Why GEISAI?

The world economy is strictly out of gas. In the US, the solution is to spend our way out of it. It is a prisoner's dilemma game. Who is going to avoid saving in these tight times so that they can spend the economy back to its high-flying ways?

Winter for most. Summer for few.

GEISAI #12 is calling for entries to its artist fair. Set in Tokyo, this exposition gives artist direct contact with buyers and other art professionals. Additionally, a panel of judges awards prizes. This is a great opportunity for individuals to show their art, gain exposure, and ultimately distinguish themselves. Commendation to KaiKai KiKi, LLC, the sponsors of this fine event.

The previous art fair drew 12,000 people and 1,200 artists. That's 10 individuals to every artist! With those numbers, how could an artist lose? Of course, the new market approach of KaiKai KiKi, LLC CEO and mastermind Takashi Murakami is ready for financial success. Each artist is given equal opportunity to display her work. Each artist has the same opportunity to make it. Is a collection of 1,200 artists the ideal way for an individual to show their work? Is it possible for viewers to gain from the experience any artistic value? Maybe the goal of KaiKai KiKi, LLC is strictly pecuniary.

How are viewers supposed to draw anything from such a display? How are artists supposed to express anything of meaning to an audience scraping along from booth to booth, trying to catch a glimpse of something hopeful? Maybe individuals will instead look into buying some of the key chains or other mass-produced items made by KaiKai KiKi, LLC. I mean, why not. They are the procurers of this wonderful event.

Maybe the new art market approach is thorough enough to catch new talent. Maybe it is possible to encapsulate artists into a single showing and such a method is effective. Surely such a strategy means efficiency for dealers and pays dividends to promoters like KaiKai. How else can we look past the actual art involved and maybe find something that can make a buck? How else are artists supposed to benefit from their labors? It is all about money, right?

Expositions like this are solid in foundation. They can bring in money at many artists' expense, and dealers are allowed free reign, without the nasty shoe-leather costs of finding talent and solid work. Let us free this world of its art-blindness and replace it with markets which can freely distribute art in the same way we march out new Hollywood movie figurines.

Is this the way art should be handled? Must artists bear the task of being the flashiest at the fair, blue ribbon at show, winner of the "battle of the bands"? Are these and others the incentives placed on artists in such a bizarre conglomeration of work? Art is all about money.

Merry Christmas.

Scandal turned not scandal turned art market eye opener

I recently watched "My Kid Could Paint That," a documentary about a 4 year old girl (now she is probably about 10), named Marla Olmstead, who hit the art scene in Binghamton, NY. She just so happens to be a relative of Fredrick Law Olmstead, the man to plan the modern (I think) Central Park. It started as a joke. Friends of the Olmsteads would come to their home and comment on the paintings, and one of their friends, an owner of a coffee shop, suggested that they hang her paintings in his coffee shop. For a joke. Ha ha!
One thing happened after another (including an article in the NY Times), and soon a gallery stepped up to represent her. This gallery, Anthony Brunelli Fine Arts (owned by Anthony Brunelli), had a record turnout (it is vague as to whether it broke this specific gallery's records or was notable even among those in Chelsea... I think that it is the latter, actually). They sold for thousands (I forget if she was selling them for 20,000 at this time, or if that came a few years later). The father was skeptical about these turn of events than the mother. He felt that they should keep helping their daughter selling paintings until the experience became a bad one. She felt wary from the beginning and could only lead to trouble and complications. She didn't like her daughter being referred to as a prodigy, and reiterated again and again that she was normal. She didn't think it was healthy. With all the hype, Charlie Rose couldn't help himself but investigate with the help of a child psychologist (I believe). They look at the paintings, and confirm she is a genius. Then they go to a consented hidden camera over Marla's painting area (it was hard to get a painting done start to finish on video because Marla wouldn't behave the same and her paintings suffered for it). The psychologist then states that she sees no evidence of "childhood genius" (they of course used a very high tech gadget that can detect the level of childhood genius in a child. It is called the Gen-o-Meter for kids. That is how they determined Mozart was a genius in the 1700s). They also had some footage played with the father talking to his daughter, saying "Paint it red! Paint it red! Paint it red! You're killing me here!" Before, he had denied any role in her painting besides setting up materials for her and giving advice to her early on, like, "Don't push your paintbrush, pull it." Maybe it was the opposite, it doesn't really matter. Later the father said in his defense that the comment was innocent,and he was not being serious, but rather, he was horsing around. It's hard to know if he is lying or if Charlie Rose took one remark out of a 5 hour long film and distorted it to appear more manacle than it really was. Charlie Rose and the psychologist also pointed out the differences of style in paintings. Some, they said, were more polished and looked as if done by another (older) hand. They said that the one seen in the video was a weaker one. I would concur (not shown here). The story of Marla, which was attracting the attention of even the non-art
going public, transformed from a story of the American dream into a sham. People wrote the family hateful e-mails (from Bible thumpers to arrogant art critics).Paintings stopped selling. The mother almost took it as a blessing. I suppose someone in the family wanted to prove their daughter the true artist. They tried on their own to get a painting on video start-to-finish that had the same strength as the others whose authenticity was now in question. The painting made for this video was entitled "Ocean." You can see other start-to-finish videos on Marla's website(kept up by her father, I think) at www.marlaolmstead.com. The same hype wasn't there. Eventually, business picked up again. Enough so that when she turned 6, she was selling paintings for more than she was before. While watching the documentary, Anthony Brunelli reveals his true interest in
Marla. As it turns out he was a huge fan of Chuck Close (1970s-present) who is somewhere between a hyperrealist and a pointillist. Anthony considers himself a hyperrealist, and paints scenes of Binghampton, a once powerful industrial town that is now far from its impressive past. He says he always thought modern art was a joke. He would spend hours on a painting and make a few thousand (he regularly sells around 1,000 it seems. He once sold a painting for 100,000--his own personal record), whereas a modern painter would sell one for a million, or so he says. I find this to be unlikely that too many painters would sell their paintings for a million dollars, only because Damien Hirst has set the record (about 2 million for a contemporary artist).In any case, these modern painters regularly sold their paintings for significantly more than what Brunelli was selling them at. He saw Marla's story and thought he could make a lot of money if he marketed it right and said the right things. He wanted to pull modern art's "trick" on itself. Throughout the movie, various interviewees reference the "middle America"
type of public. Most Americans think modern art is a scam, a put on. Some even call it immoral or unethical. People get turned off by it. People thought Pollock was a joke. What the film then doesn't comment on is the irony of the situation. "Abstract" artists such as Pollock or Malevich believed in what they were
doing, like how fundamentalist Christians believe in God. There was not the tiniest drop of irony, and they weren't fooling anyone. They were not saying, "Look, you don't get it, because I am smarter than you, and people who do get it are in cahootswith me, and they also get it. You're just incredibly stupid, that's why you don'tget it." Hamien Dirts is a bit closer to this attitude. Malevich saw his paintings with a single square on them (in red or white or black) as symbols for revolution and ultimate beauty for Russia. He saw them charged with a love for his country.He feuded bitterly with Tatlin, who believed art should be functional (architecture).Unfortunately, Malevich's country didn't feel similarly about his paintings and Socialist Realism was instituted, which ended Malevich's abstract works. There's no irony there; you could argue such artists are nuts, but they are genuine. Even Duchamp is genuine, despite the presence of his humor and irony. They are invested. In the end, the general public thought Marla was ultimately a fraud. I don't
think she was, but let's go from where the media closed the case. Now before they cherished her as a prodigy, but this the media determined to be only a facade. So, the general public's judgement ought to be questioned perhaps? They see all/most modern artists to be full of bullshit, when in fact the artists are genuine;and when they witnessed Marla, they truly believed in her being the actual artist,when in fact the media determined later that she was a fraud and the family just wanted to trick the masses (but then we must go one more, and note that she probably is not a fraud, despite the fact that the media never addressed Marla's story again). What this whole scenario also reveals is the relative quality of genius on
two levels. When a four year old girl made the paintings, they were obvious signs of genius. When the father helped with (or made) the paintings, they lost all monetary value and were no longer regarded works of genius. This is odd, isn't it?I thought the paintings themselves were genius, therefore, whoever made them must be a genius. But this isn't the case (according to the public and collectors'standards). Genius is dependent upon then who did what. It also depends upon when the painting (or whatever) is made/debuts. If someone painted like Picasso today, who cares? Picasso has already been there and done that. That's why he was a genius. He mirrored Einstein's theory of relativity by trying to paint or draw things from multiple perspectives. You'd see the back and front of a chair at the same time as if your eyes were everywhere. Picasso is timeless because he is of his time (I am not sure anything is truly timeless, but that is the term frequently used). He was responding to that moment. Not December 21st, 2008. What Marla was doing was done in the 50s, so to me, I don't see anything genius about it. I think that some of the paintings are really pretty--prettier than anything I'll make, I'm sure. I think she has a really good sense of color, especially for a 4 year old. I also think that children tend to be some of the best artists because they haven't tensed up too much yet. But I don't think any child's work is genius. So, then, what was all the hub-bub? She was a kid that (barely) painted like Pollock. There was a lot of hype. It was emblematic of the American Dream. It was an interesting human interest story, filled with quaintness and epic moments. She went from 4 year old to superstar. I hope for Marla's sake that she doesn't become like the young forgotten Hollywood actors. Or worse, like the Olsen twins. But then, why does she still sell paintings for thousands and thousands of dollars regularly? It can't be all hype if she is still selling paintings for more than ever before (but probably not the same quantity. Some paintings on her site have been there since 2005. I know this only because they appeared in the documentary, which came out in 2005). She's selling prints for a few hundred dollars. Well, some people don't see the hype and think she is a painter of beauty, and put this young master next to the old master, Renoir (who I think is a terrible painter. Sorry, Ceci. I like to think that art and dogs are sort of alike. And dogs are vegetables. Just kidding). Some people are loyal. Some people may see it as a (relatively) cheap and (relatively) smart investment. Others might be stupid. Others may find the smooth words of Anthony Brunelli appealing. Others may have finally been convinced that Marla is legit. I want to close this post with the evolution of my opinion of Marla's story.
Initially, I was just jealous, because she was making money making art, and I wasn't.I wanted her life (but then, I wouldn't be where I am today, and I like where I am more than where she will be when she is 22, I bet. I like the art I make). Then,I thought she was legit, but decided the paintings were bad and unimportant (I was still jealous). Then I thought some were actually really good and pretty and that her story checked out. My current feelings is that I don't care too much if her story checks out or not. Her dad might have done it, or she might have done it.After watching the documentary, it seemed like the father had a lot of stake in his first born child's career and that he enjoyed the social life he now had. But now,I don't think it matters. I think some of the paintings are very very pretty, and whoever did them can paint pretty nice paintings. But, I still think the paintings are unimportant for the reasons given above. I don't see how they push anything or how they pushed the artist. They look very comfortable. I like them, but these paintings are no Duchamps.
-Walker
I encourage people to check out the video documentation on Marla's website and to browse Anthony Brunelli's personal site and his gallery's site.http://marlaolmstead.com/http://anthonybrunelli.com/

