I went to the San Angelo “art” Walk tonight. Thought that since I didn’t get to participate in my first art walk (I had a gallery to run) that I would see what I had missed.
Apparently, not much.
Based on my experience with the Denver and San Antonio versions of this cultural event, I had high hopes for the quality of art that I would see and since the ASU Rampage had just run a story on it, I had outrageous expectations on the turnout.
While most of the art galleries had done a pretty good job, the Black Swan Gallery (see image above) and Ruiz Studio stand out in my mind, most of the work was mediocre at best.
The Kendall gallery reflects what it is, a bunch of people who are “interested” in art that got a studio to hang their dabblings in.
But the major let-down of the evening was the San Angelo Museum of Fine Art . Though I don’t think they should be allowed to advertise as such. Apparently we should all feel sorry for the people of Mexico because they have never seen a decent photograph. Their “master photographer” Manuel Alvarez Bravo, is such a poor photographer that there wasn’t but ONE image in his collection that didn’t suffer from technical flaws that overshadowed any artistic merit the image might have had. Though what artistic merit can be seen in a photo of a young boy urinating into a bowl is, quite frankly, beyond me. These days, the only requirement for art is that the artist be dead.
The other photographer they are showcasing is Russell Lee. His photographs, while technically excellent examples of photojournalism, fall short of most standards of art.
The other “artist” falls into that category of beast the collects garbage, repackages it, and slaps a price tag on it. James Michael Starr and his “found art” can best be described as technical crap produced by someone so unoriginal they couldn’t even be bothered to take their own snapshots. Rather, they simply ripped images from a book or magazine, jumpled them together, and smeared them across a canvas. That any museum would continue to support this while punishing other artists by denying them space to display their work astounds and infuriates me.
The saving grace of these exhibits? as I walked out of the the museum I kept repeating to myself, “I didn’t have to pay admission!”
The only really great photographs were at the Water Education Center. Enormous panoramas of the Rio Grande from Colorado to the Gulf cover the walls of this small studio space. You can tell that the artist has taken care to produce excellent photographs that will astound the viewer while educating them about the river. and yeah, I guessed the camera he used from the first picture, the Fuji GX617
Enjoyed the art show did you.
Glad I wasn’t there.
Comment by mom — February 21, 2009 @ 8:01 am
“James Michael Starr and his “found art” can best be described as technical crap produced by someone so unoriginal they couldn’t even be bothered to take their own snapshots. Rather, they simply ripped images from a book or magazine, jumpled them together, and smeared them across a canvas.”
John:
I’ve had a response to the work of some artists similar to the response you had to mine, but I always felt better once I dug deeper and learned more about the artist’s intent. If you prefer to remain infuriated, there is, of course, nothing I can do. But if you’d like to feel better about it all and possibly not feel as though I’ve limited opportunities for other artists, I’d be happy to engage you in dialogue here.
James Michael Starr
Comment by James Michael Starr — May 20, 2009 @ 9:54 pm
Wow, I must admit that I’m flattered you considered my pissed off rant even worth responding to. I must admit as well that I was furious over the entire event so I had been a bit more critical than you deserved. The sculpture, “Bad Idea” I actually liked. A lot of your work though, I must admit, I don’t understand.
I look at some of it and all I see is a pitted piece of metal that has an eyeball glued to it, images that don’t (to me) convey a coherent message, or a simple collection of related objects.
I’m no longer infuriated. Very few things mean enough to me to maintain any intense emotion for a lengthy period of time. It’s just to tiring to stay angry over anything that doesn’t have a life or death consequence.
I suppose I should have put as a disclaimer that I prefer the more classical interpretations of art, and see many people whose work seems more emotional and descriptive than the work at SAMFA that week as a whole, that don’t have the opportunity to ever show their art in a forum like that. I’m also pre-biased against anything called “found art” because the last pair of artists who used that phrase laughed up their sleeves at the people who came into their gallery. They spoke openly (after the crowds had gone) how they had been driving down the road, picked up a random bit of trash, glued it to a board and called it art with a $300 price tag.
To my mind, too much art appreciation is nothing more than people trying to look intelligent and sophisticated in front of their friends. If I pay $50,000 for a painting an elephant did at a zoo, I’m not buying a $50,000 painting. I’m making a $50,000 donation to the zoo and getting a paint smeared canvas for a receipt. If I pay $50,000 for a similar painting done by a human, I’m just being silly.
