Making Marks in the Marketplace

From: http://www.globatron.org/artcoverage/making-marks-in-the-marketplace

globatron said:

I think we should have something like this monthly, but maybe instead of it being a straight forward panel discussion have it be more like a talk show. The host would let the panelist speak then the folks in the crowd would have time to ask questions to the panelists.

The first thing I saw that was not really spoken about was the lack of a market in Jacksonville, and why is that?

Also, if we are going to speak of Making Your Mark here as an artist, I think that needs to be looked at in different ways since there isn’t an actual art market here. For instance what impact has art blogging had on the Jacksonville art scene. I for one wouldn’t know anyone in town if it wasn’t for this little old blog.

So there are more viable ways someone can make their mark, and they don’t have to be tied to an art market.

The jist of this whole panel conversation if you don’t want to listen to the whole thing is that artists are struggling in Jacksonville to make a living. Artist sell here and there but no one is making a living off their work. How do we turn that struggle into a catalyst to come together, and begin to organize a real scene here would be my follow up question?

And just a side note: If you want to be invited to speak on a panel about Jacksonville art you need to be an art teacher or art professor it seems.

To me you won’t have an “art market” unless you have a thriving art scene. Having three contemporary galleries and a museum does not make a scene. We need a core of buildings we can turn into art spaces. The city needs to give the artists these spaces as Jim mentioned. They are almost falling down anyways why not turn them into galleries or studios? Not until we have that will we have any viable market and with the current economic times maybe not for months if not years will this happen.

Sarah mentioned New York several times. I’ve lived in New York also, but things are much much different in New York. There is a scene and a real art market. Yes, folks might be struggling there like anywhere else, but showing your artwork on the streets of New York is a better way to get your work out there than showing in any of the galleries in Jacksonville.

There is real pride to living in New York of which Jacksonville artists do not have.

We need to work on being proud. Artists love to call themselves New York artist for good reason. You have to put up with a lot to make it there. Just to live there is hard and it makes your artwork harder too. Can if you allow it to I mean.

So with all this said, this was a good start, but we should be doing these monthly in order to get where we need to be. Or leave. I’m sure a lot of young artists who were there last night don’t plan on staying in Jacksonville. So we need to put the work in, or go somewhere where we have a thriving art market already if that’s what you are into.

In a discussion before I left I think we said we might need to change our goals a bit here in Jax. We don’t have an art market, but we do have an art community. Maybe building a more cohesive art community should be our focus versus how to sell our crap. We have barely begun to build an art community. Not until we get that going will anything happen here of any notoriety. That’s my take on it. Good attempt

MOCA at getting a conversation started about the state of art in Jacksonville.

Although the main topic was more a nice play on the title of the art show, than having anything to do with the reality of being an artist in Jacksonville, it definitely was a good start. We need more of these. We should all meet in the downtown library, but it seems (from my experience) unless MOCA calls people together the artists won’t come.

It would be nice to see MOCA help organize these types of talks of which we need more than one in the future.

21 November 2008 at 1:24 pm valuistics said:

Byron: Couldn’t agree more. I do not know why every person on the panel was a teacher. I know that I was probably the only one, with the possible exception of Tonya, who would be teaching anyway, even if I was selling art. Jim doesn’t teach for extended times unless he isn’t selling, and I’m sure Sara would not teach if she didn’t have to.

On the other hand I probably would. Not sure though about Tonya. She seemed to point to teaching as a means of creative stimulation and refreshment. The fact that both Jim and Sara are teaching now points to the downturn in their market.

Some notes on what you said: “we might need to change our goals a bit here in Jax.” That is the stone cold truth. No scene will flourish unless there is community and that is Jacksonville’s biggest problem. I’ve said it before, but this town seems to wilt community by design. People say hey there is community or culture if you know where to look, but even then what you find is community existing in small insular pockets. Its there, though, and there is enthusiasm for art here and a lot of young people who have a tremendous interest in art. Which brings me to: “I’m sure a lot of young artists who were there last night don’t plan on staying in Jacksonville.”

I think you’re right. But how many of them will do as Tonya and Sara (and you) have done and move to NYC for a few years only to return to Jacksonville because of the high cost of living up there and other factors? Can they still take comfort in the tiredout idea (that Jim mentioned) that “hey it’s the digital age, it doesn’t matter where you are anymore!” I don’t think so. As everyone so amply points out- yes, it still

matters where you are. Being in NY, as opposed to anywhere else with the exception of LA, matters! I think Sara mentioned New York in every sentence. And while I didn’t mention it, (if we had more time I would have) that to me echos what I’ve been saying all along- in order to distinguish yourself here or in any city that isn’t New York or LA, you must show outside of that city. One cannot distinguish themselves by just showing in Jacksonville. In fact, I have no idea how one would, with so few galleries. So I do not blame the young ones who want to move. I want to move. But wherever I go, I will continue to show outside of that area.

And finally: “It would be nice to see MOCA help organize these types of talks of which we need more than one.”

This is actually more than wishful thinking. After talking with both Ben and Marshall, I think they do plan to do this type of event more often, with more than just teachers on the panel. Ben is keen on doing a monthly night in which artists sign up to present their work in slide form and then have a discussion, much like the format you suggested. I would be down with attending these regularly. And students would get on board if their teachers introduce it to them and give them extra credit for coming. I know I appreciated what artists do more and more each time I would hear an artist talk when I was in undergrad.

Lastly: “Good attempt MOCA at getting a conversation started about the state of art in Jacksonville.”

Agreed. It is long overdue.

21 November 2008 at 2:31 pm markcreegan said:

Thanks for putting this up Byron. I had to teach last night and was hoping i’d catch it at some point, tho I am not in a place to watch it yet. I like that image of you James-it looks like you are in a chamber of commerce meeting from the 70s! (well, except for the wine glass) I just think being an artist in Jacksonville is like being a chef in a city where hardly anyone eats except you and a few friends (circle mastication?) . Which is fine if you can accept that there are no restaurants so no way to practice your chefery skills and develop in a meaningful way. Certainly, being in a city like NYC offers its own

challenges in that respect, and there is something to be said to being sort of on the outskirts, away from too much attention, especially for the young developing artist.

I think there comes a time tho, when one is weary of having to keep inventing the wheel, keep re-creating or re-invigorating the community, hoping that something is going to stick long term. You come to a point where you just want to enter a community that exists, the infrastructure is built, all you have to do is move in. I am so there now.

I also think artists like myself are inherently bad at maintaining “the scene” anyway. I mean the organizing, running spaces, putting on shows, all that jazz. I mean, every once in a while is fine, but most of us (and i am there right now) need to hunker down in our respective hobbit-holes (to work, to think, to breathe, whatever) Artists should enliven the art community with their work, period.

I think Jacksonville lacks patrons more so than collectors. And we lack enough writers and curators (not that the ones we have don’t rock!- Madeleine!) These are the worker bees that keep the ship afloat. Artists are the cargo.

So yes lets keep talkin’, i mean, what could it hurt?

21 November 2008 at 3:38 pm another ben said:

How do we turn that struggle into a catalyst to come together, and begin to organize a real scene here would be my follow up question?

Maybe building a more cohesive art community should be our focus versus how to sell our crap. …. Not until we get that going will anything happen here of any notoriety No scene will flourish unless there is community and that is Jacksonville’s biggest problem.

This seems to be the prevailing wisdom, but have we actually questioned these ideas?

(I’m sure you probably have, but allow me) To begin with, it is sort of accepted that Jacksonville has a less than enthusiastic art market. I interpret this as people not being blown away by the art they see. It isn’t creating a buzz. People aren’t telling their friends about the amazing art they saw.

If that’s the case, how would community cohesion change anything?

Do you think the problem is exposure, and a that a thriving community would remedy this?

Do you think that artists aren’t being given a nurturing environment, and downtown artist lofts would give them the time and space to make better work?

I understand this won’t be a popular suggestion, but what if our art just isn’t that interesting? I don’t see anyone visiting my blog or talking about my work. My first thought isn’t to blame Jacksonville. My first thought is, my work needs to get alot better if I want it to make an impact.

It would be different if we were all selling art like crazy in other cities and our websites were getting massive traffic. Then I would be more open to the idea of Jacksonville just not having an informed market. But I don’t see much coming out of Jax that is actually creating a splash.

My friend pointed out that the local music forums are having the same issues spending all their time asking how to get more people to their shows without asking themselves how to make more interesting music.

And it should go without saying that I am generalizing. I believe a few artists already are breaking out with strong work and several others probably will in the near future.

21 November 2008 at 3:49 pm valuistics said:

Mark: Couldn’t agree more. About the 70’s chamber of commerce look, I mean. It’s my haircut. Mandy is overdue in cutting it.

No, but you’re right about the role of artists. I want to work, and I want a community that supports it. I can’t spend a lot of time helping to organize things. There are people in scene-cities that do that and aren’t artists. They are people with the means and connections to do it, and a love for art and artists. If artists ran the ship, we’d be cracked up on the rocks.

I too am so there when it comes to moving to a scene where the infrastructure and culture are already happening. I don’t know how you create it from nothing. The dialogue helps. This helps. What we’re doing right now helps but look- it’s just us three talking here…

21 November 2008 at 3:54 pm valuistics said:

Ben: That is a question every artist asks deep inside, I think, and yeah it is true. It’s not just that Jacksonville is a cultural black hole where there is no community. From the perspective of artists that is the biggest problem next to their own concern over the quality of their work. And at the end of the day it is work that matters above all else.

That’s why I’m saying I’d rather focus on my work than get hot and bothered about the future of the Jax scene. The scene will follow when the work gets exposure. Not “let’s try to build a scene first so that our work can get exposure.” You ask perhaps the most relevant question and I hope it is one we all are asking.