I would also like to thank NPR for providing the image ("Ocean") at the top of the page

Response to Louis Bourgeois at LA MoCA and the Guggenheim

A Defense of Louise Bourgeois to My Offense.

I've seen this show twice, and on both occasions, I felt impressed by her oeuvre during some periods of her work, and then found other pieces she made contrived.  Though all the time, I was shocked by her bravery with exploring new materials and her way of making.  How she uses bits and pieces to make a whole, and how she uses a binder (like thread or welds) as a paintbrush.  

Just like how she welds bits and pieces of 1" black pipe together, she sews bits and pieces of pink fabric together.  There at times where she uses the welder as a way to give texture to the surface as opposed to using it only for structural purposes.  Her bits of fabric appear to be cut sporadically (either she finds/buys it this way or cuts it herself).  She then gives dimension to the cloth again.  She sews a fold (a beautiful sculptural gestures) to indicate a nose.  She lets the stuffing emerge out from under the figures skin, allowing the inside to billow out.  She keeps most of them in cases (variations of the "cells").  Both the cases and cells keep you on the outside.  She uses doors as walls, draws buildings with legs, and chooses puts odd combinations together, like a leg and a ball, or a group of hands confoundedly interwoven.

But what of the ideas of her work?  Repetitiously sexual?  Redundant smothering of the idea of mothering?

Watching this video reminded me though that she is not so contrived, especially when we compare her even to other feminist works in the 70s.  One of the most over-hyped pieces I have ever seen is Judy Chicago's The Dinner Party, seen above.  And even this piece, The Dinner Party, ought to be given a lot of consideration, because we have to realize that these women of the 70s were stating a problem.  You aren't exactly considering nuances if you aren't even allowed to vote, or if every museum known to people are filled with men.  In order for people to give you your time, you have to scream.  I'd say Judy Chicago was probably screaming the loudest with her vagina plates sitting on a triangular table, but I digress.

Louise Bourgeois was born nearly 100 years ago (Christmas 1911), and is still working in New York City and offering free crits for any interested art students.  Her story is quite incredible, having been present for generations and having seen numerous social changes.  I doubt Emma Goldman and Louise ever met (Louise came to the states in 38, Goldman died in May of 1940), but I would be curious as to what a conversation between them might be.  

