The fact remains that people tend to not like opposition of their solid opinions if it draws them out of their professional comfort zone-- especially when said opinions are viewpoint inclusive rather than exclusive. It alarms me how quick self-proclaimed liberals become ultra-conservative when it comes to the visual exchange of viewpoints.

It comes as no surprise to me that certain individuals lash out at me for the balanced, and dare I say purely liberal, view I have concerning the expectations I have for public funded art exhibits. Include the fact that many individuals have openly agreed with my opinion on the matter and you can easily see why some individuals loathe me. I’m a threat to their establishment-- I‘ve trespassed on their comfort zone. Most importantly, I can't be stopped.

I simply want to see balance-- I’m not calling for art to be censored… I’m suggesting that all art, all matter of viewpoints expressed visually, should have equal opportunity to be displayed before the public in regards to public funded art exhibits. I don‘t think my opinion is revolutionary or a "right-wing conspiracy", as some have suggested… It is just common sense as far as how public funds should be used in my opinion.

My thoughts on the matter appear to only be controversial to individuals who are socially and politically content with the state of said exhibits today-- specifically those who benefit from it financially or professionally. I would go as far as to say that some of these individuals fear the exchange of opposing visual information in regards to what is offered to the public because their validity would be placed in question. The public deserves better than that-- I think we can all handle a visual debate over tough social, political, and religious issues. We should expect it!

In closing, is it so wrong for me to suggest that perhaps it would be better for those individuals to be pushed visually out of their comfort zones? I for one enjoy art that challenges my personal views. In fact, the result sometimes ends up being that I reflect on my personal opinions and reconsider some of the views that I have after viewing art that opposes my views on society and politics. That is why it is important for public funded art venues to exhibit a wide range of social and political themes-- the public in general deserves it. Anything less is a continued dumbing down of art in the eyes of the public and further dominance of a mainstream art world that often appears to place voting booths before a true examination of art in general.

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin

Art Censorship 2010: The reaction to censorship is not always cut from the same cloth.

2010-12-16T16:06:00.000-08:00

Art Censorship 2010: The reaction to censorship is not always cut from the same cloth.

Art censorship-- specifically within an art exhibit setting, has been a hot issue as 2010 draws to a close. What interests me most about the recent surge of censorship is the fact that so many individuals are exploring it on political lines-- while contradicting themselves at the same time by lack of action in other situations. I suggest that these individuals are contradicting themselves because they should be just as angry at any form of artistic censorship no matter the political motivations if in fact they are truly supportive of artistic freedom.

It appears that the anger fueled by recent controversies involving the censorship of art are directly impacted by the assumed political affiliation of the staff involved and heightened by the political affiliation of those who question their curatorial decisions. For example, the scandal involving the late David Wojnarowicz’s video, titled “A Fire in My Bell”, came into the fold as soon as the Smithsonian’s secretary, G. Wayne Clough, decided to have the video removed from the Hide/Seek exhibit at the National Portrait Gallery after minimal outrage from conservative Republicans.

From that point on G. Wayne Clough’s decision-- one representing the Smithsonian’s choice-- has been stamped as a right-wing conspiracy against homosexuals and a slap in the face to anyone who has been harmed by AIDS directly or indirectly. Those angry at Clough have called for him, and other staff, to be fired due to the decision to remove the video-- and many have suggested that Clough is deeply embedded with conservative Republican politicians. Fair enough. However, there are other recent exhibit censorship situations that have had no where near the momentum of criticism that the Smithsonian and Clough have received.

For example, when Jeffrey Deitch, Director of the LA MOCA, decides to censor street artist Blu-- who was commissioned to do a piece-- out of fear of public outrage it is stamped as a mere “curatorial choice”. Which, unfortunately, has been accepted by several art writers who normally would be up in arms over such an action if, for example, a Republican politician was indirectly involved in the the decision to censor art. It concerns me that people tend to only fight against the censorship of art when political players are involved directly-- and only when those politicians oppose their political and social views.

The reactions, or lack thereof, that some individuals have had in the face of both of these issues of censorship forces me to ask-- Why are individuals within the professional art world not just as angry with LA MOCA as they are with the National Portrait Gallery and the Smithsonian? Why are they not calling for Jeffrey Deitch to be fired just as they have called for Clough and others to be fired? Is it because Deitch is seen as ‘one of the boys’, so to speak? Honestly, I’m at a loss when thinking of the reasoning behind the very different opinions that have been presented between these two issues.

The fact remains that two works of art have been censored-- and that is what I think should be the focus instead of trying to make a political game out of who was involved with the choice or not-- and how one side of the political extreme will benefit by protest. These are two works of art that staff involved with new would spur debate and would fuel controversy-- which is important! Yet both have been censored. Potential political motivations aside-- I think the real issue at hand is that those behind the ‘curatorial choices’ need to be drilled as to why they made their choice and as to why they are not upholding creative/expressive freedom in places where upholding that freedom-- that clear sign of liberty-- should be strongly secured.