21 November 2008 at 4:05 pm valuistics said:

But do you think that perhaps the artists who live in cities with vibrant scenes are more nourished and therefore there art is more challenging and praise-worthy? I wonder about that. I think I made better work when I was in a social scene full of good artists (grad school) than I do now.

21 November 2008 at 4:08 pm markcreegan said:

ah, competition does have its benefits!

21 November 2008 at 4:18 pm another ben said:

Wow, we seem to be thinking similar thoughts. I was expecting some hostility I think.

And that’s a valid question about nurturing. I agree that some of my personal highlights come from exposure to other artists.

So I could see “creating a community to foster better art”. But yknow…it would seem more productive to just find people who’s work you admire and befriend them rather than having weekly community critiques. And that’s just because I tend to put more faith in bottom up rather than top down solutions.

And this also makes me think of things we’ve seen on JaxCal. The community, as it is, is NOT open to criticism to get better.

I’m a little scattered at the moment, but enjoying the replies.

21 November 2008 at 4:20 pm another ben said:

Mark, you keep posting while I’m typing. And it usually changes what I would have typed. And yeah, competition.

Autrelle made a few posts on this blog, and they linked back to a post he made on his blog that felt so vital. He was saying that the art world has suffered because it has removed itself from the sort of proving ground that other art forms have to go through.

Emphasis mine.

Artists ruined art for me. Too much faking. Too much of people getting away with making shitty art, since apparently it’s rude to tell an artist that their art is shitty.

Most artists won’t agree that there is in fact an objective way to judge art as good or bad… ..Consider hip-hop for example. Hip hop has several expressions. Spray paint mural art, deejaying, emceeing, street dancing, what have you. In these, there has always been healthy competition. It fosters improvement. Sometimes, the competition is very unhealthy. Many rappers, for example, have been killed because of rivalry. The point is that in hip hop, it is expected that your peers will be openly critical of what it is you do. You do something wack, you get booed off of a stage, or crossed out on a wall.

The fine art world is too civilized for that. You can do whatever you want. Make shitty art. Copy other people’s ideas. Steal other peoples actual art. It’s rather sad.

In my opinion, if the art world was more open to this idea, we would have a lot better art, and probably more waiters too.

21 November 2008 at 4:31 pm valuistics said:

Also having a critical framework (meaning people who stand up and maturely critique other peoples’ work) is crucial to improving artists’ work. Where is that in Jacksonville? I’ll tell you where it comes from in other cities: Universities and the types of people towns with big universities attract. In other words: INTELLECTUALS. Are the art programs at the colleges on the first coast robust in their ability to produce critical intellectuals? And is the city capable of retaining these intellectuals after they graduate? My short answer is no. The culture here, aside from many small pockets, is overwhelmingly anti-intellectual.

There is not one Critical Issues Seminar class offered at UNF or Flagler, and I don’t think JU or FCCJ do one either. Why? Are the students who come up through Duval County Public Schools or Florida public schools in general not really of the caliber to do well with a course like that? My short answer is YES. Based on my experiences teaching in Duval County, I can say that students are not being taught to be divergent, critical thinkers. They are taught that all their efforts must converge on one goal: the FCAT test score or college admission. They are not taught to be dialectic in their approach to looking at the world. How could they make the quantum leap to having fair and nuanced critical discussions? I regret to report that intellectual curiosity among my students is scant.

Most professors who come from other colleges in other places agree that their curriculum needs to be modified to teach here or it will sail over most students’ heads. The students who come out of intensive art programs like Douglas Anderson traditionally vacate Jacksonville as soon as they can. Case in point: The ONE collegebound student I knew who was talented AND critically intelligent was Kelly Pope and she is now at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago. Can I blame her at all for never wanting to move back here? Absolutely not. Go far, Kelly!

This is not so in places with large college communities and in states that spend more on education. So while I think that the quality of artists’ work must come first, I do not think that the state and local governance are without blame. It is a matter of education. And in Florida, all you have to do is compare students to the national average. My apologies go out to any native Floridians I am offending with these sentiments. I am married into a family of Floridians who do well with stimulating

intellectual curiosity in the home, but I think that for the majority it is not the same.

Education as the key to establishing a real critical framework in this community is the elephant in the room.

Without dialectical thinking and an education in critical thinking, we can’t have a critical framework here. Without a critical framework we don’t have as good of work, without better work, we can’t get the exposure, without the exposure we can’t have the scene.

And the worst thing you get in the absence of that critical framework is a culture of artists that doesn’t know how to take criticism. If you don’t know how to maturely and intelligently take criticism (lord knows my students have trouble with it!) then you have a lot of drama, factiousness, division, bad blood, envy, hating, and, in extreme cases, abuse. Haven’t we seen enough of that in Jacksonville to know the hazards of being critical towards artists? Couldn’t that explain why there are so few vocal critics here? It’s dangerous. You literally get threatened. That is not what happens in a civil society where people are adequately educated.

Just look at the reaction of Byron’s criticisms of monster art last summer. And look at the reaction of Byron when Madeline Peck was critical of him in return! Why, if someone dealt some seriously needed criticism about the work of, say a Louise Freshman Brown, then half the artists in Jacksonville would have to decide whose side they’re on. It would be war. That’s a huge problem. You say you want dialogue, well, in a critical context, one has to be able to include criticism, real hard criticism in a real way.

I don’t see it happening here.

21 November 2008 at 4:49 pm markcreegan said:

Yep, well, there is another role for the writers, curators, etc.

I can count the number of people on one hand with whom i can be “real’ with ( and vice versa) without hurt feelings. I think if you have one person like that you are lucky. Part of how that works is that we all share knowledge of the criteria we are working in or shooting to accomplish. Its a shared knowledge base and a shared struggle. Outside of that, in the larger scene, booster clubs get formed cuz there aint nobody else to give us a boost except ourselves.

21 November 2008 at 4:55 pm

globatron said:

I think it’s hogwash to think the work we are making isn’t on the level of artists from any city myself.

I know for a fact many of the artists in the Making Marks show could show anywhere on mother earth. So I’m not thinking it’s the work that’s lacking.

The difference is the amount of people, (patrons) that care about contemporary art are much fewer than the amount of fine artists in this town.

But what I think you might be talking about and i might be wrong is that we shouldn’t be talking about the art market but talking about the art.

That we should be pushing each other and being openly communicative about what we feel and what we are getting from each other’s work. That’s the type of community I’ve always tried to build on this here bloggy and a lot of folks have not liked what I have had to say.

But we need to be open to disagreeing with each other and such or there is no growth.

Growth in our art community, or in our own artwork. And if there’s no growth there how can we expect there to be an art market?

And Mark I agree, there should be people trying to figure out all the organizational type stuff out not the artists. Curators, etc. do this work and get paid to do it. Not artists. Artists create. That’s what we are supposed to be doing, not mucking around trying to solve all of these huge city, and cultural problems. If we do that we have no energy to create.

21 November 2008 at 5:19 pm valuistics said:

Byron: “The difference is the amount of people, (patrons) that care about contemporary art are much fewer than the amount of fine artists in this town.”

This plugs directly into the culture-education dyad. This is also why I feel an education in the fine arts makes a healthier citizen. The main superpower an artist has is the ability to creatively solve problems. We each work to solve our own problems of being an artist in a town doesn’t support art as much as it ought to. If the general public were better educated about the need for arts and culture in their community and about the role of the artist in that, then there may be more support.

We’re not playing to a very educated audience, or, rather, we are but it is too small.

You can see the anti-intellectual tendency everywhere. Look at our local media. Look at the stadium-sized megachurches, look at the urban blight and suburban waste and crime problems and poverty issues that go unresolved year after year. These are not just features of Jacksonville, there is a broader cultural dilemma.

In schools, even failing schools or poor schools, the football team still gets whatever it wants and is lavished with attention in the local media. While art gets consistently cut so that students can practice the FCAT more.

As far as art’s representation in the local news, you get an annual human interest story about a recent grad from Douglas Anderson and a press release every time a MOCA show opens and that’s it.

That boosterism mentality Mark mentioned is needed because we can’t expect Jacksonville to boost us.

21 November 2008 at 5:36 pm Byron King (author) said:

Another Ben, if that’s all Autrelle’s post was saying that would be fine but it wasn’t.

It wasn’t just about this. He was attacking someone specifically in his post if I recall.

Ben there is no truly objective way to say artwork is good or bad. That’s where I disagree with a lot of what you believe in I think.

Everything else is relative to the viewer and that’s what is great about contemporary art.

There is no good or bad. It’s all good. Either it works for you and you dig it or you don’t, but to set some sort of rules for judging artwork is sort of backwards don’t you think. That’s not evolution but takes it back a couple of hundred years and if that were the case we’d all be painting the same way.

Van Gogh wasn’t accepted by his peers back in the day too. Seems history has proved them wrong.

21 November 2008 at 7:38 pm kurt polkey said:

A few years ago I ruffled some feathers at an art panel discussion at MOCA. I said that art isn’t subjective, that there is such a thing as bad art and the reason there is no art scene is because there are so few good artist and so many bad artists. This sentiment did not go over very well in a room full of artists. I basically blamed the people in the room for not inspiring the public to care about us.

I don’t know if that’s the case anymore. Now, I usually feel like the public can’t be inspired. So why bother?

21 November 2008 at 9:08 pm another ben said:

I think it’s hogwash to think the work we are making isn’t on the level of artists from any city myself. yeah other cities are producing boring art too.

Another Ben, if that’s all Autrelle’s post that would be fine but it wasn’t. It wasn’t just about this.

I know, I was taking the baby from the bathwater.

There is no good or bad. It’s all good.