It is also shocking to consider how much Louise Bourgeois did and the span of time that she did it in, and yet, Bruce Nauman is the canonized "most important living artist."  On one hand, what does a quote like that really mean except the preference that an individual brought to the table when he said it.  But also, Bruce Nauman "broke ground" in lots of different media and really pushed each medium.  A week ago, I probably would have agreed, but now, I hardly see how pushing new mediums is even comparable to being a female artist before the 60s.  I would imagine, that this alone means she becomes the working off point for any female artist--at the very least for those artists working in the 70s and 80s.  Louise Bourgeois, a true revolutionary, keeps going strong.

Snowy Fall

If you go far enough south, you can experience summer all over again.

This, for me, is not possible. However, I have a very good idea with an inverted cone and a weird sort of taper. So, first you start with the room idea and then you put a cone in it. This is point down. However, instead of starting the cone off pointing toward one corner or another, go ahead and place it smack in the middle of the room. However, the point veers off to the left right, or straight towards you, as though it means to jab/stab. The illusion might be accomplished by curves, but if it's a series of disjoint planes, that is fine as well. The idea is not something Pumpkin Jack, but rather Crocodile Alien Stronghold a la Jess.

So, GM is considering bankruptcy. I've also heard that GM is not going to consider bankruptcy. We have many things in place which were founded in a time of little restraint, and as always, a time which may have ignored sizable quantities in the future. Frankly, the future is sort of insignificant when it comes to status quo. Everyone is going to be better off anyway, so why should they have the same freedoms as the present generation.

Gary Becker types on this topic, here. I can't help but think that several of the companies that 'started it all,' with respect to automobile manufacture naturally should diminish in this time of sincere concern over the likely oil shortage of the future. Well, maybe we're more concerned about feeding money into the Middle East.

I was wondering how the characters might show up. This might be important in coming months, because there are at least three or four inevitable projects. Claude and Sans Eyes, adventures of the amazing Tobyman, A.lso H.igh S.chool, Life as an art student, and well, one hopes one day, dephcon.

*Hey, am I going to get a chance to talk on the blog?

Yeah, I think so, Toby.

*Yeah!!!!!! that's wonderful because I'm an anthropomorphic megasupersayanzord ninja spider-profes. .. .Ow!

I like the idea of imperatives from a seemingly impartial spokesperson. It would be impressive if one could achieve a monotone that over time builds up in your head, the way a clock seems to click much louder when you're in a room alone, trying to fall asleep, or the way a fluorescent lamp will begin to buzz as you sit under it practicing things. In this way, you achieve a varied effect over time-space because as people join in, they are less affected than those who came earlier, maybe even startled over slight tension in the space. This will couple with their own experience of the voice and may eventually cause an uncomfortable environment. It would also help if the speaker made it clear that "these are the rules," and that to be in the room/space, one must participate as all the others are doing. Even better would be some objective in participating. Something unimportant until you reach the room or step inside. Maybe the viewing of objects in the room, but you may only view them at certain times because of curtains, lights which turn off, or sliding shutters on windows.

Welcome to SoCa!

Response to "Issues with dichotomies. . ."

J.S. Bach is the most important composer of the Baroque era and possibly the most influential musical artist in history. He was not the star Handel was. He was not nearly as prolific as Telemann. He was considered the best organist around during his lifetime. His work was neither widely distributed nor highly regarded even in the years following his death. Without Felix Mendelssohn, the western world would have come to his work possibly much later.

"Thought is colored. Color is everything to thought. Thought is black, white and gray."

If we begin to look at things without delimiters,
languagewenoticeismorethanwordsandideasitisspacesand
pausesandwiththosepausescomesconsiderationratherthan
desperationforcefulnessneedyactionweneedthatpausethat space to make decisions to think discriminately, to give ideas their due time. We need the pauses and the punctuation and all of language for a society to function. Considering a society's needs takes deliberate discourse. Conversely, without a desire to form a multi-individual coalition, without a desire to develop social constructs, there would be no need to give spaces and punctuation to cries, shouts, advances and demonstrations. Just as Walker stated in a chat, "When two people use language, they are assuming a moralethic structure," I note that language and its pauses and spaces assumes a semblance of society, while society assumes that pauses and spaces be used in working with words and meaning. Society and language develop with the progress of time, but more importantly, the increased desire to develop order, to work together, however that unfolds.

Artist of Interest for Connor Compound, Belmont, VT
Reply to: see below Date: 2038-02-26, 2:15PM EDT
Where are the world's Artists of Interest? »»»Are artists losing perspective of your message or methods? »»»Are you finding it more difficult to maintain credibility with effective and exciting shows? »»»Are galleries making it harder for you to produce installations or to display your work in general? »»»Are you stuck in Portland? »»»For solutions to these problems contact us. »»»Show everyone out there that your work is out there! »»»Take advantage of the no cost trial!
Visit Us Here: http://www.youtube.com/user/kerrywessell
Compensation: Unlimited !!!
Principals only. Recruiters, please don't contact this job poster.
Please, no phone calls about this job!
Please do not contact job poster about other services, products or commercial interests.PostingID: 900758756

"How to REALLY Experience Sculpture" Tips from DeGordora Sculpture Park
1) Take notice of how others first respond when they look at this sculpture-whispers, gesutres, "sick" faces
2) Walk around the sculpture and look at all of its physical aspects-is it on the ground, ceiling, wall, is it tall, skinny, round, is it annoying, does it remind you of a penis
3) Look at the materials (particle board, car parts, milk cartons, crap from the artist's apartment, etc) the artist had to throw out and see how much junk they could stick together
4) Consider that this ubiquitous sculpture could be in any environment-here, there, anywhere!
5) Try to determine what excuse the artist gave for making the object-the title may or may not give you a clue
6) If others liked it and it's not too big, remember to bring it up in conversation at drinks, or recommend the piece to friends later if you are alone-now, move on from the sculpture before things get awkward

Happy Halloween!

Issues with dichotomies, Recent Readings, the lineage of Duchamp, and "How to Experience Sculpture"

I reject:

nature-----------------culture

but accept

               nature sub 1

                    ^

nature sub 2-----------------culture

9/14 Machiavelli

Agothocles of Sicilian was a son of a potter who worked his way up in the military.  He held a meeting with the senators and rich citizens to, seemingly, talk about the ongoing war.  Instead, his troops came in and killed everyone.  Oliverotto did something similar, but then he laid siege on the chief officers until they submitted. (He's talking about the different ways in which rulers rise to power.  Wealth, Family, and "Nefarious Acts" such as these two mentioned).

dictate, dictatorship, dictation, dictionary, diction, dict

Rondeau on Jasper Johns ("Jasper Johns: Gray")

Nauman on Johns: "I loved deKooning's work but Johns was the first artist to put some intellectual distance between himself and the physical act of making a painting." pg 33

Robert Morris: "Thought is not colored.  Color adds nothing to thought.  Thought is black, white and gray." pg33

Gray Matter

I am not positive I agree with Robert Morris' statement, but then again it makes sense that this came from him after you look at his work (above).  Rather, Morris just seems to be wary of color acting too much as some sort of sensationalist trigger.  