My ire, please understand, was directed at the art community as a whole for what I see as its abuse of privilege. Art, I feel, should cause people to feel, to think, to reflect upon reality and see it in a different way. More and more I see artists who slap something together, or pick something up from the road and put a price tag on it for commercial enterprise more than any expressive purpose. The abuse comes when they deride the common man for not being intelligent or insightful enough to see the meanings behind their art.
So while I continue to feel a marked lack of appreciation for collage and found object art, you didn’t deserve the scorn I heaped upon you in my original post, and for that I apologize.
Comment by John — May 20, 2009 @ 10:35 pm
No apology is necessary, as the same internet-enabled disconnectedness that made you feel safe in ranting also means I don’t have to take it personally. Like I said, I’ve had a similar response toward some art, especially some I felt was getting recognition not commensurate with it’s quality.
But I’ve encountered your post at a time when I just happen to be thinking about the legitimacy of my own art, triggered in part by skeptical observations about modern art in general from a couple people I respect. So you should know that I don’t feel defensive about it and think I can be pretty objective.
To begin with, I’ll tell you that I can sometimes be as cynical as you are and have from time to time been suspicious about the motivations of certain artists. And yet, as I continue to read about artists living and dead, meet some and also observe my own way of moving, I sincerely believe there are far fewer artists motivated purely by a cynical desire to make money from their work, compared to the vast majority in my experience who appear to be compelled, almost driven, to make art and indeed to sacrifice a lot of material comforts to do so.
Of course, that’s not to say that in my world artists never take advantage of the benefits if their art does sell well. But why shouldn’t they? What if you had something you loved to do and it made money for you, don’t you think you’d take advantage of that rather than work at a job you disliked?
I understand that you think artists like me might be lazy or at least cynical and mercenary, since our work looks like it was easy to do. And you gave the example of artists you’d yourself heard saying they could throw something together and put a $300 price tag on it. But let’s think rationally about that point for a moment. Can you yourself imagine trying to make money by devoting a sizable portion of your time to throwing together ugly objects that you really don’t like? Do you know anyone that you honestly think would pursue that as a career for very long before giving up out of boredom or disgust? Keep in mind that if it’s something they DO like to make, it could still be art, and whether or not you like it is unlikely to be a determining factor.
I’m happy to tell you of all the work that goes into mine, and while I devote at least half my time to it, my art provides an almost negligible fraction of our family income. But even it never sells any more than it is now, I hope I’ll always be able to spend at least this much of my time on it. And while making all our income from my art would mean I could spend all the time on it I want, I would never willingly give it up, even if it never made another cent.
I’ve also found that people who are motivated mostly to make money don’t make very good art. I realize of course that “good art” can be a subjective thing. But even given a certain degree of the “emperor’s new clothes” phenomenon that exists ANYwhere you look, the art world appears to me by and large to be inhabited by people who care deeply about a very important and time-honored cultural product, and I find much more greed, selfishness and ambition in other segments, entertainment, fashion and advertising to name a few, industries in which the creators find themselves much more removed from the hands-on, personal production of their own creative product.
The “$300 price tag” artists may have been lazy, greedy and cynical, I don’t know. You were there and I wasn’t. But I would venture 2 guesses: Like some people, they may simply have felt somewhat embarrassed that people might criticize their work, and it’s human nature to sometimes speak disparagingly about your own efforts before somebody else does it for you. A very Texas trait, I think. But it may be that they really are lazy, greedy or cynical. And if that’s the case, I can almost guarantee you they’re not making real art, you probably won’t be seeing them in any museums, and so they won’t be taking that many opportunities away from more deserving artists.
I hope you’re willing to continue the discussion. And if you are, be ready to back up some of the things you’ve written, as I plan to challenge you on them. In fact, just to get the ball rolling, I’ll start now by asking this question:
Whose definition of art, other than your own, says it should “convey a coherent message” or be something more than “a simple collection of related objects” or be “more emotional and descriptive?”
Also, maybe you are “pre-biased against anything called “found art’,” (I assume you mean “found-object art”) but do you know anything about the history of the medium, or that it was legitimized as an art form by a respected art museum in an exhibition almost 50 years ago?
In general I’d like you to think about whether you’re expressing a real complaint about something you’ve taken the time to learn about, or if you’re just taking an easy target that lot’s of people like to criticize and using it to vent your frustrations generated by the other difficulties of life.
Comment by James Michael Starr — May 21, 2009 @ 9:58 pm