The Smithsonian’s Clough has been called spineless and a political tool. If that is so I would suggest that Jeffrey Deitch is just as-- if not more-- spineless, and even more of a political tool, for his decision since there were far less public complaints-- if any-- involved in his decision to censor. Jeffrey Deitch has downplayed his ‘curatorial choice’ by stating he was not aware of what Blu had in mind due to lack of communication. He has stated that there is no controversy to speak of because no censorship was involved. Obviously Mr. Deitch needs to look up the definition of censorship.

Again, what alarms me about this is that many key art writers support Deitch’s choice blindly-- and I think much of that has to do with who he is instead of really looking at what he has done in regards to Blu’s mural and the message that his choice establishes concerning controversial art and how said artwork should be dealt with. After all, Blu’s mural has already been white-washed, destroyed-- “A Fire in My Belly” on the other hand has easily found new homes, so to speak. Deitch took something from the public that we will never get back aside from trace evidence in the form of photography or video-- and Blu was not allowed time to finish the mural even in that respect all because of concerns of public outcry.

Normally forms of street art in general happen to be about making a statement that the community may not exactly agree with. Jeffrey Deitch, of all people, should know this. Street art-- in general-- tends to be a socially aggressive form of art. That is part of the risk. It strikes me as odd that Deitch would tame street art via means of censorship. I personally enjoy forceful art that pushes viewers out of their comfort zone. I think the problem today-- even where controversy is concerned-- is that people want a comfortable art. Even controversy can be comfortable if it is something we have grown to expect. In that sense, Jeffrey Deitch has not exactly done a public service with his decision to censor-- and destroy-- Blu’s mural.

The key point to consider is that Jeffrey Deitch has exhibited the street artist Blu in the past and I find it very hard to believe that he was not aware of the directions Blu would possibly take with the mural. After all, Blu tends to focus on topics that include military deaths and injustice-- and has been critical of America’s show of strength in regards to economic and military power. Deitch knows this artist, knows his motivations, and clearly wasted this artists time-- as well as the chance for public debate-- simply because he feared it may cause a public upset. Since the exhibit the mural was to be a part of focuses on graffiti art-- which does not cater to the assumed standards of the public at large-- I find Deitch’s decision to be laughable as well as a disgrace. The validity of his motivations should be questioned as Clough’s have been-- if not more.

The street artist Blu-- who was at first silent about the issue-- is now making it very clear that a ‘curatorial choice’ is indeed censorship, stating on his blog, “it is, in fact, a CURATORIAL CHOICE that involves the CENSORSHIP of a mural.”. Blu appears to be alarmed that so many art writers are giving Jeffrey Deitch and LA MOCA the benefit of the doubt by describing the censorship of his mural as a curatorial choice-- and I don’t blame him for being concerned. Creative freedom has been stabbed in the back by Jeffrey Deitch!

In my opinion, a curatorial choice should occur before commissioning an artist or before the art is placed on display-- anything else is censorship in its purest form. Cleary Jeffrey Deitch has censored art at LA MOCA-- it should be called as it is instead of sugar-coated because of who he is and what he has represented in the past. I tip my hat to Blu for standing up for his art and for art in general. Sadly, I can't say the same for some of the individuals writing about the situation-- individuals I assume would have taken a harder stance against Jeffrey Deitch if politicians were directly involved in his decision to censor.

I'm also concerned with how artists are reacting to public funded art exhibit censorship as of late. For example, I’ve heard that an artist involved with the National Portrait Gallery Hide/Seek exhibit has requested that his artwork be removed from the exhibit in protest of the late David Wojnarowicz’s video being banned from the exhibit. I personally don’t think that is good decision-- nor is it a good form of protest in regard to creative / artistic freedom.

I am of this opinion because it potentially sends a message to curators that they should work with art that is more socially comfortable, so to speak, or face a situation where artists request to have their work pulled from an exhibit if things don’t exactly go as planned. In other words, if curators know that artists may bail out when a heated controversy occurs they might take that into consideration when putting the exhibit together in the first place. That is not, at least in my opinion, the direction we want to see public funded art exhibits go.

I understand the motivation behind this artists request-- I'm just not sure if it will send the intended message that he desires. ‘Curatorial choices’ are not going away-- the censorship of art has a long history. Those who support creative freedom MUST face it head on. They must make sure that their visual message is seen-- especially during the fire of controversy-- the heat of debate. This is not a time to run with our tail between our legs as Jeffrey Deitch has done at LA MOCA. Thus, I truly hope that this artist reconsiders his position on the matter in regards to his choice.

It appears to me that the reaction to censorship is not always cut from the same cloth. The blunt of the outcry over the recent surge of art censorship within public institutions is politically motivated instead of being focused on the assault of creative freedom and visual information that has obviously occurred in both situations. In my opinion, it would be best for individuals to sound the war-cry whenever instances of artistic censorship-- even if it is sugar-coated as a ‘curatorial choice’ or ever if we don‘t agree with the themes explored in the art-- happen regardless of the political fence that people tend to fight around.

In closing, any defeat at the hands of censorship is a defeat for all of us who love and admire art and the meaning art has for societal debate. We can’t take sides depending on who is involved-- we must call it as it is and make it known that we do not agree with artistic censorship. Period. We can't be afraid to insult powerful mainstream art world figures, such as Jeffrey Deitch. Furthermore, art writers on all levels need to be wary of contradicting themselves when facing censorship in general-- don't cry to me tomorrow if you fail to do what is best for art as a whole today.