Likewise, Johns uses gray as taking a step away from a symbol (see the flag above).  He also did this in color, doing one flag on top of another, as a way to repeat an image, to essentially undermine the meaning of the image and image itself, as writers John Berger and Walter Benjamin both address.

There are "families of artists," a lineage of them or something close to it.  One of the most pertinent of these, I believe is one including Jasper Johns.  As I've said on this blog before (I think), Duchamp was doing his now famous work in the 19teens but no one was really paying attention.  It wasn't until after Abstract Expressionism had basically sold out to all ungodly hell or died out, that anyone knew of Duchamp besides a small minority.  He "quit" being an artist in an attempt to becoming a chess champion (though it appears he did indeed work, at the very least he DID work on a single piece over a time period of about 20 years).  This anyone that knew of Duchamp was Jasper Johns who was working in the 50s and 60s.  It really was because of Johns that Duchamp has whatever fame or credit he has today.  Interestingly enough, Johns (also Rauschenberg) was trying to wrestle with ideology (for lack of a better word that I can think of right now) of Abstract Expressionism.  Bruce Nauman was working during the same time as Johns, but Nauman (who admits barely anything-like influences in his work-Duchamp and Johns also talk about their work in vague terms, generally to designate a 'meaning' to a piece) admitted to Johns being an artist of interest.

"How to Experience Sculpture" Tips from DeCordora Sculpture Park

1) Take notice of how you first respond when you look at this sculpture-thoughts, feelings, and associations

2) Walk around the sculpture and look at all of its physical aspects-line, shape, form, color, texture, space, etc

3) Look at the materials (wood, metal, plastic, found objects, etc) the artist chose and see how they are skillfully put together

4) Consider the relationship this unique sculpture has with its environment-the immediate surroundings, the Park, and you the visitor

5) Try to determine the subject matter of the subject matter of the sculpture-the title may or may not give you a clue

6) Reflect on all of the things you have just experienced regarding the sculpture-now, formulate your own interpretation.

Reading Rousseau

Discourse on the origin of inequality by Rousseau (pg 46)

talking about "the savage man"

"The only evils he fears are pain and hunger.  I say pain and not death because an animal will never know what it is to die; and knowledge of death and its terrors is one of the first acquisitions that man has made in withdrawing from the animal condition."  Death then, according to Rousseau, is a sign of humanness, of society.  This reminds me of a few lines from a Bruce Nauman video, "Good Boy, Bad Boy."  The lines of importance are: "I don't want to die.  You don't to die.  We don't want to die.  THIS IS FEAR OF DEATH!"  

At what point did the creation of language become necessary, Rousseau asks.  He does ignore, however, the "evolution" (for lack of a better word) from communication (gestures, cries) to language?  This is odd because language evolves and always is so there is no "point at which..."

He sees also a conundrum: "for if men needed speech in order to learn to think, they had still a greater need for knowing how to think in order to discover the art of speaking" pg 49

and "which was the more necessary: an already formed society for the invention of languages, or an already invented language for the establishment of society" pg 51.  Unfortunately, I doubt this is a "which came first?  The chicken or the egg?" scenario.  Again, communication and society developed together most likely.  

--------

The statement "That is what he means, but that isn't what he's saying!"  But then, how do I know what he means if he does not mean what he says?

New Words

Thoughts in a text box

Think Outside the Box!

Think Inside the Box!

Think Without the Box--Who needs a box to think?

Think Beside the Box

Think On Top of the Box!

Talk from your soapbox

Thought in a Box (Schroedinger's cat-->Robert Morris' "Box with Sound of its own Making")

Boxes for Thinking

Socks for Drinking

Boxes: Box set, analog TV set, cardboard box, rooms, houses, brains, minds

The Thinker (on the shitter, shit for brains) vs Atlas

Looking thoughtful, looking bored. Apprx same position.

THESE COLORS DON'T RUN

DO THESE COLORS RUN?

RUN THESE COLORS!

Read-->red, dear

White--we hit, withe, with E

Blue--glue, cue, clue

"Aesthetics is something you can't recreate/reproduce in under 30 Minutes," thus aesthetics CAN be PROduced or CREated with in or over 30 minutes, and aesthetics CAN be REcreated or REproduced OVER 30 minutes.  This is to also then acknowledge that aesthetics CAN be reproduced/recreated, which then also necessitates that aesthetics is NOT a byproduct of originality or creativity.  Mass production can therefore be aesthetic.

Feed Me, Fuck me

DUCK DUCK DUCK GOOSE

JACK SACK MCQUACK HONK

"rearrange your face" -Devo

Avocado Land

by Thomas

Damien Hirst has another auction coming up September 15 and 16 in London. This time he is working directly with Sotheby's auction house rather than through his usual dealer, Jay Jopling, and his long term gallery, the Gagosian. Cheyenne Westphal, chairman of contemporary art for Sotheby’s Europe, says Mr Hirst will "often break the boundaries of how things can be done. This show will open up all kinds of questions. Are other artists going to take notice? I would think so.” He is expected to raise over 65 million pounds, benefiting charities of his choice.

Tight, together. Yay, auctions. As Damien Hirst put it, this is a “very democratic way to sell art." Just wonderful. Most of his pieces are in formaldehyde. He likes this medium. One of his pieces called "Bill and Shark," is based on a picture of Bill Gates with one of his shark pieces. It will benefit the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation.


I realize that I have a little trouble rejecting Hollywood movies. However, I am seeing the trouble and the limitations of some genres, and in ways, Hollywood itself. The golden section is an excellent dramatic tool in many art forms, especially in something that takes hours to experience, as does a feature-length film. I enjoyed the cartoons you sent me, but I guess I get a little caught up in the fact that everyone is broad shouldered and very muscular. It looks funky when every grown man looks like he weighs between 200 and 330 pounds and can bench about 400. But I get what you are saying about the characterization of Joker. Why stop at Jack and Heath? The most recent film gets so caught up in the battle for Gotham's soul, that I lose track of it in the recapitulation and denouement.

I still want to shoot the scene with the dimly lit grocery store. I still want the kid with the tighter clothing and the potato chips to look innocent.

I have pieces in my mind that are not supposed to fit together. Maybe things shouldn't fit together so well as they do. Maybe things should make you uneasy without asking questions, without pressuring you to make a choice, to take a side. Maybe we reach a little more interesting note by getting rid of the choice, by taking away the options.

Maybe D.H. stops with the animals in formaldehyde stuff. Maybe he doesn't, and continues to push his boundaries about as far as I have been from Athens. Maybe he doesn't care that he's aggravating me.

