ON POP ART: part 2

In my previous post on pop art I presented some ideas why I feel popular culture as an influence on art is valid and continues. I didn’t mean to present this as pop art is the only important art being done, just to present as still having a place and importance. Also while I myself use people from popular culture in my paintings I don’t really want to be pigeonholed as solely a pop artist. There is much to be explored beyond that. When I did a painting that featured an unrecognizable person, another artist said she particularly liked that painting because she didn’t recognize it as someone famous. I don’t really know why that is the case. A person is a person. When we look at a movie we don’t think I would like it better if I didn’t recognize the actors. I think a recognizable face brings a certain power with it. What we think about the person can affect what we think about the art. One of the premises of my work is that we decide how we feel about famous people by the parts they play, the songs they sing or what we read about them in the tabloids. We form opinions about people we never even met. When I was helping hang my exhibit in the @ Central Gallery at the Burton Barr Library a woman passing through looked at 2 paintings, one featured Paul McCartney the other Elizabeth Taylor. She said, “I love Paul, I hate Liz”, Proving my point. I’m sure she never met either of them.  I’m not beyond these judgments myself, so I cast people in my paintings so to speak by my own judgments or notions. Fame is also a transient thing. Our opinions about celebrities can change over time. Our opinions can change from hero to villain.  I also like to draw on themes and Subjects from art history for similar reasons. I’m drawn to artist’s work that deals with similar subjects, who draw on popular culture and art history. Many equate Pop Art with what Andy Warhol did and artists that mimic his style. But it can take in many styles. There are those who use the hard edged aproach of Warhol,  Roy Lichtenstine, and Robert Indiana, but there are those who are more painterly like Derick Boshier, James Rosenquist and Jim Dine. Then there are those who’s work borders on realism like Peter Phillips and Mel Ramos What really ties it together is it being influenced by advertising and popular culture more so than a way of working.

2013 in Review

Some day or other, I believe I will find a way to have my own exhibition in a café.

-Vncent Van Gogh to his brother Theo, June 10, 1890

click photos to enlarge...

Portland's 

I had a good year as far as exhibiting in 2013. The year started out with me fulfilling Van Gogh’s hope. I had a solo exhibit at a café, Portland’s Restaurant & Wine Bar in Phoenix.

Next up in March was the 25 Years Downtown show at monOrchid, a group exhibit which was held at the time of Art Detour and included the monOrchid Art Ball

Rafael Navarro, Fred Tieiken, Gennaro Garcia & Moi at the Art Ball

I had work included in two summer exhibits, The Klown show at the new R. Pela Contemporary Art gallery in July and the Thermal PHX exhibit that ran for three months in the summer.

with Eric Cox at R. Pela

In September I was privileged to have two paintings in the Messin’ With the Masters exhibit at the Mesa Contemporary Arts Museum which ran through January 2014.

 With Nicole Royce & Lee Davis at MCA Museum

 Also in October I donated 2 paintings for the Mesa  10x10 Show & Sale. One of these was purchased by a collector from Spain.

Then in October Randy Slack honored me by inviting me to be in the Chaos Theory exhibit at Legend City for a second time.

James Angel myself & Randy Slack at Legend City

Finally in October-November I had a piece in the Rotting the Barrel show in the Bokeh Gallery at monOrchid.

Besides Gallery exhibits I had my first on line sale to a collector in Brooklyn through Saatchi Galleries web site.

In the summer we took a week trip to LA to check things out and visit the museums.

All in all not to bad a year. And as you can see I got to hangout with some great artists and see some great art.  

Stuck–Up

 Stuck-up: adjective \ˈstək-ˈəp\

acting unfriendly towards other people because you think you are better than they are.