(I'd like to add that I personally think that our public funded institutions for art should be politically neutral spaces where all political thoughts, social views, and ideas can be explored for the benefit of public debate and social dialogue. What is exhibited should never be placed in a political stranglehold out of fear that a percentage of the population will be upset. This idea that public funded art exhibits must be comfortable and not problematic in regards to public opinion needs to vanish-- it damages the strength of art as a whole. Furthermore, verbal, written, and visual debate is a very important aspect of societal and cultural growth-- it should not be hampered.)

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin

Thomas Kinkade could learn something about faith from the late David Wojnarowicz

2010-12-10T08:05:00.000-08:00

Thomas Kinkade could learn something about faith from the late David Wojnarowicz

I’ve been following the David Wojnarowicz story and what bothers me about the issue is that the 13-minute video by the late artist, titled “A Fire in My Belly” (1987), is not anti-Christian as some Republican politicians have assumed. As far as Christianity is concerned the video is a reminder that some Christians tend to proclaim compassion and the virtue of Christ when in reality they rarely convey said compassion in dealing with others outside of their faith. In that sense the video is no more anti-Christian than works by Old Masters that explored the same contradictions of virtue that some Christian fall prey to. In fact, I know of one notable artist, who happens to be Christian, who could learn something about faith from “A Fire in My Belly”-- that artist being Thomas Kinkade.

Before I venture into my exploration of Thomas Kinkade I wish to make a few things clear. As a Christian-- and more importantly, as an individual-- I agree with the late David Wojnarowicz’s opinion. I’ve seen many Christians who turn their faith into a wall or simply don‘t live up to the standards they claim to adhere to. In my opinion religious faith, in general, should never be used in a way that serves as a barrier as far as understanding others. When faith becomes a wall it is clearly a structure of fear.

The actions of the conservative Republicans involved with the censorship of David Wojnarowicz “A Fire in My Belly” confuse faith with fear. In that sense, they stand as examples of the very Christians that Wojnarowicz criticized. Point blank-- faith should not, in my opinion, be a projection of ones inner fear. In fact, if ones faith is spurred only by fear I would suggest that he or she really consider how much faith is truly present in his or her life-- that goes for any religion as far as I’m concerned. As for practicing what one preaches, so to speak-- the clearest sense of blasphemy, in my opinion, is to subject others to moral standards that one does not personally live by.

An exhibit at the National Portrait Gallery is not going to trigger the end of Christianity, or any other religion for that matter, nor is it going to terminate the individual morals that people choose to have regardless of their chosen religion. That said, as far as Christianity is concerned the concept of free will is very clear-- believers could suggest that free will is one of the greatest gifts God has given to us. Thus, I’ve never really understood why some Christians strive politically to take away choices that individuals have. In that sense, it is unfortunate that the Wojnarowicz video was pulled because it offered a lesson that I think anyone, religious or not, could have learned from.

Attacking an artist with overzealous rhetoric when he is no longer here to defend himself is nothing more than masturbatory irrationality as far as I’m concerned. Especially when one considers that there are living artists who clearly have some explaining to do as far as their individual morals are concerned as fueled by the impact of their art on society. (No, I’m not suggesting that policing artists in that sense is acceptable-- my point is that the whole “A Fire in My Belly” issues is surrounded by irony.)

Point blank-- I’m not proposing a witch hunt by any means. That said, one could suggest that artists, such as Thomas Kinkade, are far more damaging to specific morals and to Christianity than the late David Wojnarowicz ever was. If politicians and other political personalities-- no matter which religious, political, or social extreme they adhere to-- must complain about the influence that specific art has on society, especially when religion is the focus, perhaps they should target living artists who are able to defend their art directly-- especially if the artist has made a direct impact on a large percentage of the population while being deceptive to that specific base. With that in mind, I doubt that we will hear Glenn Beck lashing out at Thomas Kinkade anytime soon.

In my opinion, the self-proclaimed ‘Painter of Light’, Thomas Kinkade, is a walking contradiction concerning Christian morals, Christian faith, and Christianity as a whole. That said, there are few examples of Christian groups or websites calling Kinkade out-- and, as far as I know, no examples of politicians targeting him for the corrupted influence that he has. Yet practically all of the Christian churches that I’ve visited have a print of one of Kinkade’s paintings boldly displayed-- and it is not hard to find online examples of some Christians harping about the “evil” of David Wojnarowicz’s video.

(Keep in mind that Thomas Kinkade has faced several allegations of sexual harassment over the years as well as allegations of fraudulent business practices. On top of that Kinkade has been noted for having a drinking problem which recently resulted in an arrest for a DUI.)

My Point-- Thomas Kinkade is a very influential artist within our society and ever-expanding culture-- though I realize that very few professionals within the mainstream art world would ever admit that even though he was once accepted by the New York gallery scene. Thomas Kinkade, for better or worse, is a household name just as Andy Warhol and Pablo Picasso-- some have suggested that 1 in 20 Americans own an example of Kinkade’s art-- so in that sense one could suggest that he is far more influential on the general public than the late David Wojnarowicz. That said, Kinkade does not exactly practice what he preaches, so to speak. Thus, one could suggest that his impact on Christianity-- in general-- is far more damaging than a 13-minute video that happens to explore, among other things, the flaws of some Christians.