I listened to a guy play clarinet the other day. He was really good. He's really talented for anyone, especially someone his age. Wow. Then I started noticing, that hey, there wasn't much to his playing. Yeah, he messed a few notes (though, his mess-ups sounded really nice for most player's on passages), but I don't think it was because he was taking chances on stuff. That's fine, though. You don't need to take chances.

Honestly, Damien Hirst is probably contributing economically to his world the most he possibly can. But is that the only responsibility of an artist? Is he challenging his audience. Forget about the status quo, forget about picking sides or offering options. Is he communicating something? Does it matter if an artist communicates?

Untitled by Thomas

For however legitimate, together, forthright and special a person is, it is all too possible that person is just as fake, discombobulated, withdrawn and ordinary.

For years I used the spoken model of living, reaction, and good will my mother imparted on an hourly basis to us as my creed for human interaction. I gradually realized that entire chapters of my mother's treatise on life were inconsistent, biased and illogical. I began to reject them, generating my own tools, my own methods, but I continued to defend her ideologies. Eventually, I could not do that anymore. I had to break away entirely. I could not continue with this. There was not anything I could do. It did not work anymore.

Similarly, I looked up to my father as a role model. That continued until I was approximately 8 or 9. I rejected his manners, his disregard, his violence. He became sick beyond my own comprehension. Following his death, I began to respect him once more, looking to things he had discussed with me when I was a boy of 5 or 6 as wisdom I could apply to my burgeoning twenties, looking to him as a father figure of sorts. Now, I do not know how to take things.

As I once told a person I used to know, "What has happened, or the fact that it is gone, or that past versions of ourselves did not interact as they could have, does not matter; we are all much cooler than we used to be. Every one of us, you, me, that guy sitting over there, we're all a lot cooler than we used to be. This is our time. The past is silly in comparison."

Acceptance takes time. Realizing a truth or an openness we have not yet adopted can take days of conversation, weeks of contemplation, and years of life. When I think about the amount of time it took me to accept certain aspects of manhood, sexuality, ideas, art, emotion and communication, I am baffled at how people who do not obsess as much as I do (I cycle in my brain almost too much) ever reach such conclusions. It took me 3 years to accept something as trivial as gay marriage, let alone the open-endedness of sex. It took me until I was 16 to realize real beauty in visual arts, and until I was 20 to figure out meaning.

About the situation you and I spoke about, I just have to say that I hate hypocrites, but not as much as I dislike people who just let shit happen.

We are all different now. Your interactions with your mother are never ever going to be the same. You are never going to connect the same way you used to. You aren't as innocent, naive as you may have been and she is certainly less hopeful. But this is not a bad thing. It is, as I constantly put it, a natural progression. You can find a new way to connect, a new way to communicate. Just because she has "chosen her path" does not mean that it is set. It may take time, it may take energy, but some kind of connection is possible. However, the downside is that it may not be worth it to you. In which case you have to be real about your choices. None of the things people say like, "I would spend my entire life with you if it were not for these dirty dishes." That would not be true.

If you are not being proactive, I have no idea what you are doing. You are asking all the right questions. If you think I am being proactive, ehh. . ok. To ask these questions, why not N.O.? Why not here, there, her, him? These are the questions you should be asking. And yeah, you do your work for a reason, and that's what you should do. You should not worry about anything else. If you do what makes you happy, you'll make everyone around you a heck of a lot happier than if you do what you think would make the world better. Work for an artist, shack up at a coop, sell the plastic cups.

Oh, and your compound idea is tremendous. It is worthwhile, noble, beautiful, even fun. However, you can never make everything ok again. You know this, and my typing is probably making things too ridiculous, but that is why I am so happy with the earth. In no way can things be made ok, perfect, etc. We always have an extra step to go, an extra moment to evaluate. Things can always be made better. We are all cooler than we used to be.

Untitled by Walker

I sit in front of my computer at 12:35am today.  I am tired, and I am realizing that I must trust my suspicions more, since my gut instinct has a good track record, as it turns out.

What I must continually remind myself of is that I must accept both sides, both histories of my family.  My grandfather is an emblem of an impossible idea and plateau of existence.  As humble as he can act, he also can act with much severity and misguided emotion.  He holds grudges, though he made a bad decision for an earnest and good reason his behavior in regards to this decision are inappropriate.  Those I saw as weak are strong.  Those in my family that I saw as true and honest and direct are not.  The vices in my family's history are great and what we've done is truly sad.  What is kept from one another.  My grandfather should know about his father.  It will hurt, but it is absolutely necessary.  My mother is losing herself slowly, especially since I left for college and especially since I stopped spending summers here. 

Meanwhile I miss her.  Am I taking on too many of her qualities?  Do I take on too many qualities of too many other people?  How do I connect once more to my mother like I did so many years ago.  I think that is lost and that she has chosen her path.  She has inherited a vice from my grandfather, by my grandfather has the tolerance.  

All this as I look at the fall and debate whether I should sell my untitled flag piece or rather to whom should I sell it?  Can I take a chance and do it, and if it is a mistake, it will just be a hurtle for me to deal with later in life?  Do I try to always maintain my ground in an effort to strive to become the symbol my grandfather has been for me?  Do I work for an artist?  Which one?  Or do I work with an artist who has their feet both in the art world and in reality?  I am referring to Ken, Julianne's husband.  Or perhaps the art world truly isn't so troublesome--I sometimes hope in vain if I were to enter that atmosphere I could change it by example.  And as Thomas says (to paraphrase), "maybe no one gives a shit and it is a status signifier."  I can't help but look at Rodin or Duchamp (not Nauman) and just think it was compulsion alone that drove them.  Why am I making things?  I do it so I can hash out who I want to be.  To demonstrate raw work ethic--that is one without functional value.  Yet, if I have a particular functional skill set, why am I not doing what I love to do: help people.  What am I doing thinking about an MFA?  Why didn't I go to New Orleans years ago?  Then I was insecure.  But why don't I go now?  And what about her.  Or him?  I'd like to be around at least one of them.  I am making my next decision based on the outcome of decisions they are making now.  Which is to say that I am not making any pro-active decisions.  And I hate that.

This all takes me back to Synesthesia and other ideals I've had (I have always wanted to have all those I love and care for live on my property here, with a farm, where we'd all work--both the farm and our individual creative or academic projects.  And when a disaster hit, we'd all travel together in an effort to make it all okay again--whatever that is).  Synesthesia was another manifestation of a similar feeling.  It was a social act, a way to try to better something.  A form of thinking to broaden our senses, thoughts.  And now I am at the point where I could do this, somehow.  But I don't know where to start, logistically.  This is what I would love the most though.  Just decency.

Is All That has Been Done Lost?

by Thomas

I am about to get the second signature on my thesis before I go to turn it in. Walker has finished, and I am about to. As we attempt to foil our own departures to something new, we ask the question, what does this mean?

I should feel completely relieved. I should be satisfied and happy, and I am undoubtedly getting there, but I can't help but imagine that there is no such thing as a break from this. I wrote one paper today, I will write another tomorrow. I am not even good at writing papers.