Yes we disagree on this, it drives me crazy. Can’t we all just think like me???

But my point about art not making an impact doesn’t change.

Good or bad, I don’t hear people talking about much work around here.(Granted, I don’t get out much.)

A recent exception would be the attention Karen Kurycki’s watercolors recieved.

…but to set some sort of rules for judging artwork is sort of backwards don’t you think.

No I don’t think so at all. It doesn’t seem to have hampered artforms that do have it see the Autrelle quote.

The rules could be complex too, I’m not saying there needs to be X amount of negative space and Y amount of chiaruscuro. But yknow…if you’re gonna be an architect, build something that can handle a rainstorm.

Mark and James: we seem to be more or less agreeing…so …cool - maybe we can cut through formalities and go straight for the brutal honesty if we ever meet.

Byron: thanks for discussing this with me, keep it coming.

21 November 2008 at 9:15 pm Byron King (author) said:

Interesting: If that’s the case and there is BAD art. Why don’t you and Ben define what bad is. I mean it’s all relative to the viewer, is what I was trying to say.

So if there is “bad” art what is the definition of it? I mean bad is just another word for you don’t dig it. It doesn’t float your boat right. It’s not like good or evil. I mean define good, or define love. Define God. I mean if you really want to go down the road of defining good vs. bad art you have to question everything. And we all should be, but isn’t that a very personal thing that can’t be truly defined for everyone?

That’s my take on it. Would love to read some definitions for sure.

I myself am about to complete my theory on “life”, and plan on releasing it via podcast here soon, but of course it’s just a personal perspective from one humanoids eyes in one dimention.

21 November 2008 at 9:16 pm Shannon Estlund said:

Byron, Thanks for the alert to the above discussion. I’d otherwise never hear about these things.

Just a general impression: I don’t know if it’s useful to point a finger at bad art. Fun sometimes, but maybe not very productive. Most artists were bad at some point in their career, and some get better, and a few get really good.

One thing I would be very interested in is if a group decided to do critiques, with studio or gallery visits. It’s so rare to get serious feedback. People want to be polite, and often can’t take the time to really consider what they’re looking at. Sometimes it helps just to get another person’s impression of your work, and I think it’s also helpful to have to put into words what you see in other people’s art.

Anyone?

21 November 2008 at 9:34 pm valuistics said:

I’d be down for a crit, Shannon, et. al. Hey good to see you on here!

21 November 2008 at 9:44 pm another ben said:

No Byron..it is evil.

Just kidding.

I’ll think about this and try to write it out.

Actually…off the cuff, I will say that work is better when mastery of a craft meets inspiration (heart, soul, whatever).

And because we seem to be in a time when mastery of a craft has been downgraded to superfluous or even in bad taste - I find myself putting a little more emphasis on that side of the equation.

An example would be the music you listen to. Would you listen to19 hours of random guitar sounds on your ipod, or would you require some sort of cohesive melody structures and rhythms and stuff? So alot of the art I see in Jax (and Artforum magazine, etc) is like the visual equivalent of a someone killing themselves with an accordion.

And Kurt, I’d be interested in hearing how you judge art. I’m guessing we’d find ourselves on opposites ends of the spectrum….with byron being on a his own spectrum system.

21 November 2008 at 9:49 pm another ben said:

Shannon (of yore…), I just checked out your portfolio.

Here’s some feedback.

Although I don’t necessarily agree with all of the artistic choices you make, your pieces are very striking.

This image in particular. Feels like that moment only lasted for a brief second but it sears into your eyes for a long time.

21 November 2008 at 10:00 pm markcreegan said:

I think the difficulty, whether we accept judgment (good or bad) or reject it, is to forget that it is just one perspective of many. Now it is important to consider that perspective, to accept and reflect on any critique, but it is also important to make distinctions and to value the perspectives that understand more where you are coming from. The distinctions aren’t there to reject and get pissy, they are useful for selfreflection and self awareness.

On the macro- its all relative, in the micro, there is good and bad.

Karen Kuryki’s work is a good example of something that surprised me. It fit some almost ineffable qualities I like– its smart, funny, clever, well made (which I verified when I saw them in real life), it made me see something anew, made me smile ,etc.

In all that I dont even have to consider “good”, I mean to me its good but I know to someone else it may not be. Now, could I put my teachery hat on and say this this and that to make it “better”? sure. Could I point to things similar that maybe go further, do more? absolutely. But that doesnt negate the fact that I enjoyed the pieces.

The type of competition I am talking about has less to do with straight-talkin’ artists than it has to do with one artist doing something that kicks my ass and I feel the healthy push to try to do something better.

21 November 2008 at 10:11 pm markcreegan said:

ben, I hate that word “craft”.here is the best description of craft I have ever heard.

As I said before, “well made” is something I look for, but that simply means it was “made the way it needed to be”.

21 November 2008 at 10:24 pm markcreegan said:

durnit, spambot wont let me link! here is the text by Deborah Fisher: “Craft is about right and wrong, preserving tradition, not reinventing the wheel. The teaching of craft in art school tends to create artist-technicians who so clearly know what is right and what is wrong that they will never do it the really fucked up/interesting/revolutionary way. Craft dulls the potential MakerThinker. It creates false security and throws up barriers to understanding. Craft is conservative.

I TAed a sculpture class for Jennifer Pastor once. And my most important job was to hang out by the sculpture tech and make sure he didn’t convince any of the students do it “the right way” or “the easy way”. Technicians are expedient, and sculpture is rarely interesting when it is done expediently. The right way is often irrelevant. What Jennifer wanted was to get the students to find the way it needed to be done. This is MakerThinking, and it has nothing to do with learning how to weld, although it can involve welding.

The most expressive or smartest way to tackle a problem can really rankle what the craftsperson inside knows to be true. I fight all the craft I learned at my crappy provincial state school education as much as I use it.”

21 November 2008 at 10:28 pm Frank said:

In reference to why-how-what to do to get a thriving art scene, I would say hinges greatly not on educated people caring about art (contemporary or otherwise) but attracting people willing to pay for it. There is nothing special in the NY’s water that makes great art, there are more people there with more money wanting to spend it.

Artist gets paid, and concentrates solely on making more art. Galleries stay solvent, writers have something to write about. Art written about becomes more valuable on the market.

Galleries selling what ya’ll might call less than contemporary art have the same problem south of Atlanta and north of Miami. I’d be willing to bet if you grabbed a random person who just bought a painting in a NY gallery, you wouldn’t be laying hands on anyone with more critical thinking skills than the next yahoo. You find what they do have is spending money and cosmopolitan attitude. The wealthy (usually older) in Jacksonville have never had a stable history of art (at least past the point of finishing the interior decorating plan). The hip young don’t have any money.

I don’t think a massive gallery/studio set up is the answer either. Quite frankly, another rent bill is the last thing I would need.

Maybe it’s not about good or bad art but successful or unsuccessful art. Good or bad is heavily dependant on what the viewer wants to see or feels art should be about, whereas successful or unsuccessful only takes in account what the artist wants to say and how strong he says it.

22 November 2008 at 1:02 am Byron King (author) said:

How do you judge success in how “strong” an artist says something?

The bottom line of this post I think, and the whole conversation last night is that we need more arenas to have these types of conversations.

A blog is a nice place to continue a conversation but unless we actually exist physically in a space for a distance of time on a semi-regular basis then we don’t really have an art community do we?

Some of you might as well live in another country and I actually have no way of proving otherwise.

For the first time in the history of this blog tonight, Morrison Pierce, Kurt Polkey, James Greene, Jerry Cornwell, Mark Creegan, and Tony Allegretti (All major players in the history of this blog) and all my good friends were in my house at the same time. In this universe. In this dimension. Now it was all for another reason, a belated surprise birthday party for myself held by my wife but at one moment in time, Kurt, Mark and I were reading a comment that Mark had written nearly an hour earlier.

So at this point in time I was reading Mark’s comment in my home, with Mark and Kurt ( who had commented a couple of hours earlier) watching. This was more surreal than anything I’ve experienced in some time as these are people I see maybe three times a year at tops. This blog has become distant voices chanting and speaking of change from the protection of their homes, and domains. We rarely get out of our comfort zones to experience each other, versus a back and forth via the internet.

Last night at MOCA Jacksonville a lot of the people I know sat in one room, and began a conversation that could have taken hours. We have barely begun to break the surface of what needs to be done here in Jacksonville. Regardless of your long term plans, goals, or commitments for Jacksonville uniting in one physical space and challenging each other to share, unite, and explore the possibilities of creating solutions for this half-hazard art scene can be something we should not only agree upon but thirst for.

So after all of this back and forth, my question to you all is, “When is the next panel talk? Where will it be held? What will be the discussion topic? And what good can come from it if we actually have it?”

After many a conversation like the one above purely in the blogosphere, I feel as if we are spinning our wheels here. It seems to be a practice in typing versus a practice in doing and following through. And when we do meet, what are our goals?

Thank you JaxCAL and Globatron. Tonight looking around the surprise birthday party that Dana held for me I realized that the large majority of you are not only my friends here in Jacksonville, but you have become my family, and for that I can’t be thankful enough.

22 November 2008 at 3:23 am Frank said:

I’ve noticed that in Jax (and elsewhere), most people judge (under the guise of criticism) how much they like a piece of art by how close it is to their view of what art should be. That is fine if the question is “do you like it”, but ”like” has nothing to do with honest criticism and critique. With that in mind, a piece should be looked at in terms of what was the artist trying to say, did they say it with eloquence, did they fully utilize their media, and is it a complete statement. All questions that can be both a little subjective and a little objective, but either way, I think it’s a fair place to start.

When a room full of people start with the yaking, nothing happens ‘til one person finally does something. I think Brian G. had the right idea when he used his blog to put together his Next show. I got no love for monster art, but I do admire the effort and time those folks put in doing something.