If we must think on simple terms we should consider who is the greater threat. Who is more harmful to individual morals? An artist who criticized obvious flaws in respect to the faith and compassion that some Christians fail to convey-- or an artist who basis his artwork and market on ideology-- such as family values and the importance of marriage-- that he fails to represent in his own life while claiming the opposite? Consider that food for thought.

In closing, the politicians and political commentators who are lashing out at the late David Wojnarowicz should perhaps find another target for their motivations-- one who is imbedded within the very base they claim to represent. Better yet-- perhaps they should reexamine the difference between faith and fear-- as Wojnarowicz clearly explored in “A Fire in My Belly”. That said, extreme right-wing politicians and Thomas Kinkade-- in my opinion-- could learn something about faith from the late David Wojnarowicz.

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin

Brian Sherwin on Art, Politics, and Censorship

2010-12-03T06:43:00.000-08:00

Brian Sherwin on Art and Politics, and Censorship:

Last night I was involved in an online debate concerning censorship and art. I’m not going to drop names of who was involved because honestly I don’t care to argue with said individuals again. That said, I will say that it involved a notable art critic and a few artists. Needless to say, the debate ended up very heated-- mainly due to the fact that my personal faith was targeted by an artist whom, though I did not realize it at the time, I’ve clashed with before due to his bigotry against Christianity in general. Unfortunately, I feel that others involved with the debate missed what I was saying altogether due to that.

The debate focused on how a few Republican politicians are striving to censor a controversial exhibit. There were many comments hinting at right wing conspiracy and other shrewd-- and dare I say boring-- comments about Christianity in regards to art. I pointed out that while I did not agree with said censorship I also thought it was important for people to realize that the mainstream art world caters to forms of censorship as well. I stressed that the mainstream art world tends to present left wing thoughts and agendas and that it is rare to see a museum art exhibit, or gallery exhibit for that matter, that focuses on anything but left wing ideas.

During my introduction to the debate I also pointed out that while it is common for art exhibits that focus on the ‘bad side’ of Christianity to take place it is extremely rare to find exhibits within the context of the mainstream art world that focus on the negative aspects of other faiths in the same manner. My point was clear-- there is an obvious bias within the mainstream art world concerning key social and religious issues. Thus, I found it amusing that so many were up in arms over one aspect of censorship while they continue to ignore others examples of censorship that are convenient to them and their ideology.

Since one of the main issues of the debate focused on how tax dollars are spent on government funded museum art exhibitions I pointed out that if museums were more balanced in the visual rhetoric displayed in controversial art exhibits that perhaps the Republicans who strive to cut funding for art would not be so apt to pursue that end. After all, the Republican battle cry over art funding is that it is a waste-- and I’d say that the Republicans who feel that art funding is a waste say so due to the fact that exhibits in general often take a one-sided political approach to social dialogue. Would the Democrats take the same position if ‘right wing’ views dominated government funded art exhibits? Most likely. Anyone who says otherwise is naïve by my estimate.

Point blank-- and this is what I was attempting to stress in the debate-- taxes are paid by individuals with a variety of ideas, beliefs, and thoughts… Is it so wrong to suggest that museums funded by taxes should focus on a variety of ideas within the context of art exhibits? Is it so wrong to expect a government funded museum that exhibits Pro-Choice art to also have an exhibit that focuses on Pro-Life art? Apparently that idea is wrong because I was lashed at for suggesting it. Hell, apparently I’m closed-minded for my thoughts on the matter.

In my opinion those who embrace art should strive to not be one-sided as far as exhibits are concerned. We should bask in the visual exploration of viewpoints-- both those we support and those that oppose our personal ideology-- as the purest sense of our freedoms and liberty under one flag. Part of the challenge of a thought provoking controversial art exhibit, at least in my opinion, is to confront ideas and concepts that we don't always agree with 100%. Yet there is an obvious one-sidedness within the mainstream art world-- and if a subject, issue, or theme does not fall within the status quo of accepted thought it stands little to no chance of being displayed, reviewed, or discussed outside of being mocked. Is that not a form of censorship unto itself? I think so.

For my thoughts it was implied by one commenter that I desire more “Jesus art in the art world” and that I want only my “brothers” to be exhibited. Said commenter was aware that I happen to be a Christian and later revealed that he had clashed with me before. Upon viewing that prior debate it was clear that this individual tends to lash out at anyone involved in art who happens to be Christian-- and feels that Christians and Republicans are trying to infiltrate or take over the mainstream art world. Thus, my point of view was totally avoided in exchange for direct attacks on my faith-- and let me tell you, it did not take long for other wolves to surround the kill.

The point these individuals appear to have missed is that I was suggesting that all forms of censorship in regard to art are to be frowned upon-- unless of course there is specific illegal activity to consider. I was stressing that though I may not agree with a viewpoint conveyed through art I don’t think it should be censored-- and I expect others to have the same position if they truly appreciate our freedom, liberty, and power of art in general. In that sense I’m open to anything-- including art exhibits that challenge my personal views.