As for Walker, 2.0 is underway as we speak. He probably paused more than he usually does, but it's not about the singular achievement, it's about what is behind those achievements. The same may go for this project. We may not be able to boil down modern day art into the simple "s'all screwed up" mission statement. We may need to go farther.

We are about finished (by that I mean Walker is done and I have a few days to go), but does it matter? Southwest; Northeast. Are we trapped? Is art going to become a pseudo-modern day Chinaredcapitalist phenomenon? Is Damien Hirst (and by DH, I mean crap) going to become the one and only artist people care about. Do people care about art at all, or do they care about it because it is a status symbol, a thing people can point to and say, "they are wealthy/intellectual/snooty enough to care about art,"? I know people care. Do you?

Do we believe in this? Are things out there? Is all that has been done lost?

Everyone Should Major in Women's Studies

by Thomas

This is something I have been thinking on. I read two chapters from John Wright's book on interest groups, the first on lobbyists and the second on political action committees. I know that in the liberal world, and oftentimes in the conservative one, that the public perception is quite distrusting of the political influence that lobbyists and political action committees may gain for corporate America. Indeed John Wright dispels much of this and describes lobbyists and PAC's rather as information providers and generally expediters of the political process, bringing grass roots movements to the doorstep of the Capitol.

Novelists tell us what is impossible. Theorists tell us what may be possible at a future point. Journalists tell us what is. Historians paraphrase what was. All of this sounds good, right? I doubt too many people would disagree. I do, to an extent. My Principal Investigator once lamented, "why oh why are the theoretical biologists mapping what we already know? They should be describing what is to come!" What art theorists do is describe what happened and why it all fits together so neatly now. Art critics indeed are not practitioners in the same way that artists are. They may have a more objective standpoint (and that is debatable), however it is difficult to ascertain whether or not watching art can produce anything as new as it can describe how it came to be. Art historians describe these events with whatever slant or cued preference they choose to show. It isn't as important that they get the facts, or the ideas, as they tell a narrative that may or may not compartmentalize Duchamp into a 173 page book *with pictures*. I restate: Novelists tell us what is possible. Theorists tell us why everything in the last thirty years occurred. Journalists tell us what they want to. Historians paraphrase what they wish would have been.

This brings us back to the lobbyists. They are information providers. Art historians and art critics help the public see what is going on. Indeed, compartmentalization is a necessary process, or how would we discern what to focus. Are art historians correct? I hope not. Are art critics unbiased, undoubtedly no. However, their contribution is an extension of the artist to the viewer.

Solid points concerning context. I have trouble with some of the placement of art. As an art critic, an art journalist, Linda Weintraub could go farther and enter the artist's studio (or better yet, could view the art in a gallery painted black with all the lights off and blinds turned). That kind of approach would begin to unravel more of the artist's story.

Response to: 60s and 70s: Systems and Experiments, and Questioning Perceptions

by Thomas

This is an important question we can ask. "Which scientific experiment involving rats in mazes and mental cognition do you prefer?" I would immediately say, the experiment that tells us the best story, that explains neuronal synapse uniquely, the experiment that does not lie. Who is going to be the judge of the truth, however. What you may be saying is that we can not simply judge an experiment based on aesthetic results when indeed it is an exploration of artistic limitations. Sol LeWitt's incomplete cubes are a perfect example. Indeed, I was attempting to generate an algebraic explanation for how many incomplete boxes there are, however, it may be a topological problem. The aesthetic that an incomplete box (or a specific incomplete box) creates is what Sol LeWitt may be dealing with.

Art finds the plane of new frontiers that frighten us, bewilder us, and look either too unfitting (ugly) or too in place (pretty) for us to pass by. Here we may misunderstand the incomplete cube, the neon glow. We may not grasp the entire picture. To judge this work differently because it is experimentation is a confounding idea. Ideally, all art is an experiment. All art is a work in progress. Just as neuroscience presses forward, so, we would expect, does art. Yes, acknowledging them as trials is acceptable, but experiment for experiment's sake is not art, it is a cheapening of ideas, an insecurity (I might add) in the message/feeling/result. I do not expect a sure answer, or even an answer, as communication between artist and viewer is an ongoing and sometimes dysfunctional thing. This brings me to a world-renown composer on the faculty of University of Michigan. Apparently his students compulsively change their pieces during rehearsals. This, I found, they learn from their teacher. What are they composing, background music? Oh, yes, I had better dim the oboe here for otherwise we might not be able to enjoy the curve of the man's thigh!

Art is for the artist alone. Art is not for the artist, it is for the viewer. If the art is not for the artist, what is the artist doing? If the art is not for the viewer, what is the artist doing. Again, this expresses the funk that experiments may place on the viewer. If your aim is to lose yourself in the viewer's eye, draw them in and quietly show them everything, but carefully. If you aim to lose your viewer, blast forth everything.

"What is art?" Challenging this is not art. Challenging this is challenging this. Pushing art is art.

Art sales soar despite credit crunch

by Thomas

I am not sure what this is supposed to mean, however, it may be the case that people are investing in art because its value is less likely to tank than stocks like GE (12% drop over a week ago) and Yahoo! (with a looming buyout). Is it really the case that spending £580,000 on Hirst's A Beautiful Thing is a good investment? With the art market expanding as it is, it most necessarily is. That's what art's all about.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/04/22/nart122.xml

On the Role of Art Critics and Art Historians

The role of these individuals I find to complicated. On one hand, I see "doers," that is artists, as better guides than art critics. Frequently, an art critic uses words that seem inadequate, too adequate, or just simply wrong. Their arguments can be equally perplexing and mysterious. They do have the ability to "make or break a career" (my skin crawls at that (1) actually happening (2) actually having to be a concern), and though they have a great knowledge of artists, oftentimes they are foreign to the methods of labor involved (many exceptions of course! Some actually have an art making background!). Their role seems to ride completely on an overinflated art market. Once more, Duchamp and Warhol--you know, artists--appear as the prime contributers to art theory, as opposed to art critics. Feel free to correct me if you think I'm wrong.

Yet at the same time, where would we be without them? Sometimes they analyze insightfully and as a result give back to an art community. It allows art to be judged (a tricky endeavor) academically. Being raised by academics, I do not reject or fear the idea of academia and art interacting, so I find this to be most beneficial.

The relationship between art historians and art critics will reveal itself more fully with time, and I unfortunately cannot fully describe this interaction. Initially it appears art historians perpetuate what art critics say, but this is not the case as seen with Joseph Beuys, art from Byzantium, Pollock, David Salle and others.

Yet the critic (and historian somewhat) act as mediators between artist (or art rather) and viewer/participant. Why the mediator? In a discussion led by Linda Weintraub, who wrote In The Making (starring many artists including Takashi Murakami no less), she claimed to take this stance because of "disgruntled watchers in a gallery" (3/4/2007).