Maybe a good place to talk would be the auditorium of the old library… it’s far from perfect but Gray probably good for it. Plenty of room to show and talk about work.

I’d personally like to take back some of Art Walk from the drunk hipsters.

22 November 2008 at 4:55 am globatron said:

Frank, The folks on this blog aren’t just a bunch of jaw jackers. We actually have put the work in. Many times. It’s quite circular actually.

I don’t want to give you a list of examples of shows that we have been involved with putting together or classes that we have taught as it has been a productive experiment as there have been many.

I’m not about self promotion, or trying to promote shows in general.

My personal goal is about having a dialogue to encourage others to have shows and for myself to document them in order to have more dialogue about those shows.

I could care less if I ever show my artwork or put another art show together in Jacksonville. I’m all for other’s stepping up and taking on that cross, but myself am done with bearing it.

I’d be fine with meeting in a public park and having an honest conversation.

22 November 2008 at 6:01 am Shannon Estlund said:

Well, after a little more thought, and reading the more recent posts, I have a more specific proposal, that could maybe run parallel to some of the other ideas.

How about meeting once a month for critiques? We could do one or two artists at a time, depending on geographic proximity, visiting either their studio/work space or show space if the work is up somewhere. If we could get anywhere from six to fifteen artists together, it seems like that would be a nice number, for good variety and also so that we could hit each artists at least once a year. I’ll even say, I would like to have the crits on the third Wednesday of the month (if this works for everyone), to alternate with Art Walk. I think I know at least one other artist who’d be into it. How about you James? And anyone else. Come on people! It’ll be fun!

22 November 2008 at 6:23 pm Byron King (author) said:

I’m game. Good idea. Kurt Polkey actually has a nice little garage/studio that would be perfect for these talks. Kurt are you down with maybe volunteering your space as a meeting ground?

I’d be happy to document the talks.

If we get an interesting enough little group of artists together we might even be able to have openings for the work the Friday following the critiques?

22 November 2008 at 8:27 pm kurt polkey said:

I do a lot of experimentation (bad art) in the studio and I have time to self-edit before I show the work to others. The idea of studio visits by people I don’t know too well would make me very uncomfortable. I have a few friends that I trust and those are the people I go to. I do however like the idea of artists getting together on a regular basis to discuss ideas and drink beer.

I think the bad vs. good art is a fun discussion. Like the supreme court’s ruling on porn - ” I can’t define it, but I know it when I see it” - I have the same rule for art.

Fortunately I’m not the one that decides such things. The powers that be are the ones to decide what is good and what is bad. The artists and the critics that gain recognition and respect because of their ability to judge and then articulate how they feel are the deciding factors. The magazines, dealers, collectors, and artists are the judges. Oh and the $$$. I know some people don’t want to think of art in that way, but that’s the way I see it.

22 November 2008 at 8:34 pm Byron King (author) said:

Yeah, maybe just a group getting together period would be a step in the right direction.

But maybe with the size of Jacksonville, and the complications of living in this modern world a blog is about as together as we will ever come. Not sure.

I would like to see MOCA organize the gatherings myself as it gives some official quality to it that I think some folks need to rationalize getting out of their spider holes.

Kurt I’m interested in what makes you feel a certain way about a piece of art, good or bad. Could you define how you judge it? That would be interesting to hear. I’m sure we all have our measuring standards in place but I think they are rarely defined.

22 November 2008 at 9:12 pm

another ben said:

on the word craft: I think of craft as the ability to use the materials. To be able to coax any shade out of a pencil at will…any type of line.

As well as things like understanding color enough to evoke moods, to control emphasis, etc.

Mastery of craft is just the groundwork that lets us communicate our inspiration without dilution.

If I am still at the “football shaped eyes” level in my ability to draw a face, I will have to settle for that look - regardless of the vision or feeling I have.

If I only know how to tap single keys on a piano - I can never make chords, etc. even if my vision calls for a complex symphony.

Again, I’m not saying we need to be craftspeople…knowledge of craft just gets us in the door - we still need inspiration - soul etc.

Kurt, I think I liked your post. could you tell me what you think makes your art good?

Byron - as much as we disagree, I think I should state that I admire your efforts.

Also - I like having this discussion on a blog - I don’t have any need for this to happen in Kurt’s garage.

22 November 2008 at 9:24 pm Frank said:

Shannon, sounds like a worthy idea.. I’d be game.

Another Ben, I agree with your view on craft. I think the idea of a four year art college degree gives many people the idea that competient craft is something to be mastered in a few years.

23 November 2008 at 3:12 am Byron King (author) said:

Well, I completely disagree. I think an art degree makes you more open minded that there is more to art than craftsmanship. I mean it depends on the school of course, but a good interdisciplinary education in contemporary art should not be focusing on craft but ideas.

There is much more to artwork than drawing. Concepts and ideas are the core to any work, regardless of how well it’s rendered, and there are so many more ways to express one’s self versus just drawing or painting.

To tell you the truth I think this is one of the major places Jacksonville artists, and viewers need to grow. Jacksonville in general doesn’t understand contemporary art.

For example, Ben you can dis Art Forum and say New York art is boring just like Jacksonville art?

I went to two hundred art shows just a month ago in NY and if you can call NY art boring then I really suggest you quit making art. And I only say this because if you can look at all the photos below and say that the work is boring, then being an artist might cause you more harm than good in your life. I mean I’d hate to be involved in an activity that I hate.

Pics here: http://www.globatron.org/events/new-york-art-tour-10-08 I think I understand contemporary art by accepting it. If you have this struggle with some artists not being able to draw or paint as well as you’d like them to then you are most likely not going to get a large percentage of contemporary art, not only in Jacksonville, but elsewhere.

Maybe your thing isn’t the work in Art Forum or New York art. Maybe your thing isn’t contemporary art? Maybe you should explore illustration. I mean I love Norman Rockwell’s work, but also dig Damien Hirst. So maybe you can love all types of work too, but that’s for you to answer.

But I do think you might want to take a step back and realize that defining work good or bad is judgmental, and can only be an experiment in ego. Who are you to judge or make rules dependent on one’s mastery of craft? Who is anyone?

The reason contemporary art is so amazing I believe is because people like JeanMichel Basquiat didn’t have to draw the way I would think you would have him. But his work, and the message behind it transcended that. It had soul and real power. If

your rules for defining work were in place we would not have heard of Keith Haring either.

I’ve seen retrospectives by both artists and their work is definitely amazing to say the least.

Both artists most likely can’t draw as well as you guys would want them to but they sure made powerful work that by any definition of the word was successful.

23 November 2008 at 3:44 am kurt polkey said:

It’s really hard for me to define what makes my art good - or bad.

It’s why I agree with Byron, I think it’s essential to meet with other artists or creative people. I think I need others to fill in the blanks.

Here goes: I set up certain obstacles and challenges, usually based on art I’ve already made, and I believe I’ve made a good piece of art when those challenges are met. What I strive for is a simple, thoughtful approach to making art and I hope my work reflects that.

I’ll use Creegan as my example. If you remember from the PORTENT show Mark made a hanging sculpture out of juice sticks. This was a clever, colorful and well designed piece. I liked it. A little while later I saw the basket sculptures from the FCCJ show. At first I would have said I liked the colorful juice sticks sculpture better, but those baskets somehow simmered inside me. It helped reinforce in me the idea of simplicity being way more powerful. The simple basket sculpture on the floor was way more ballsy. I would argue for that reason the basket sculpture was better, but I would understand if someone else thought differently.

Now to tie this in with my other point; If some one like Dave Hickey says the hanging juice sticks sculpture is great, and the baskets are not, well then, he is right.

Someone of that stature has earned the right to make those types of decisions. If ten well established art critics say something is good and I say it is bad - it’s good.

Unfortunately for us we don’t have any critics of that caliber review our work. What I mean is, we don’t have any one to establish in the public what or who is good. Blogs don’t count, because they only reach the choir. So I have to make do with people who understand what I am trying to accomplish.

“Is my art good”?

23 November 2008 at 4:04 am kurt polkey said:

“Is MY art good”? isn’t a question for anyone to answer - it is a question we all have to ask ourselves.

23 November 2008 at 4:18 am another ben said:

Chapter 8 In Which Our Hero Clogs the Pipes I think the an art degree opens your minds that there is more to art than craftsmanship.

To reiterate: “Mastery of craft is just the groundwork that lets us communicate our inspiration without dilution.” a good interdisciplinary education in contemporary art should not be focusing on craft but ideas Yeah we disagree, I think they should start with the fundamentals and then work the concepts. This way their concepts can flow unhindered by lack of abilities (in any medium - of course not just drawing and painting).

Concepts and ideas are the core to any work, regardless of how well it’s rendered That may be true - it may be the core - but how can an artist like your friend Ken communicate his feelings and visions without the ability?

Ben you can dis Art Forum and say New York art is boring just like Jacksonville art?

Most of it, yes. Of course there are exceptions. if you can call NY art boring then I really suggest you quit making art.

I just checked, pretty boring stuff.

Especially these: bland crap

boobs? spider So first off - if I find this stuff tiresome, do I automatically not understand conteporary art?

Yknow my favorite artists include Rauschenberg, Rothko, Motherwell, Kline, Miro etc.

Or is that waning contemporary?

But more importantly, I should quit making art because I find that stuff boring???

PLEASE, if nothing else, expand on this for me!

I mean, even if you’re right and I don’t understand contemporary art…it’s not like I’m plastering all the local blogs about my shows, I hardly even display my work.

What harm is there in me quietly working on my antiquainted nonsense?