Unfortunately, my openness and acceptance in facing visual messages that challenge my own ideology is apparently not shared-- at least not with the contributors of that specific debate. In hindsight I fail to see how they are any different than the Republican politicians they are angry with. They represent the same beast-- censoring art-- and in reality specific viewpoints-- for their own political views.

This mentality is not uncommon within the context of the mainstream art world. As it stands, there are artists who have to keep their political and religious views a secret or else face obscurity based on those personal thoughts alone. After interviewing over 500 artists from various backgrounds and levels of success I have just a little knowledge of this fact. Artists tend to share with me-- and often the information shared goes beyond the interview itself. In other words, I know that an artists work can easily be taken for granted once their political-- or religious-- manner of thinking is discovered.

The art critic who opened the debate stressed that the Republican politicians were on a “Witch hunt”. Thus, I stressed that there are two sides to the witch hunt he spoke of... There is the witch hunt by Republican politicians and the witch hunt within the art world itself that has long strived to keep conservative minded or Christian artists out of the scene, so to speak. One quickly learns the in and out of the mainstream art world and that certain ideas or religious beliefs will only lead to professional persecution if discovered.

The bigotry of those who cry bigot is something I’m fully aware of because I’ve been warned before that I will not get anywhere with art writing if I continue to make my faith and some of my political views obvious. I’ve experienced smear campaigns against me in the past-- such as words taken out of context to make it appear as if I’m an impossible ass. (That was clever, true?) I’d like to point out that I’m a fiscal conservative and social liberal-- and do not hide the fact that I‘m a Christian. I also think that President Obama is a bumbling idiot on the same level as Bush-- and for that I‘m apparently seen as an evil-doer by both sides of the political spectrum! Ya gotta love Democracy!

Allow me to sum this up-- I personally like the challenge of viewing an art exhibit that goes against the grain of my system of thought-- we should welcome that form of visual debate. Thus, I think it should go without saying that government funded art museums should focus on a wide range of ideas instead of catering to one-sided politics alone. In fact, I’ll go further still by suggesting that if museums want to continue to receive funding they should have to embrace a variety of viewpoints visually within the context of art exhibits. There is a huge problem if we, as a society, can’t face opposing views.

With that in mind, I often ask myself why so many ideas-- such as pro-life-- are feared by the mainstream art establishment? Why are curators wary to meet the challenge of facing that debate visually? Obviously it is a valid debate and very much a part of our societal dialogue. In that sense, the mainstream art world in general has failed to truly capture the complexities of society and to promote free thought and critical thinking. Instead curators tend to captivate a secure audience that they know in advance will be comfortable with the viewpoints expressed-- with the benefit of knowing they will attract the same tired press due to the same tired opinions that always spur controversy. There is no risk.

Again, I'm not saying that I want more 'Jesus art in the art world' as was suggested in the censorship debate I was involved with-- I'm saying that I find it amusing that people get so upset about censorship when the fact remains that specific ideas and faiths-- and the mockery of any faith aside from Christianity-- is almost always censored by the mainstream art world itself in the sense that very few high profile sources have enough bravery to examine them within the context of an art exhibit. I’m not asking for much-- I just want people who claim to be open-minded to truly be open-minded. Obviously the mainstream art world is very close-minded in some ways.

As I pointed out in the censorship debate I was involved with-- Anyone who knows me knows that I loathe censorship in any form. Furthermore, contradictions tend to annoy me-- especially if under the surface they have a political bent. I have many problems with the mainstream art world-- I don't like how artists who happen to be female often seem to be placed on the back-burner just because of their sex. I don't like how artists who are older often face the same fate. There is sexism, ageism and general prejudice all around within the mainstream art world. The one place where, I feel, such prejudice would be the last place to show up! For that it was hinted that I’m a dreamer or simply not facing reality. Artists face that reality everyday! Some are very vocal about it!

And yes-- I feel that if an artist explores certain ideas or beliefs with his or her art, no matter how great the artwork itself is, it is less likely to end up exhibited based on political lines that serve as bars oppressing art as a whole! Anyone who denies that is either blind or is simply comfortable with the way things are. That is my point. People should be upset with Republican politicians who strive to censor art-- but they should also be upset with other forms of censorship that occur-- and have long occurred-- within the mainstream art world itself!

We need to stop trying to break art down to one political extreme or the other. Art is about ideas... exchanges... critical thinking.... confronting visual challenges. It does not have to be comfortable-- it does not have to fit your ideology. At least that is what art could be if people would stop trying to contain it based on political extremes! So yes, both right wingers and left wingers censor art in different ways. They come in the form of politicians-- and curators for that matter. People in general fear what they don't understand or don't agree with. They tend to play victim while making victims of individuals who sit on the opposing fence. The irony being that, at least in my opinion, art should be about discussion.

This is what I want to stress: The soul of art is beyond me. The soul of art is beyond you. The soul of art is far beyond specific political or societal agendas. Art can't be contained by a single viewpoint or specific terms as to what is right or wrong in society as dictated by one political extreme or the other. Art is beyond all faiths and all manners of relationships. Art is as unique as our individual positions on social matters as a whole. Art embraces every position, every stance, every thought-- it accepts all. Art never discriminates. We could learn something from art and about ourselves as a society-- if only we tried.