Now I would like to fight in Linda's behalf before (what will seem like me) attacking her. She writes very consciously of artists and how they want to be represented. She always sends her writing to the artists she is covering. She wants their validation--that indeed, the presentation of them (the artists) is appropriate. Quite admirable and she generally writes to artists as opposed to art historians, art critics or art collectors. An amazon review attacks her because of her weak critical analysis of the work. Yet, I find such "plain" texts a relief when opinions are so easy to come by. It allows the ready to reject or accept or whatever the work. I appreciate such efforts and find them quintessential to the art book market: let people decide for themselves.

However, she ignores a crucial fact with her "disgruntled watchers in a gallery." That crucial fact is that they are in a gallery--which is the supposedly neutral territory (thank you Rachel, www.statetheproblem.blogspot.com) which is in fact not neutral and is completely "artificial" (for lack of a better word). In short, the gallery is already a mediator. That could be the problem. If we were to see the art piece in a public space or in the artist's studio (in my opinion, the prime location to look at the work, perhaps the only place to look at the work properly). So an art critic then is the mediator that works inside the mediator of the gallery to relay information from the art/ist to the viewer/participant.

To end on a personal statement, when I work I acknowledge the realm or situation in which my art is displayed or is meant to be displayed (inside the gallery--the white cube). I work from that position of the white cube/the gallery/the space the piece will exist in. I see it as the only way to take the whole picture into account. In short, what I mean to say is that some work is not only intended for display in a gallery but takes the gallery as an idea, as a canvas into consideration in order to make it a valid, true, honest way to view the work. This would be less true of an outsider artist, whose work was made (approximately) without the consideration of the gallery/museum/the white box. To see that work in the atmosphere of a gallery is, to me, not to see the work much at all. That itself is a huge hurtle. The gallery is just one of many frameworks from which we see art (or in other words, context is important in any given situation).

"How is it feminist? Because a woman made it"

Those are words from an art history professor I had a year ago talking about the feminist work of Sherrie Levine.

Duchamp's Fountain casted in Bronze by Sherrie Levine
I cannot say that I am a huge fan of Sherrie Levine's work, but that isn't so important so much as another common, unfounded art historical insofacto comment, which when it is observed makes little if any sense as a Universal.
A woman taking any sort of position is in a patriarchy is not in and of itself feminist. In this particular example with the artist Sherrie Levine, making an object in a male dominated art world is not inherently feminist. Certainly we could argue that the piece is feminist--in fact evidence supports this. But that does not mean it a woman making it automatically makes it feminist in any shape way or form, or at the very least, I don't find its position to be so easily and quickly understood as feminist.
Let's put the art world aside and instead enter the political sphere. If we see a woman protesting the new restrictions on abortion outside of the White House, we would probably think (correctly) that she is a feminist. For sake of argument, the protests result in the new restrictions being removed. The day after the new restrictions have been removed, we see still people protesting! But instead of signs demanding restrictions being removed, the signs dictate that abortion should be completely illegal! The majority of them are women, and they are taking a stance in a patriarchy. Does that make them feminists?

I hate to make, "most people would say" statements, but here we go: most people I believe would not consider these women feminists, eventhough they are standing up for a cause they believe in in a patriarchy. Perhaps some of the individuals from the first protest (pro-choice folk), reacting against the new restrictions, respond that the second protesters (pro-life) are simply acting within the boundaries of what it is to be a woman in a patriarchy. One might quickly dismiss this only because it assumes that one's position on abortion determines whether or not one acts within or outside of a "woman's role." The arguements continue on.

But it does not matter. Already, a distinction has been made between the act of taking a stance and the content of a stance, simply by creating the duality of "woman against patriarchy" vs. "woman unknowingly conforming to patriarchy." To base who fits in what category solely upon a single factor seems ridiculous, therefore the issue is not "against patriarchy" vs "conforming to patriarchy," so much as what these individuals are saying. Being an (politically, artistically, etc) active woman, does not necessitate a feminist stance.

60s and 70s: Systems and Experiments, and Questioning Perceptions

Two of many Sol LeWitt's incomplete Cubes

Bruce Nauman's Run from Fear Fun from Rear in neon
60s and 70s: Systems and Experiments
The work from the 60s and 70s is, in general, of great importance to what I make and do, and I think about it frequently. And as I always do, I think about the public's reaction to these sorts of pieces, although Bruce Nauman says repeatedly that he makes art for the few--not the elite--but that his art is something he'd want to show a friend, for example. Though Nauman is quite confident, I am not and I am insecure about the public eye, what they think (MAKE ME THINK). I want to preface by saying my thoughts on this matter are founded upon the assumption that the "general public" (whatever that means) sees these pieces as tasteless or simply as not being art (which actually is a very astute observation, if people don't just shut down when looking at something "modern" or contemporary and find it to be a little odd--for sake of simplicity right now, I am going to ignore this and bring this up in an article about Duchamp sometime later. This issue is not my primary concern).

I believe that the work seen above ought to be seen differently than other forms of art--I think it ought to be judged by different criteria. The work is not about aesthetics. What I mean when I say this is that there is no one aesthetic that determines or creates the piece. Instead it other systems, which an artist uses to execute an idea or action (or in this case, which someone else executes... see my first brief article "end of the beginning"). It's literally experimentation; it's experimental art. In the case of Sol LeWitt, the system is obvious when you see a great amount of his work. With the open, incomplete cubes, I believe that Sol LeWitt made every combination of an open cube available. If I am incorrect, he still 'made' many incomplete cubes. He experimented within a specific framework and saw the results of following that system.

Perhaps the viewer feels cheated, believes that the all the cubes are complete worthless based on the absence of an aesthetic system which determines the appearance of the piece (again, this is not to say there is not an aesthetic to the piece or that appearances are not important to the artist). To reiterate, I believe that this individual looks at the work from a slightly flawed perspective. To say that experimental art is bad is like saying a scientific experiment is bad. Or even more bazaar, to choose say you prefer one cube over another. That would be like asking, "which scientific experiment involving rats in mazes and mental cognition do you prefer?"

This question, "which scientific experiment involving rats in mazes and mental cognition do you prefer?," appears odd to us. I am arguing that odd reaction is the same regarding experimental art. At this point I would like to clarify a couple of things. Of course, is that you can prefer anything over anything else and judge biasedly. For example, you could prefer the scientific experiment that has a gray rat because you like gray rats. In this sense, no reaction is bazaar. You feel and think what you feel and think. At the same time though, this gives no consideration to anything except your own opinion, which is what you could say I am attacking: no consideration.

So if you 'cannot' judge based on an aesthetic system, what system do you judge it by? Well, an experimental system. That is what is important, the experiment. In short, if you don't see it this way, you are seeing it incorrectly.