If you have this struggle with some artists not being able to draw or paint as well as you’d like them to then you are most likely not going to get a large percentage of contemporary art, not only in Jacksonville, but elsewhere.

Agreed. But are you open to considering that I’m not the only one that feels this way?

And if it’s turning people off, can we ask if it actually has much value? Or at least care that it’s leaving people cold?

Maybe you should explore illustration.

I do. I love illustration.

I like some Damien Hirst as well.

I like all many different types of art - but I think a lot of stuff these days is boring.

But I do think you might want to take a step back and realize that defining work good or bad is judgemental, and can only be an experiment in ego.

I like work that moves me. I seek to understand what moves me. The more honest I am with myself, the more I can understand my relationship with art. I would think it’s just me, but I know several others who completely agree. So maybe there’s something to it.

And yes, I’m fine judging work.

I’m not sure it’s an exercise of ego - more than anything else…like speaking or thinking.

Who are you to judge or make rules dependent on one’s mastery of craft? Who is anyone?

Just someone that likes art.

people like Jean-Michel Basquiat didn’t have to draw the way I would think you would have him.

I would have him draw like he did.

I tihnk he had a good understanding of the rules of design.

He had an eye for color.

He used thoughtful line weight.

Balanced compositions.

And on top of that - his inspiration or concept or whatever, was so mysterious and interesting .. to me.

I feel you’re reducing me down to a someone who thinks all artists should be Da Vinci.

I like Basquiet.

I don’t like the artists that try to copy him without his skills.

If your rules for defining work were in place we would not have heard of Keith Haring either.

No, they pass. Others I wouldn’t mind deleting though. I could do without Fragonard maybe - as long as I’m calling the shots.

Byron, I’m assuming you’re enjoying this like I am. Fostering dialogue is the whole idea right?

Kurt - I see you posted before I could upload this tome - I’ll try to respond to your comments later.

23 November 2008 at 4:35 am Frank said:

A four year art degre is a fine thing, I got one of those. It allowed me to qualify to teach for the county (for 10 years, got a whole different kinda job now). Here’s my problem with them: maaannny students leave college with a fine art degree believing they have been given the title “artist” and have reached the epiphany of thier abilities.

Unfortunatlly, that same institution taught little to nothing on how to make a paying career out of being an artist (like it or not, food costs). The end of the degree is only to beginning of the learning. Part of the problem is so many of those students have spent too long in various education systems, and not enough in real life.

I like Harring’s drawing, he had skills. Although he did not render objects in the illusion of 3D, he put his lines down with accuracy and force. That is a craft only learned though much, much work.

Good drawing is not necessarily about “rendering”, I believe its about controlling the power of your media, the same way boxing is not about how hard you punch, as much as when and where you punch.

Sure, its judgemental, that’s what people do, make decisions about what they believe.. and sometimes tell other people.

The idea is the core, or start of any work, but an idea needs some vehicle to carry it.

Even in your case, the idea of the trophy soliders wasn’t translating without some display of darftmanship in those pieces. The drawings I relied on were pretty traditional (rendering) in thier execution. Craft may play second banana to idea, but in those cases, craft was still undispsable.

23 November 2008 at 4:41 am another ben said:

I like Harring’s drawing, he had skills. Although he did not render objects in the illusion of 3D, he put his lines down with accuracy and force. That is a craft only learned though much, much work.

Good drawing is not necessarily about “rendering”, I believe its about controlling the power of your media, the same way boxing is not about how hard you punch, as much as when and where you punch.

Sure, its judgemental, that’s what people do, make decisions about what they believe.. and sometimes tell other people.

Thanks for saying it so much better then I can.

23 November 2008 at 4:45 am Byron King (author) said:

Of course I’m enjoying it Ben. That’s what it’s all about. Thanks for engaging me.

What is not boring to you? It seems you are easily bored.

Question: That may be true - it may be the core - but how can an artist like your friend Ken communicate his feelings and visions without the ability? ………….

Answer: Any way he wants to. Because his work is illustrational currently doesn’t mean that’s the only way he can communicate. He’s currently working on one style over a half dozen or so that he’s used throughout the years. Check his work out, http://www.kenvallario.com if you haven’t. Thanks for the plug about my friend’s work Ben. The examples you chose in the photos I took were amazing, in the context of the whole exhibit. You just can’t imagine what that show looked like from those photos but the Boobs drawing was a huge one man show at Metropictures, and the portraits were in this amazing environment in the Lower Eastside in a place called the Cake Shop. The environment more than anything was surreal and made the portraits really work.

I do think you have set up some rules for yourself that is going to keep you from enjoying the majority of contemporary art. And that’s your choice.

I have no issue with you judging work. I mean that’s what it’s all about but thinking there could be a structure of rules for good or bad art that we can all agree upon is impossible.

And I’m sure there are plenty of artists and art lovers who don’t like any lick of concept in their work and that’s fine too.

My whole deal is saying something is good or bad is sort of a cop-out. It doesn’t even touch the surface of your reaction to the work. If you don’t like something ask yourself why? Then maybe there you can learn a little bit about yourself and the artist. About the world even?

To me that’s what it’s all about? Asking the questions? But the answers are personal and that’s your gift. Being able to approach art from a very personal space. When you begin to say we should or could find a way to dictate rules of craft to define good or bad, I can’t disagree with you more.

I’m glad to hear others think there is a possible way to do this. I’d love to read a rulebook on making good art. Maybe if there was one I’d be a full-time artist by now.

23 November 2008 at 4:52 am another ben said:

I set up certain obstacles and challenges, usually based on art I’ve already made, and I believe I’ve made a good piece of art when those challenges are met. What I strive for is a simple, thoughtful approach to making art and I hope my work reflects that.

Could you articulate some specific challenges and obstacles. I have seen quite a bit of your work and I am truly curious.

What is not boring to you? It seems you are easily bored.

Yes I am easily bored. I gave you small list of artists whose work did not bore me, do you require more? I also just checked my images directory and have collected 887 images that have inspired me since I got this computer.

Here are the last two I saved: Clarke Drips Because his work is illustration currently doesn’t mean that’s the only way he can communicate.

Right, but the pieces in that style, I’m guessing…needed ot be presented in that style…else he wouldn’t have bothered to develop it right?

I do think you have set up some rules for yourself that is going to keep you from enjoying the majority of contemporary art. And that’s your choice.

That sounds so deliberate..I don’t remember choosing what makes good art - I don’t think I’m that intuitive. I just followed what I liked and worked backwards form there.

I mean that’s what it’s all about but thinking there could be a structure of rules for good or bad art that we can all agree upon is impossible.

I don’t remember proposing anything like that, maybe I did?

Here’s what I wrote: “I understand this won’t be a popular suggestion, but what if our art just isn’t that interesting? I don’t see anyone visiting my blog or talking about my work. My first thought isn’t to blame Jacksonville. My first thought is, my work needs to get alot better if I want it to make an impact.”

Local art isn’t making much of an impact. Maybe we should start with the art…rather than the audience.

And I’m sure there are plenty of artists and art lovers who don’t like any lick of concept in their work and that’s fine too.

Again - I never said I would abolish concept, inspiration, whatever we call the part that isn’t craft. I agreed it was the core.

My whole deal is saying something is good or bad is sort of a cop-out. It doesn’t even touch the surface of your reaction to the work. If you don’t like something ask yourself why? Then maybe there you can learn a little bit about yourself and the artist. About the world even?

You’re presuming a lot about my relationship with art. I actually spent some time looking at the balloon art pic and examining my feelings towards it. There just wasn’t much there. I probably gave it more time than the artist did.

23 November 2008 at 5:34 am another ben said:

oh yeah, can you please tell me why I should quit making art?

23 November 2008 at 5:35 am Yvonne said:

I’ve read through all the responses, and there’s so much good stuff going on here, I almost don’t know where to start.

I do have to say, I understand what Ben is trying to say. I’ve always had the mindset that knowing how to do something is better than not knowing how to do something. It opens up more options on how to express your work as opposed to someone who only knows one way. I get to choose whether I want to paint like a five year old vs. I have no choice but to paint like a five year old.

On the other hand, I do agree with Byron though, having a blank slate on technique can certainly force a person to pursue concept or idea therefore making their work strong in that element. Sometimes being too good at the technical side can make an artist’s work boring because you start to rely only on the technique as opposed to the subject matter.

Good v. Bad Art? That’s a tough question. I know that through my life as an artist, I’ve entered several contests, shows, & critiques. Sometimes, what I think is fabulous is overlooked, and what I think is mediocre is received with a surprising positive response. For me, little things can make the difference between what I consider good art. Like knowing the artist and their mind set for doing their work or maybe knowing the story behind the work, or sometimes it’s as simple as seeing a painting of puppies and because I like puppies in turn I like the painting.

Sometimes, what I consider good art is work that makes me feel good, sometimes that can be achieved through simple aesthetic value, a color, the subject matter, or even the right lighting can make a difference.

Recently I was with a friend in Flux and she was debating between 2 pieces, but she could only afford one. Both were by the same artist, same style, same concept, but different color scheme. She happened to take one of the works off the wall and when she did that, the light hit the work just right, that it changed the whole mood and feel of that one piece. She ended up taking that piece home. In this case, the right lighting made the work good.

I own a piece by Ronnie Land that makes me smile every time I look at. It’s of an elephant (I’m pretty sure Dumbo was the inspiration) and this elephant has some sort of bug stuck up it’s trunk. I love it, I find so much humor and simplicity in this image.

I don’t know if that makes it good art, but it definitely works for me.

Critiques? I love critiques, I’m not too easily offended. I think as artists, it’s always good to get another artist’s perspective on your work, I go into hermit mode a lot when I have a lot of work to do and I know I can definitely fall into a rut due to lack of artistic human contact. The meeting in person for critiques is hard due to lack of time, but just an idea, Byron kind of already does this on the site, but maybe JaxCal could have a willing artist submit a few images and post them and open the floor for critiques.