That is why art, in general, is powerful. Unfortunately there are those from both sides of the political extreme that wish to contain art for their own purpose and cause-- at least in how, when, and where art is displayed. I think the ban happy individuals from both political extremes need to step back and let the public make up their own mind. We need to stop fearing ideas and the challenge of confronting opposing viewpoints visually. Until that happens I promise you that what you read in the art history books of tomorrow is nothing more than fabrication.

In closing, (and kudos to you if you endured this lengthy rant) I ask the following questions-- why are some people not capable of being faced with visual challenges? Why do so many appear to want a comfortable art-- an art that is lazy and fits within their own being? Why do so many seem to want an art that they don't have to deal with-- that they can automatically embrace based upon their own vision of 'good' or 'bad', 'right' or 'wrong'? Comfortable art takes the power away from art in general.

On the other hand, visual challenges strengthen art by fostering public discourse-- which I feel is something we should strive for! That starts with challenging those who seek to censor artwork based on the ideas presented-- even if we don’t agree with those ideas. Part of the solution, I dare say, involves examining the one-sidedness of the mainstream art world itself. If we can’t do that how are we any better than politicians who attempt to control what we view? Don’t show me two shoes and then try to tell me that they are not a pair. I know rampant censorship when I see it.

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin

Contradictions: Appropriation Vipers are Easy to Spot

2010-11-28T16:23:00.000-08:00

Contradictions: Appropriation Vipers are Easy to Spot

I’ve been involved with a debate on critic Alan Bamberger’s Facebook Wall about the challenges some people have while visiting artist websites. Today I decided to catch up on the conversation and I noticed that New York based artist Joy Garnett offered her two cents on the topic. Garnett stated, “It's also important to allow people to grab jpegs of your work with ease - as opposed to preventing it - so they can easily post and distribute them…”. Garnett’s advice caused me to laugh because her history-- and what she has supported in the face of copyright and the rights of the majority of artists-- speaks for itself.

Those who know of Joy Garnett know that she tends to focus on sampling in new media art and with appropriation art. Often that results in total disregard for the motivations and name recognition of fellow artists and other creative individuals. Thus, her opinion on appropriation art in general tends to run in line with those who strive to weaken copyright law as we know it. In my eyes she walks hand-in-hand with artists such as Shepard Fairey who wave the banner of free culture while being overly protective of their own artwork.

I have nothing personal against Joy Garnett-- but I will stress that I do not agree with her viewpoint on copyright nor do I care who I insult with my opinions. It is not uncommon for me to be told that I’m “closed-minded” or a “fossil” due to my strong support for copyright and the rights to ownership in general. That said, I firmly stand by my opinion that copyright-- and the protection offered by copyright registration-- is more vital today than ever.

What troubles me about artists-- such as Joy Garnett and Shepard Fairey-- is that they express a sense of bravado in regards to the concept of free culture while at the same time contradicting themselves on the subject. For example, Fairey has sent cease-and-desist letters to artists who appropriate his widely known images. If he is a strong supporter of ‘fair use’ -- as he claims to be-- I would think that he would accept that his iconic images are prime targets for ‘fair use’ in general. However, that does not seem to be the case with Shepard Fairey-- especially if the artist makes a profit.

I’ve come to the conclusion that strong supporters of ‘fair use’-- to the point that copyright is weakened for all artists-- only do so for their own self-serving motivation. Point blank-- they are in the position to profit off of the works of others and have the backing to prevent others from profiting off of them. I've said it before and I shall say it again-- don’t confuse creative freedom with the need for some artists to profit off of other artists. They are waving the banner of creative freedom when in reality the focus is on profit and profit alone-- their profit. Profit with total disregard for the profit and market of their peers

I'm a strong supporter of copyright-- I always will be. I'm not against appropriation art either-- as long as it falls within current law and does not seek to weaken copyright for the majority of artists. It appears that some of the loudest voices who desire to see current copyright weakened are artists who focus on appropriation art and also have the benefit of already having gallery representation-- or have made a name for themselves in other ways. It is clear to me that at heart their opinions are self-serving even though they raise the banner of free culture and imply that “relics” like me need to “get with the times”.

I have no doubt that some individuals chuckle at my opinion-- but if the tables are turned their expression changes from one of amusement to anger. The fact remains that if I were to walk into a New York art gallery featuring works by appropriation artists and made it clear that I plan to take photographs in order to create my own works based off the displayed artwork I would most likely be asked to leave by gallery staff-- or threatened with arrest. The contradictions are amusing. It appears to me that they seek to protect their own culture.

With that in mind, don’t get me started on the number of appropriation artists who have sent cease-and-desist letters to artists who ‘sample’ their artwork. I get sick of the contradictions. Appropriation artists who are overly vocal on the concept of ‘fair use’ and imply that copyright limits creative culture appear self-serving to me-- especially when they don’t practice what they preach in regard to how artists use their artwork. I know an appropriation viper when I see one.