Questioning Perceptions...

But can this really be a true statement? Can I or anyone else say that your perspective is wrong? Could I or someone else say that a person is visually illiterate? This is confusing for me. I personally believe that, yes, I can say that people see things incorrectly and that a piece does have an inherent logic.


But then i turn around and say, but art is not just what is in the head of the maker but also in the eyes of the viewer (though Rachel, www.statetheproblem.blogspot.com , has made a very good point to me that ultimately the artist, not the audience, is the only reason for art being made--I agree, but again I am more insecure and concerned about public opinion). Though I firmly believe one can see things incorrectly, I have no proof or valid foundation. In fact, I can only say that the opposing argument, that art is primarily if not completely interpreted by the viewer, has more evidence. This entire conversation inevitably addresses the question, "what is art?," and the common response, "these complexities of what art is and how art is seen makes it art."


I am skeptical of this. Challenging "what is art" is not a valid way to make art. Philosophers and theologians have challenged art making, but that doesn't make their argumentation or writings art to the general public or even the art work, does it? Obviously not.

One philosopher, Arthur Danto, to tackle the question, "what is art?," defined art as whatever the art world accepts as art. But what if an object was once considered art, but is no longer? What of Byzantium? Those "artists" were considered craftsmen! Who are we to retroactively claim these people as artists when their own contemporaries did not? On the other hand, does it matter if it is the same creative spark, which is shared across cultures? Is a child's or a scientist's drawing not art because it isn't accepted into the cannon?

In short, I question questions and doubt doubts. And furthermore, I don't know.

In His Infinite Wisdom

By Thomas

Usually we judge artwork by beauty (and whatever you define that to be), inherent message (the inside story, if you will), and how it connects to the audience. Some artists believe their work can also be found worthwhile without any of these qualities. Specifically, even if an art piece is untoward or appallingly unnecessary, it can have worth if it provokes people, or generates some kind of controversy in subsequent conversations. Here we have In His Infinite Wisdom. Damien Hirst achieves <>shock>< in his audience with a gestational anomaly and which he credits to god (or God or. ..). Brilliant. So, is this supposed to suggest an atheist point of view or are we actually blaming an extra leg on a calf on someone other than hormone-pumped heifers? Its unoriginal, midordinary and bland. OMG, there are freaky, sad and bad things in the world? How incredible.

ART and AIDS

By Thomas

U2’s Bono kicked off the AIDS charity auction—which topped $38.7 million—last night with a rendition of “All You Need is Love.” A piece by the same name by Damien Hirst—A large plastic heart with dead butterflies stuck to it—sold for $2.2 million to a telephone bidder. Damien Hirst’s priciest work garnered $6.2 million “before fees,” according to Bloomberg.com. Now, Sotheby’s is undoubtedly a well-meaning auction house, but what are the “fees,” involved here? If this is a charity for AIDS victims in Africa, then why are fees involved? I’m sure their paltry 10% commission of the hammer price is appreciated by the dying Africans.

Charity auctions carry a purely positive connotation. Who would not want to be involved in a charity auction, and frankly, why would one not want to donate to such a thing. Naturally, if your auction house is Sotheby’s and this is an extremely well-publicized auction, you will see several celebrities there. Not only will Bono perform a Beatle’s tune, but actor Dennis Hopper, former tennis star John McEnroe, real estate mogul Aby Rosen and model Christy Turlington all show up. Following the auction there’s an after-party including KaiKai KiKi LLC CEO Takashi Murakami, entrepreneur Martha Stewart, models Helena Christensen and Liya Kebede, R.E.M. singer Michael Stipe, newscaster Brian Williams and actress Ziyi Zhang. Not only did Christy Turlington buy Francesco Clemente's ``Red Flower on Scorched Earth'' for $155,000, more than double the valuation of $70,000!!, but she happened to write a paper on Damien Hirst in college! Artists involved were some of the priciest in the business. Not only was Hirst well-represented, but Murakami’s “Red Flower Ball (3-D)” sold for $1.5 million, U.K. sculptor Antony Gormley’s piece went for $250,000 and Andreas Gursky “Pyongyang IV,” a photograph of a Korean festival sold for $1.4 million.

Art dealers bought up most of the pricier pieces and phone buyers bought up most of the rest. Hirst’s piece, “Where There’s a Will There’s a Way,” brought in more than a sixth of the proceeds. It was purchased by London’s White Cube Gallery, one of Hirst’s own dealers. Of course art adviser Thea Westreich stated that celebrity events can’t serve as a proxy for the health of the art market, “It's a sexy auction for Valentine's Day.” This may indicate that Damien Hirst and other artists don’t commonly fetch this extreme in prices. However, if dealers and mysterious “phone bidders,” bought up most of the pieces, what are we to expect, that these pieces were not worth what they were sold for? This would undoubtedly put the dealers out of business, the mysterious phone bidders in a position to relinquish their phones. Such an auction is brilliant for these artists. Not only is their work put out there as their own, when often such pieces are constructed by the “Hirst Studio,” or “Murakami[[ and others ]],” but receiving this kind of publicity and these kind of over-the-top prices on their works only makes their snob appeal/recognition/worth go up. The contention is not that art at this level is a Giffen good (goods that are in higher demand at higher prices). Instead, demand among the rich is heavily linked to recognition. High Art's worth so often is judged by author rather than by, well, worth. Why would an artist of Hirst’s caliber not want to hire his studio workers a few more hours to make such a piece for auction when it can only increase his popularity and appeal. Even better, "I'm a good person, I donate to charity, World!"

Celebrities get tremendous props simply for attending such events. If they, like Christy Turlington, actually come away with a piece, it makes big news. Not just among the higher-up community, but among the public. Martha Stewart looks much better than she did yesterday, simply because she is mentioned in articles discussing the (Red) Auction at Sotheby’s. Additionally, these people are buying art. Valuations were estimated to be much lower than the auction brought in, however, these artists commonly sell pieces for such prices. What better pairing for your 42^nd street townhouse apartment and your image than a Hirst cabinet with antiretroviral drugs stuck inside and an “I contributed to charity,” medal?

In a purely reasonable sense, altruism does not exist. Every individual acts on his or her preferences and maximizes utility according to those preferences. An unselfish act is just as selfish as a selfish one from a purely personal perspective. In other words, celebrities and top artists in the business have motivations for submitting to a charitable auction as I have mentioned, but also have internal motivations which reward them. Maybe they are doing good for horribly sick people in Africa. Maybe AIDS workers will get it through their heads that condom distribution doesn’t work and that more creative ways to prevent the almost inevitable spread of AIDS are necessary. Ultimately, events like this, which focus on a dire problem (AIDS in Africa), but which ignore such things as genocide in Darfur, may serve the wealthy artists and celebrities involved more than those in Africa.

Thanks go to Linda Sandler and Katya Kazakina.