Thanks for posting the video Byron and getting this dialogue flowing 23 November 2008 at 5:59 am markcreegan said:

To expand with what Kurt said about whether our art is “good” being a question we have to ask (and answer) ourselves. This hits the core of our job as artists-to be selfaware, self critical. Hopefully, this is what an art school education really gives you, not that going to school is the only method of acquiring those skills.

Only Kurt knows, if he is honest with himself, if he is pushing his work and taking risks. This is where assessment from the outside can sometimes miss the mark because we may see Kurt going in a new direction that may seem off, but to him, it may have been a real struggle to get there and may be a breakthrough. Now, since I may have been engaged with his art for some years I may have some insight as well, but it really is a lonesome journey (the Buddha achieved enlightenment out there in the forest alone).

Id like to say also, as a teacher, that the main thing lacking with students isn’t craft skills (and i teach straight-up, right out of Bauhaus foundation courses) And it isnt even critical thought ( I mean it is lacking, but it doesn’t bother me that much because I think those skills really develop later in life) What is really in short supply are creative imaginations and the willingness to make mistakes. Those are the ingredients for an engaging, interesting, life-long practice. Craft issues take care of themselves.

Every once in a while I get a student who does something that really surprises me, and it usually involves getting the assignment totally wrong, but getting it wrong in an interesting way.

23 November 2008 at 6:05 am markcreegan said:

SO yes I had a student who could not draw eyes well, so she drew her thumbs AS eyes instead-blew me away!

And eventually she got better with eyes.

23 November 2008 at 6:12 am another ben said:

Craft issues take care of themselves.

Are you sure about this one?

Why even bother having skeletal anatomy classes if the ability to accurately represent a human form will take care of itself. I’m guessing I missed your point.

I liked the rest of your post.

23 November 2008 at 6:18 am Frank said:

Stepping back and looking at art history, I think what we have is the aftermath of the Academy system falling apart. Hundred plus years ago, there WERE organized rules and preferences for what made “good” art. Now such a thing seems backward, but it was a system that at its best produced great art and at worst produced mediocre work that were little more than exercises in skill.

My fear about people being apprenhensive or uncaring about craft is that we (the corpate we) will lose the knowedge that it took hundreds of years to obtain. Find me one college graduate from UNF that has the level of refined craft that the teenage self portrait of Durer contains. Not from what I saw at More Than Wallpaper. If craft isn’t practiced in some quarter, its lost. Japan recognized this when they set apart Kyoto as a place for the old crafts to continue to be praticed and perfected. Here in America, 100 years ago, sewing (to the level of making your on clothes) was a common skill.

Now, it’s a rarity. I know, Art and stitching together a shirt is a leap, but in terms of craft, both require time, patience and knowledge agathered from the past.

Stepping further back, I think its a result of being in the age of the individual. Many of the age old system of belief are being ridiculed and rebuked in favor of a person finding his own way alone.

Let me put it this way, the 60’s were to american culture as the 20 century is to this millenium.

23 November 2008 at 7:54 am Byron King (author) said:

Thanks Yvonne.

I think your idea of having an online critique is a great one.

Any ideas on how the work would be selected? and or rules for the critique? How often it would happen? Would folks be interested?

I believe this is the best dialogue we’ve had in months on here.

Frank I feel you on the lack of an Academy and how our culture is one about singularity vs. a predefined way of doing things. That’s a very interesting addition to this discussion.

There are art schools out there that do teach along the lines of the old Academy traditions and a whole line of contemporary artists that use those techniques in their work. Namely my favorite Odd Nerdrum. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odd_Nerdrum 23 November 2008 at 2:46 pm markcreegan said:

There is nothing about my approach to teaching art that advocates an apprehension or ambivalence about craft. In fact, just the opposite is true.

My concept of craft (or a well-made thing) follows Deborah Fisher’s “makerthinker” idea, that something is made the way it needs to be made.

I absolutely recognize the great benefit to the imagination of learning the rudimentary observational skills, the qualities of different materials and different techniques.

Understanding that having a knowledge of the underlying skeletal structure of the human form allows one to do more than just draw the surface of that form well.

Likewise, enhancing one’s observational skills has more applications than objective drawing.

The vast majority of my lessons would parallel those of a teacher interested in creating little Durers or diligent figurative painters. But if that is all I helped create then I feel I have failed as a teacher. The main thing I try to impart is the idea that these skills are tools in service of the imagination. Achieving a certain level of craft is not the end goal. One example of this is William Kentridge. Towards the end of each term I show a video about the artist to show how he uses the same techniques we have covered in the semester in an extremely relevant and dynamic way. And the craft of his work is determined by what he wants to communicate- it is developed by the process of making art. This is what I mean by “craft issues take care of themselves.”

23 November 2008 at 3:00 pm another ben said:

The main thing I try to impart is the idea that these skills are tools in service of the imagination. Achieving a certain level of craft is not the end goal.

Ok, we appear to be in agreement.

I think I see what you mean about Kentridge.

I see it like jazz…you need to know the rules before you can break them.

Otherwise, instead of freedom, you’re stuck in the confines of ignorance (football eyes).

Frank, I feel the same way about loosing skills that took hundreds of years to quire.

Artists of the past were superhuman.

Has anyone read about Mary Cassatt’s training under Degas?

But here’s my original question, which I don’t remember hearing a direct response to: Do we care if our work is uninteresting?

Should our work have an impact on people?

23 November 2008 at 4:04 pm kurt polkey said:

How do you guys and gals feel about John Currin?

23 November 2008 at 5:49 pm valuistics said:

I love how this discussion has blossomed, but since I was out of it for a day I think people are in different territory than I am. I’m still on culture and education and I’d like to question one thing that Frank said, although by and large I have been agreeing with him in this thread. Good to see you on here Frank!

“In reference to why-how-what to do to get a thriving art scene, I would say hinges greatly not on educated people caring about art (contemporary or otherwise) but attracting people willing to pay for it. There is nothing special in the NY’s water that

makes great art, there are more people there with more money wanting to spend it.

Artist gets paid, and concentrates solely on making more art.”

This is true. There are more folks up there with money. But it’s culturally richer too. I know you’re not saying that Jacksonville doesn’t have a large population of wealthy investor-class people, right? Because in my experience I have seen that it indeed does. The issue is cultural and that plugs back into education somewhere. New York not only has wealthy people (don’t you need to be a millionaire to afford a place there?) but it is also a more cosmopolitan place, a world city, a center for converging cultures and a melting pot of creativity. There is not just more wealth, there is a more pluralistic culture. There are more people who can afford art AND think it is a vital good, a valuable commodity sure, but also vital to a life well-lived. Art is diffused in the culture there to a much more advanced degree than most places.

Comparing any place to NY, especially a place like Jacksonville is unfair. There may be something in the water there that reinforces the idea of art being valuable.

Certainly the visibility of art there reinforces its role in the eyes of society. Down here we have a deficiency of it. Of course by water I mean another important public work: education. I still stand by the idea that a lack of education (among several other factors) contributes to a dead space in the community where art should be but isn’t.

We have a wealthy population and we have galleries that cater directly to them (although it is probably more fun for them to go up to New York and buy art than it is to shop for it down here. I would if I were rich.) In most cases, the JAX galleries that cater to the tastes of the investor class don’t make a lot of money but because they are propped up by a monied backer (there is always a backer- always someone who wants to see it go on and have the parties) they stay afloat. They bring in art from other places. Our art is not really for them, or so it would seem. So we show at Opaq and have a PBR. The troubles that JAX’s contemporary artists and artists not solely making work for the decorative market (hey that’s us!) are having is partly cultural in that their work does not get the exposure with the people who have the means to buy it. There are cultural and political forces shaping that. These folks don’t all go to the Museums. A lot of them go to the megachurch, they go to Jags games, they go to the boat shows, they live in gated communities far from town. Buy a pretty boat scene for the game room. Sure. Support local culture? Support some artist who, I don’t know, likes Obama, hates the war, laughs at Palin and questions God? Okay that’s hyperbolic but you see my point. The culture is conservative. there I said it.

It does hinge on educated cultured people caring about art in addition to people just having money for it.

We have people who will spend thousands annually on luxury skyboxes at Jaguar games, but they would never buy our art even if hell froze over.

That to me is not a problem with too few wealthy people in the area, to me that says that large numbers of the wealthy here couldn’t give two shits about the very idea of society, let alone its betterment through cultural enterprises like art. Privatization, standardization, monopolization and lowest-common-denominator, mediated, massproduced religion and culture will suffice in its stead.

There are plenty of people who would buy our art if they had the money. There are many who can afford to support culture and don’t. Or they do but just in their little enclave (read about the geographical issue earlier in the thread.) There is only the narrowest overlapping of those who can afford contemporary art and those who want to buy it, want to support the arts and artists. These are the ones profiled in the Our Collectors portion of this site.

Taste, distinction, these things are ties directly to education and culture. You can have loads of money and not a lick of taste.

23 November 2008 at 6:17 pm Ali said:

Im into the once a month critique idea. It sounds exciting and scary.

I love reading these discussions! I think I am too quick to judge a lot of art. I feel like it would be a good exercise to have to justify my thoughts.

23 November 2008 at 6:58 pm Shannon Estlund said:

This too refers to earlier parts of this discussion.

I like the ideas for meeting at MOCA, and having online critiques, but I’m still hoping to get a small group together for monthly critiques. For me, it’s really important to be standing in front of the work. I remember the first time I saw a Francis Bacon painting in person. I couldn’t believe how thin the paint was, compared to how I imagined it looking from photos.

