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.