letter of intent

i thought about it and decided that it would be best to state at the outset
what my intention is in writing this blog and also offer a few ideas on
where my opinions on art- in general- land.
for those that have read the first blog, there is a bit of re-arranging going
on here so definitely -bear with me.
as i said, i have no prior art education save a introductory course in art
history given in a college auditorium with 300 other students. i had two
semesters of this and then a three year job as a slide projectionist for the
art history department. it was at this post, sitting in the back of the seminar
room switching slides , that i got a fairly comprehensive knowledge of
art history minus the contemporary. for this i was left up to my own devices
and this was no problem whatsoever. the interest is there.
i travel the galleries and art museums and pretty much a considerable part
of my life is involved in this activity. i have never written about art before.
BUT, as anyone who knows me will agree , i most definitely have my opinions.

i think i have a very unique 'take' on what i see. it is certainly not mainstream
and while it could be easily condemned as 'reactionary' by some, it isnt at all.
so the only way you will be able to come to an educated conclusion is to read
this on a continuing basis.

firstly though, i must let the readers/followers know -somewhat- my overall
opinion of the art world as i see it today. furthermore, there are very important
issues that have to be addressed and i intend to interject them when i feel they
fit and eventually give each of them the full attention they deserve.

i think the best thing is to start with what i absolutely am not looking for in art.
heres' some words: merry, fun-like, happy, twisted, strangeness in the extreme,
ugly, fantasy-like, messy, mischievous, humorous, sick, etc. do you begin to get
the picture.
i dont care whether the work is an installation, a film/video, a mural, a work of
of sculpture, a painting, a drawing, all these. it just matters whether the artist
has been able to achieve the point in a 'clean' way. what could i ever mean by
that! well if you eliminate the art that has any of the above characteristics- the
list of abhorrences, you have the idea. i prefer a disciplined resolution.

these comments above do not refer to art historical material because the same
can not apply. art changed in fundamental ways in the 70s: happenings, the
role of women in art expanded greatly, the introduction of popular culture
etc. it is here at this point that the boundaries were expanded ,some of this
was good and a lot of it was bad. i restrict the list above to mostly art that is
contemporaneous. although there are artists that began their careers in the 70s,
some of whom still work today, and they are 'fair game' for criticism.

i will give you an example of what i mean above in the following way:
take gerhard richter: his work has all the formal principles , it is-in series- a
thoughtful, clear, well organized- in a way, exercise- one after the other that
transcends the common, it is beautiful to look at, it challenges the viewer, there
is absolutely nothing blatant about it, 'sublimal', compositonally superb- each one.
i know the description is well-worn, and i could belabor the positives
but its the truth- all of it.
i dont mind social commentary, i like it, but not when it is egocentric, sloppy,
blatant, leaving very little to the imagination. for example i like felix gonzalez
torres a lot -one masterpiece after the other, and detest tracy emin. i want my
imagination to be challenged. i am not interested in the obvious, the raw. i
dont like sex and violence explicit in art at all, i have enough of that by just
turning on the news. save the political for elsewhere. i realize there is a need for
some of it, but have no for over-saturation.

there is this issue of 'beauty'. in fact all of these issues about art that pop up.
cogency, relevance, etc. the only way is for me to write about it as i see it.
and when i see a piece that i feel exhibits qualities i like and i think are important
i will just say so, and say why. and when i dismiss, just go back to the list.

i think this above touches on the whole notion of the mission of art and how
it has veered towards 'entertainment'. and 'popular-ness'. there is no question
that i prefer a far more elitist definition of art and the function it should play.
not that the art museum or the gallery for that matter should be a repository
in the traditional sense, but certainly not a entertainment complex either.
there is way too much 'dumb-down' going on in the art world today for the
same miserable reasons that afflict politics and the entertainment world.
soundbite and scandal and sex and violence sells and so many have succumbed
to this for revenue or what-ever. take motorcycles and tim burton as examples.

a final example. i went to the super-flex show at peter blum. there were three
videos. the first, a boring economics lecture ( and i love economics), second , the
video that everybody is talking and writing about on the flooded mcdonalds.
i got the point rather quickly and did not want to devote an entire 21 minutes
to this. i went to the desk to look at the reading materials and was totally taken
by the empty room across from the desk; its austere beauty, the light, it raised so many
questions. and finally the ' burning car' video which i thought was excellent in every
way. it is a fine work of art. a fine video, it captures in every way what you want
in a good work of art in that medium. just a car burning, thats all it takes.