I’m also really interested in what other artists in town are up to, and could definitely use a little more critical feedback for my own work. I just talked to my friend and studio-mate Ali Isabelle, and she’s interested too. If enough people are in, we could

volunteer to go first. We have a studio near Park & King in Riverside. How about Wednesday Dec 10, 7:30 pm? And then each month, the group could go wherever the work is. If an artist was uncomfortable with a group showing up at their work space, we may be able to offer our studio as a meeting ground, but I’m hoping we’d get to see most people’s work space too.

Anyone who’s interested, please email me at shannonestlund@gmail.com. I’ll email the address and any other updates/info.

Byron, I’ll leave it up to you whether this be a jaxcal related thing or if it’s better organized outside of jaxcal, with any interesting news passed along.

I really think we can help each other be stronger artists, and that can only help the local arts scene.

Also, if anyone else wanted to volunteer to be the first artist, we’d be cool with that.

It’s kind of an awkward time for Ali & I because we don’t have all our work at the studio, but I think we can still have a productive talk, and we want to get the ball rolling.

I really hope a few of you will want to join us. And thanks Byron, for the forum and for all the work you’ve done to get the art scene organized.

23 November 2008 at 7:06 pm another ben said:

Hey Ali, I saw your work at that place in five points. We all stood around and lavished praise upon it.

Kurt: I like this piece. The rest are sorta…flat? I respect the skill but the pieces just aren’t my thing I guess.

23 November 2008 at 7:10 pm Yvonne said:

“I think your idea of having an online critique is a great one.

Any ideas on how the work would be selected? and or rules for the critique? How often it would happen? Would folks be interested?”

Well Byron, you could do this a couple of ways. to find the artists you could have: 1. a general call for artists through email & posting the question “who wants to be critiqued?” and see what you get.

2. someone can go to local shows in jax, take a few pics of a particular artist’s work(s) and start a thread critiquing that person’s work. to select the artists to critique: 1. it could be first come, first serve after the call is made 2. random drawing 3. pick a few names and run it by the contributors of your blog and have a vote 4. suggestions from your audience *it’s your blog so you can mix it up however you feel is appropriate rules: 1. ” Be nice. Keep it clean. Stay on topic. No spam.”

2. Constructive criticism, if you don’t like it say why you don’t like it and so on…

3. optional: have the artist in on it so they can respond to the critiques or if necessary give some background on their work. It’d be more raw and real though, if it was based on just the work in front of you.

How often? i would say one critique a week is reasonable. That depends of course on the response. Maybe one every 2 weeks.

I do think that some artists would be interested, but it’s hard to say. I always looked forward to critiques in school. I like the criticism, I like to know if I’m accomplishing what I set out to do with my work. .

I don’t mind volunteering to be a guinea pig. It’s been about 10 years since I last had a formal critique, it’s about time.

On what James said, there is a definite tie with education and an appreciation of art. I have two separate friends who I love to death but sometimes going to art shows with them would be frustrating because they could really care less about the art and spent more time insulting the work and it’s prices than actually looking and thinking about it for a minute. It had nothing to do with them being bad people or rude or shallow, they had not been introduced to art outside of pretty things that match your furniture.

Now after being friends with them for several years and educating them a little on art, they both have recently purchased works by local artists, all by themselves out of

their own accord (and no it wasn’t my work they bought.) Both of them shocked me, when they told me they wanted to buy something at the shows we were at. It was unexpected, but I was so proud of them. They are also looking forward to the next piece they may add to their collection.

I spend a lot of time educating people outside of the art scene about art just in conversation. My little sister (13 yrs old) has a new appreciation for art after I put her to work helping me paint a mural and my older sister (33 yrs old) just took her first art class ever and has found so much fulfillment in creating something with her hands. It’s funny how exposing people to art, the process, the creation, the thoughts, …etc really opens the eyes and brings a new respect to the art around you. The exposure can be in the form of galleries, education, murals, workshops, the media, or even just simple conversation can make a big difference. l 23 November 2008 at 8:00 pm valuistics said:

Weekly crit, I could be down. How about we try one on the site? Couldn’t we make a post with a gallery of 4-5 artists images then open up comments? It’s what I’m starting to do with 2D Design students. You can see the results of some of our online crits at http://valuistics.com/?p=642 23 November 2008 at 8:57 pm Byron King (author) said:

As much as I’d love to meet in person, I’ve been witness to groups starting out large and gradually shrinking when trying to organize weekly get togethers through this blog. One day it was just me, there and I blogged about it anyway. James that’s rad how you are using your web site as a critique tool for your students. Thanks for sharing that. Looks like it’s working really well. I don’t see why we couldn’t do a weekly critique of local art here. It sure would make things easier for folks like myself with many obligations.

I do appreciate you guys volunteering your space though and the ideas about a structure. Very kind. And I do understand what you are talking about Shannon about seeing work in person and the difference it makes. maybe we could start out here online and see how it goes, and if there is real interest in it, possibly get a more physical structure worked out.

Way to go James, using your new web site for teaching purposes. Really proud of your new found techie geekdom. You are well on your way my friend 23 November 2008 at 9:22 pm kurt polkey said:

I say if Shannon wants to host an artist critique, then we should all do our best to support it. Blogs are great, but they should not take the place of physical interaction.

Those that can’t make it because of jobs or kids then you can have the opportunity to comment on the blog. I know there are going to be times when I can’t make it.

I think Yvonne has set up the rules pretty well.

I hear you Byron, it can be pretty frustrating, but we have to keep going on.

Francis Bacon didn’t prime his canvases. The paintings are really dull. That’s why he insisted on them always being under glass.

23 November 2008 at 10:39 pm Byron King (author) said:

Kurt. Thanks man. I couldn’t agree with you more now that you put it that way.

I guess I was a bit let down the last time I tried to organize a get together through this blog although it lasted nearly three months which is pretty successful.

Let’s do it. We have a date and a spot. I’ll document it if I can, and we’ll continue the dialogue via the blog.

23 November 2008 at 11:01 pm Frank said:

KurtJohn Currin… As far as feelings goes, I hate his work. Bare in mind, all my opinions are based on seeing reproductions of his work. I say this while recognizing that a photo of a painting can never capture that flow of the paint or impact (scale, true tones, overall impressions) of the painting. My first reaction is how can someone be so skilled in craft produce such vapid work. I think of his work like I think of Star Wars Episode 1, a movie comletely devoid of soul.. “you spent 150 millions and all you could pull together was that, Lucas?!? You need to go steal from another Kurasawa movie..” His paintings strike me a flat both in use of media and soul. It strikes me as work by someone who spends way to much time in a studio or gallery, and not enough time in the realness of life. Explained another way, he’s work looks to me like a product created to appear as art, rather than work created as an honest reaction to the messiness/beauty/love/hate of life. Even the technique appears to have a flat quality to it. ..but, I say again, that’s just an impression I so far have. More reading or seeing the wok in person can change that.

ValuisticsGood to meet you too. I think I can see where you’re coming from. You have giving pause to think, although you say “conservative’ like its a dirty word. I would refer to myself as mightly conservative, moreso from my expirences in my job.

I’d prefer that critique sessions to be in person, with possible a mandatory blog converation to follow up. It would be so much better to see the work in person, take it in properly and then talk in person… With an extra online conversation afterwards, it would allow for time to mull over and think about the work. I’m kinda slow witted… sometimes it takes a few days to overcome prejudgies and sort it all out. I find that my intial responses to art can be without the benefit thoughtful appeciation.

El Greco was my surpise. Hated the work in books. In person, WOW. 24 November 2008 at 12:53 am valuistics said:

Oh conservative is not a dirty word. The way I go on about how people ought to be reading, promoting real family values and thinking inside the box again, I hardly qualify for a real cultural liberal. I don’t mean the original and outdated word conservative, mind you, where it more or less denoted a brand of fiscal sobriety, I mean the modern or neo version, the Palin version, the O’Reily kind, The Hannity kind, The Michael Savage and Anne Coulter eliminationist versions where y’know they talk about who should be dragged out in the street and shot. The quasifascist stuff. The kind that undercuts science and charges into countries unilaterally. “The Real America.” y’know- the kind my grand dad wouldn’t recognize. And the fundamentalist fringe of that which is more radicalism than classic conservatism.

That’s what I mean, not your classic definition of conservatism. I think it’s good to conserve.

But I’m done talking politics for a good long time.

Note: my online crits are all continued AFTER a real 3 hour long crit in class. I know that may not be clear from my site, but the students are responding well after the fact after they have done an initial in-person crit. So I’m all for an online gallery that documents a real live crit session. Then we can put this bloggy to work.

24 November 2008 at 1:45 am Byron King (author) said:

You mean like how liberal was a dirty word for the entire McCain campaign.

I can just hear Fox news saying the word liberal like they were saying the f-bomb now. I’m so glad that’s over.

I wanted to make a bumper sticker back then saying “Liberal ain’t a dirty word” but was scared I might get run off the road down here in the South. No joke.

Politics will come out in critiques for sure. This will be a practice in diplomacy of the utmost if it indeed it does take place. And I’m game for sure.

24 November 2008 at 1:56 am Frank said:

Liberalism…?! Ouch! Like so much sandpaper to my gentle ears! (note a WINK for humour).

I figure if everyone agrees, then there not much of a point to a critique.

24 November 2008 at 2:43 am valuistics said:

Hey we’re being praised for not blowing it with negativity here! This is supposed to be a productive conversation. So enough about politics. What about the crit?

I made a point that the online crit is good in addition to a real live crit. Any disagree?

Okay. Here’s our assignment: Everybody start holding small group crits and record them with video or pictures. Then we post them and have people add comments.