Stuckism is a name embraced by the British Remodernist movement after Tracy Emin told Billy Childish his painting was “stuck, stuck, stuck!” A manifesto was devised by Childish and Charles Thompson in response to the type of art that the Tate’s Turner prize was being awarded. Stuckists denounce artists that don’t adhere to their narrow definition of what art is and question the motives of artists who are accepted by the contemporary art establishment. The Stuckists like to say that artists who have success in the established art world are only in it for the money, that they are not motivated by anything inside of themselves. This is rather presumptuous and as was pointed out by another artist, smacks of jealousy. They detest postmodernism and an “elitist” straw man they set up to bash. One thing they feel is that the contemporary art establishment is too obsessed with celebrity. In spite of this they like to flaunt Billy Childish as one of their founders because of his luminary status as a second string British Punkrocker. This in spite of the fact that Childish quit the group early on reportedly because he didn’t like some of the work in one of their early shows. It would seem from this that Childish is a bit of an elitist himself. Hypocrisy abounds with the Stuckists. They say that artists go to art openings just to schmooze, strike a pose and make connections to advance their own careers. Yet they have openings and hope these same ones will come to their shows.

One of the Stuckists premises is that painting is the only true form of art. In The Scottsman news paper Tiffany Jenkins stated, “…itmust be pointed out, that despite the problem with devaluing of painting, those commentators that see painting as the only way to make art, such as The Stuckists – a campaign groop that argues for figurative painting-can fetishise it. For all their excitement about paint, the painting by The Stuckists is poor.”

In his blog New York Gallerist, Edward Winkleman pointed out that, “One of the side effects of artists openly and very publically criticizing others' artwork is that one sets him/herself up for a much harsher counter-critique than might otherwise fall when exhibiting one's own work. There's a bit of a "don't-throw-stones-if-you-live-in-a-glass-house" unspoken rule. Not that artists don't criticize others all the time, but it just makes sense to ensure you've got the goods to back up your controversial rhetoric.”

That brings me to the recent exhibit at Trunk Space in Phoenix; INTERNATIONAL STUCKISTS: Explorers and Inventors. Curated by local artst, Richard Bledsoe. A show that met stuckist DIY standards with an amateur hanging by tacking some of the unframed works to the wall. This is tantamount to Mom putting it on the refrigerator with a magnet. Centerpiece to this exhibit was a work by Stuckist founder Charles Thompson. It went beyond his usual lack of skill with paint, as he has left his previous solid colors and hard edged approach by attempting to be painterly, filling in arias with sloppy brushed color. While Suckism began and mostly remains a British phenomenon they like to view themselves as an international movement, Hence the title of the exhibit. The Stuckists are also known as Remodernists because they think they are taking off where Modernism left off. Much of the work is closer to Grandma Moses than Pablo Picasso, hence they should call it Renaiveism. Not all works in the show are terrible; some even show a degree of talent and ability to handle their medium. That is the sad part. I believe that by associating with a complaining group of bitter artists some may be holding themselves back. But then maybe that’s the point, avoiding the “elite” art world. In an article about the show in Downtown Devil Richard Bledsoesaid he planned to offer much of the works in the show to one of the local museums. I imagine this is so when it is rejected it will prove to him the “elite art world” has no taste. Perhaps a Stuckist’s worst nightmare could occur and it is accepted and there will be nothing more to spout off about.

There are some things in the show that are better than much of what they hang here with. Michele Bledsoe and Michael Denson are a couple of locals that are superior to the Stuckists they are associated with here.

In the end I don’t really want to be a critic. I have my own glass house to protect.  I appreciate the courage it takes when creative people put their work out there for all to consider and make their own judgments about. I like most forms of creative visual expression and taking in many forms of art.

I actually agree with some of the criticism of the Stuckists about the devaluation of painting and art that shows no skill (I may deal with this in a future post.) I just agree with Winkleman that if an artist is going to knock others in their creative endeavors they should have the artistic chops to back it up, not just more pedantic rhetoric.

Related links:

http://www.edwardwinkleman.com/2006/08/stuckists.html

http://www.scotsman.com/lifestyle/arts/visual-arts/tiffany-jenkins-art-education-fails-to-paint-a-pretty-picture-1-3001935

http://downtowndevil.com/2014/01/20/53448/new-art-exhibition-focuses-on-stuckism-movement-discusses-elitism-in-art/