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin

Brian Sherwin’s Thoughts Concerning Media Hyped Art

2010-11-24T20:49:00.000-08:00

Brian Sherwin’s Thoughts Concerning Media Hyped Art

The media hype surrounding a work of art can be fascinating up until the point that fad becomes the status quo. I think with the art world today we see a lot of art that is only respected because of a landslide of press-- both legitimate and financially spurred. Warrant enough buzz and any news story is worth being in awe over, true? In that sense, the media-- specifically online media-- attempts to define what the public views as being of worth. Who are we to question the masses if Yahoo! News tells us that gold dust on vomit, titled ’Sprinkling of Fate’, is the most influential artwork of the year because the work conveys the losses endured in Iraq? I for one question it.

As far as I know there is no example of artwork involving gold dust and vomit-- and if there is I’m sure it is not titled ‘Sprinkling of Fate’. If I sprinkle gold dust on vomit in reaction to some foreign war nothing changes the fact that at the end of the day the work itself is gold dust on vomit-- something anyone could have came up with. The only value of the artwork, save for the price of the gold, is in the idea-- and I can’t help but think that said idea, if it were to be applied, can be conveyed in a more thoughtful manner instead of relying on the shock factor of the juxtaposition of two very different forms of matter.

With the right name attached to gold dust on vomit the work would be considered unquestionable genius and no doubt fetch a high price within the art market. I must ask, is that what art has become? Is the value of art today in a name, in a trend, in the ironic simplicity of hype-- fueled by those who wish to increase the marketability of their investment by hammering out media buzz? They always rely on hype in the end-- they rely on someone telling us why we should honor ‘Sprinkling of Fate’.

Art, in my opinion, should not be broken down to media driven hype or for mere profit-- art should not be a slave to investment. The art we come to know -- the art that defines us-- should stand on its own merit instead of being mastered by anyone with the financial reach to foster a half-baked accomplishment into a buzz fueled reality. Yet this money spurred cultivation of culture occurs at all times of day-- and not with just art.

If anything art should be an investment in culture. In my eyes there is more to who we are collectively than a dead fish in a tank, a visually mocked religion, or gold smeared in vomit-- or feces for that matter. That said, the same buzz worthy tricks appear to define who we are in the way it is driven by the media. If enough writing claims that a work of art is ground-breaking it does not matter what the public thinks-- that is where we are now in art. Sadly, the sub-standard cult of shock rules the day and will most likely rule the art history books of tomorrow.

There is a way for us to take back art history from the media elite and fat wallet crafters of the mainstream art market. It is rather simple. All that we need to do is to voice our opinions about art and the impact that specific works have-- for better or worse-- on us as individuals. If you don't agree that so-and-so artist is the most influential artist living today as you have been told to think than by all means make your opinion known! I don't care if you express your opinion on Facebook or Twitter-- just make sure that you do!

Artwork-- especially by specific artists-- can be promoted virally online to the point that one automatically assumes that said art is groundbreaking based on hype alone. I’ve known people who can’t tell me why a specific work of art is meaningful other than the fact that they have read about it on several news sources. With that same concept in mind public criticism of art can spread virally and impact the way that art history is documented-- at least one can hope.

In closing, we should strive to test the opinions of those who try to define us as a people and as a collective culture. The best way to do that is to cut though the media art hype and make your opinion known. Show support to artists that you know of who don't have the financial backing that so few enjoy. Raise up a middle finger and release the most powerful weapon at your disposal-- your opinion. Make it known-- you can help to discover the greatest artists of tomorrow!

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin

Update: Brian Sherwin Writing for FineArtViews

2010-11-19T11:28:00.000-08:00

Update: Brian Sherwin Writing for FineArtViews

I’m pleased to announce that I’m officially a regular contributing writer for FineArtViews (FAV). FineArtViews is a free daily e-newsletter that focuses on art marketing, general art advice, and other art related information. FAV is known for having great art content that can be helpful to artists, art collectors, and gallery owners-- or anyone else interested in art.

FAV is maintained by Clint Watson-- a former gallery owner who is the driving force behind FineArtStudioOnline (FASO). FASO is a website creation tool that allows artists to create their own website in minutes. In other words, FASO artist websites make the tech side of art marketing easier for artists to manage so that they can focus more time on creating art instead of being bogged down by technicalities, so to speak. As for FineArtViews, Clint has done a great job of gathering contributors who are experts in art marketing online, aspects of e-Commerce, and gaining exposure for artwork online. I’m excited to be included in the team.

My most recent contribution to FineArtViews, titled Copyright Registration: Protecting Yourself as Well as Your Collectors, deals with the importance of copyright registration. I firmly believe that copyright registration protects artists as well as their art collectors. Excerpt below:

“The issue of copyright registration is always a hot topic among artists. Copyright registration can be an important aspect of marketing your art. The protection offered by copyright law is one of the best ways to secure the future growth of your art business. Copyright registration provides a strong foundation for future sales via means of prints and other merchandise-- and protects your creative investments if issues over who owns your images arise. Not only does copyright registration protect you-- it also protects art collectors who have invested in your artwork. It is something that all selling artists should do-- but I’m fully aware that most artists don’t.” -- Brian Sherwin

To read the article visit the FineArtViews blog. Be sure to subscribe to the FAV newsletter!