Yeeehaw 24 November 2008 at 3:48 am Byron King (author) said:

I like assignments and I’m good at taking orders I like online and live, no issues with that.

I like the idea of small groups getting together when they can and having critiques so it’s more open. Definitely would like to take advantage of the invite to Shannon and Ali’s space though to do one though if that’s still open.

24 November 2008 at 4:04 am valuistics said:

Okay then. So let’s try it at Shannon’s & Ali’s first and set up a schedule. I may have time to prepare a schedule, I may not. A good way to start would be to get a list of every artist who is interested. Could we make a signup page on the site, Byron?

I think it should be a weekend thing or a Friday thing. One fun thing about maybe doing a crit in a small group on a Friday or Saturday, but you could then go out to local shows afterwards. What a good way to 1. meet other artists in the flesh and talk about their work, and have the favor returned, but 2. Show solidarity and support for the artist community.

This is great. This is a step in the right direction. The art community here will do things together (constituting a scene, I gather) if artists become their own booster group. Why does it sound like such an old-school idea? Is this why grand dad was in so many clubs? Because he believed in community? Never really made this connection before but our grandparent’s generation had more people involved in local clubs: Rotary, Elks, Veterans, Garden, Church, Bowling Leagues, etc. And they knew everybody in their town. Why, the answer is so simple. If we want a community then we need to activate the community that is here via a club. But how to prevent it from becoming a clique? Because art cliques turn people off and its already clique-y enough.

I picture a scene like in the beginning of the movie Warriors, with every crit club from every hood representing, but agreeing to the same terms. Then of course there’s the rest of the movie…

The first rule of Crit Club: Tell everybody about Crit Club.

24 November 2008 at 1:07 pm byron king (author) said:

Cool James.

Let’s not complicate it anymore than it has to be. If you are interested just shoot an email to info@globatron.org with your name and contact info. That should be enough to get us started. Then maybe I’ll add a link off the sidebar for it in the future.

Put in the subject bar: Crit Club I guess.

Thanks James.

24 November 2008 at 1:36 pm

jim draper said:

Everyone must keep talking. These conversations should include a lot of different people who are in different places in their lives. I think it would be good for several artists to work on projects together, not sure what that would be, but that is a good way to build. jd 24 November 2008 at 1:54 pm Shannon Estlund said:

Byron, I agree about keeping it simple for now. First let’s just show up. Then we can look around and see who else showed up. Then we can bang out the details.

I would say that I’m a little intimidated by the idea of the entire crit being on camera.

I think it’s important for an artist to hear the rough first impressions people have about their work, and we might miss out on some of that if some people (me included) are concerned about thinking out a well-worded response to a piece because of the presence of the camera. I suppose I could get used to it if it were imortant to other people. But maybe we could do half and half?

I’m so glad we have some interest in the crit group! I think it can become a really valuable tool for all of us.

24 November 2008 at 5:18 pm valuistics said:

Agreed, Byron and Shannon. With past efforts to get people together still fresh in mind, it would be most valuable to establish attendance at the crit meetings and get the word out, to just start doing it. Then we’ll worry about formal concerns later.

Shannon- the crit would not have to be video recorded at all. A few photos of the works would be enough. Just some documentation would be needed if the crit is to continue on in the form of a blog with comments for future dialogue. If you don;t want to do that, no big deal. It’s just that we’re having such a good back and fourth here it would perhaps be beneficial to utilize this network in the service of boosting the critical framework.

This could also be a jumping off point for reviewing. The more we familiarize ourselves with various artists, the deeper we can go in interviews and reviews of shows.

24 November 2008 at 5:27 pm Shannon Estlund said:

That sounds great James. I was picturing a video camera running the whole time.

What you describe sounds very useful and not at all inhibiting.

24 November 2008 at 5:43 pm byron king (author) said:

I was really hoping to video them if I was involved with them. I love video for documentation. Especially for something like this.

But I agree, about any sort of documentation at all, via photos of the work, etc. would need to be done of each one if we are to continue the discussion via the bloggy.

Sure love video though, especially for these types of events.

24 November 2008 at 6:35 pm kurt polkey said:

James, How ’bout The Wanderers?

24 November 2008 at 8:45 pm Shannon Estlund said:

Byron, maybe that could be the first topic of discussion- how much video-ing. If I’m the only one who’s concerned then I’ll just get used to it.

24 November 2008 at 10:43 pm Shannon Estlund said:

in person discussion, that is.

24 November 2008 at 10:44 pm Byron King (author) said:

Let’s just play it by ear. Got your email. You had some good points. Maybe video is good that it would even make people think a little more before they speak. I believe thinking before one speaks in a critique is a good thing. Possibly even listening is more important than speaking though I’ve found out (in life in general).

But all we really need is a few photos and a blog post just to continue the dialogue and document that it happened. Either way though.

Thanks Shannon.

24 November 2008 at 11:20 pm morrison said:

this is great exposure for the artists who have joined in such a liberal discussion, next week is art basel in miami and when bk and kurt and creegan and myself maybe some others, are there it will be a good feeling to finally hand them a globatron business card. the blog has grown and a healthy discussion has saved us from one anothers anger at the city. thanks to all for growing with the site, we can change the status quo if we just apply ourselves a little….

25 November 2008 at 3:44 pm valuistics.com » Archive » Why Globatron.org is worth reading (JAX people) said: [...] blog called JAXCal have been met. And the world is starting to turn for Jacksonville artists. Check out this post on Globatron and tell me it doesn’t contain artists doing what they do best: solving problems [...]

25 November 2008 at 7:05 pm Frank said:

In reference to the original questions about creating an art scene, I’ve been thinking about something Kurt wrote on Madeleine’s blog. Paraphrased, Kurt mentioned his experience with gallery owner’s in other cities (from established art markets) were very apprehensive about investing time/money into an artist living outside that city (correct me if I’m wrong, Kurt). That attitude does make since, after all, they got a BUSINESS to run.

I’ve been studying the street art scene for a while. Some of the work is really tight, other work not so much so… but what is neat is that they have built thier community heavily on the internet, and the galleries representing such folk appear far more willing to invest in artists well outside thier cities. I think one reason the galleries are more comfortable is because of the extremely tight internet community (these artist come with a built in audience). Some artist have established careers in which galleries play a relatively some part (Sheppard Fairey a successful example).

It intrigues me that one street artist (regardless of age, skill, place in life) can put up a wheatpast in an unnamed alley in whatever city, and a few hours later, 100,000 people see it on the net word wide. Now that’s exposure.

I suppose these folks are taking that path that for three reasons: they are young and don’t know no better, the need for anonymity, and they often live countries apart.

Either way, if it’s all Greek to you, take a look at http://www.woostercollective.com, it’s link to streetsy, http://banksyforum.proboards82.com/, or just Google STENCIL

STREET ARTIST GRAFFITI… or artist Swoon, ElbowToe, Armsrock, Herakut, London Police, Logan Hicks, etc.

I’m not proposing to go and glue/spraypaint/stencil up downtown, but these folks got something going for them. After all, I’m blogging about them, they ain’t blogging about me…..

25 November 2008 at 9:42 pm kurt polkey said:

“Americans want, first, signs of a special talent. Second is lots of evident labor; third comes nonabject materials. The fourth requisite is realism, followed by noble (or at least not ignoble) content”.

An art professor’s take on art as told to the art writer and artist Peter Plagen.

25 November 2008 at 10:57 pm Byron King (author) said:

So far we’ll have a huge crowd at this Kurt is the only person who has responded saying they could make it.

If you are coming shoot an email with the subject Crit Club to info@globatron.org.

Unfortunately I won’t be able to make it that day due to medical reasons. Dang it.

Sorry all.

Dec. 10th at 7:30. Please respond and I’ll pass the list on to Shannon and Ali. thanks, Byron 28 November 2008 at 4:04 pm

Whats been going on? « The Outer Box said: [...] to get done for me. In closing here is a damn good read that I suggest every artist in Jacksonville takes a good look at over at globatron.org. Here is a quote from Mark Creegan and Byron King that I really enjoyed and really hit home with [...]

1 December 2008 at 2:18 pm Shannon Estlund said:

An update on the group critique at Ali & Shannon’s studio: We will be there at 7:30 this Wednesday, Dec. 10. We would love for anyone to show up. We have invited people, and seen some interest, but no one has yet said that they would definitely attend. Our studio is at 2746 Park St. It is the yellow building with the blue awning with “ish” painted on it, directly across from European Street. It’s going to be a fun and productive night, with wine (or byob), so come on! And if nobody shows, we’ll paint instead, and we’ll regroup and try this again some time soon. If you need more details, email me at shannonestlund@gmail.com. Also email me if you like the idea but can’t come this time, because I’m really not giving up on this.

Byron, I’m so sorry you won’t be there. If anything comes of it I’ll do my best to document it for you.

Thanks, Shannon 8 December 2008 at 9:50 pm Shannon Estlund said:

P.S. knock loud- we’re upstairs, but we’ll be listening.

8 December 2008 at 9:51 pm Byron King (author) said:

After this 87 comment thread what was the turnout for the art critique? I remember asking Shannon and I believe it was four people all and all. They had a good time, but the turnout was indeed small.

I find it strange that we can easily type away and make comments about how to improve things, but when we have to meet at a specific spot to make actual steps in the right direction we can’t commit. I was having surgery that day so I think I’m exempt.

One event we did as a group that I’m still proud of was this low budget art installation at Memorial Park: http://www.globatron.org/installation/target-practice I’d love to see more quick, cheap, group building, community awareness projects like this. We should strive to do one monthly I believe. Quarterly at least.

We definitely talk about art enough as a group. It’d be nice to work on a project together in the process.

5 March 2009 at 3:22 pm