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin

When the Art World kills You: Some thoughts on Dash Snow

2010-11-17T10:24:00.000-08:00

When the Art World kills You: Some thoughts on Dash Snow

I had an interesting conversation recently about the idea of artists creating a persona in order to advance themselves as far as public interest is concerned. During the debate it was suggested that gallery owners and curators help to establish-- or focus upon-- specific traits that will warrant press and all the fame that comes with it-- and that perhaps artists get trapped in that persona. The artist Dash Snow-- who died in 2009 at the age of 27-- instantly came to mind. It forced me to wonder if aspects of the gritty side of the mainstream art world played a role in Snow’s death.

It is obvious that the general public is just as much interested in how an artist behaves-- if not more so-- than in the artwork itself. Personality can be a selling point if it sparks interest. In fact, it is not uncommon for stories about artists to become viral hits if the story involves details about the personality-- legitimate or constructed-- of the artist. For example, you may have never viewed the late Dash Snow’s photography-- but chances are you know that he was a drug addict who was apt to act like a hamster when high.

Those who promoted Dash Snow’s exhibits, along with his friends Ryan McGinley and Dan Colen, helped to perpetuate the persona-- the drug infused selling point-- of Dash Snow. By doing so this form of hype-- this fostering of a myth-- no doubt played a role in perpetuating Snow’s drug addiction. After all, when drugs become your identity-- what more do you have?

Dash Snow obviously felt some form of gratification from being in the spotlight of art world buzz or else he would have refused to exhibit at prestigious galleries. Perhaps the attention was positive for his self-esteem. Unfortunately, that gratification relied on addiction-- and those surrounding his career were quick to embrace it. They used it as a selling point for his art and as a means of sparking interest.

By focusing on Dash Snow’s vice powerful individuals in the mainstream art world, such as Jeffrey Deitch and Charles Saatchi, empowered Snow’s addictions rather than helping him to help himself. One could suggest that those behind the market for his work wanted Snow to be a walking mess-- it was profitable. Due to that it is easy to see how Dash Snow could have very well been trapped by the persona associated with his artwork. One could suggest that he was caught up by the hype surrounding him.

I realize that some people may be insulted by my viewpoint-- especially those who were close to Snow. However, if my suggestions are far-fetched is it so far-fetched to suggest that perhaps they should not have shown his work or collaborated with him until he was clean? Would it have been a horrible thing if his work reflected on his past without direct involvement with drug use-- and without promoting him as the drug infused bastard son of wealth? It is hard to say-- perhaps he would have still been creating today had that persona not been perpetuated as it was.

Thinking of Dash Snow makes me wonder how often artists get caught up in their persona-- the image they have fostered for themselves (or had forced upon them) in the media spotlight. The image they try to focus on because that is what the public has come to expect. Even in death Snow was a prisoner of the hype surrounding him. In fact, many thought that Dash Snow’s death was a hoax-- or a well-scripted publicity stunt spurred in advance of an upcoming exhibit-- until his grandmother, philanthropist and art collector Christophe de Menil, confirmed that Snow had indeed succumbed to his addictions by means of a drug overdose.

It leaves one to ask-- did Dash Snow’s addiction to drugs kill him or does the murder of creativity come in the form of the addiction he had to mainstream art world hype and those who herded him around as if he was Andy Warhol’s second coming. Who is to blame? Many point out Snow’s troubled past-- which is a convenient target for those who want an excuse for not displaying the responsibility they should have had while Snow was still alive. Snow needed a strong focus on rehabilitation and firm support-- not exhibit openings and media bombardments that praised his destruction.

While researching Snow’s death I spotted a comment-- which stated, “he was not only a brilliant artist but a drug addict as well. Here we have the Basquiat of our times!”. I don’t think the commenter realized the irony of what he said-- the fact that the hype surrounding Dash Snow has come full circle in that his natural creativity and the outside influence of drug addiction are meshed as one. Meshed as if equal in importance-- that is his legacy. The commenter was right in comparing Snow to Jean-Michel Basquiat. Both artists were victims hype.

I want to stress that I’m in no way speaking ill of the dead-- but I will speak ill of individuals who sit back while an artist destroys himself for their profit or investment. Furthermore, I’m not in the market of praising someone for his or her drug addictions. I say that because many writers were apt to mention Snow‘s drug addiction as if it were some twisted medium used in his artistic process-- something to be strangely admired or praised. Something we normally would not condone-- yet art writers, curators, art collectors, and gallery owners did. Snow was obviously hurting inside-- yet people praised the physical form of his torture as if it were an important aspect of his identity and a necessity for his art.

In my eyes Dash Snow is the prince of the mainstream art worlds under-belly-- the cruel side of the high profile aspects of the global art market, the recklessness of curators and gallery owners in regards to how they sometimes treat artists, and the vice of millionaire art collectors like Charles Saatchi. I have no doubt that some of those individuals now rub their hands together thinking of their investment. They have their martyr now-- their prince sits upon his thrown-- I hope that they can live with it and the Secret he left behind.

Take care, Stay true,

Brian Sherwin