My new painting is called ‘Dora Maar’. What a work of art! I love it.
It is by Jeanette Jones and is 30’ x 40’.
Jeanette has many other paintings. Here is a link to her work:
http://www.jeanettejonesart.com/
I could try to describe Jeanette and her art. But my description could not improve upon her artist’s statement, which is one of the best I’ve ever read.
Jeanette Jones
Please excuse me, I suffer from verbal constipation.
Most of the time I make decisions based on intuition and don't realize until after the fact just what the significance was.
Case in point, I was so struck by Dora Maar, the fact that she was so intelligent and fiery when Picasso met her, yet he broke her down and she was never the same.
I was moved by empathy to paint the portraits of Picasso's women.
The only portrait I treated differently was Francoise Gilot, because she was never broken.
I think I like underdogs, not taking something for face value.
Ok, here is the part I am really bad at... selling myself
I've shown in galleries in Florida & Seattle.
For a year I actually ran a gallery. I've been featured in a few magazines.
I was featured on a local public art showcase.
Here are links to videos that my work is in
http://vimeo.com/groups/6630/videos/10424564
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YA-fR7CKMkw
Crazy, huh. I know. I am a bit unbalanced.
It's horrible.
Thank you so much for reading.
I have so much to say about Jeanette and her art I can barely take it. But for now I will restrain myself and instead be content to note the convergence of factors that in my experience hardly ever align: the conceptual, the existential, and the astrological.
The astrological factor should be clear: yesterday at 11:23, the Earth's axis was inclined neither away from nor toward the sun. Ahhhh...I just love the equinox. And getting this painting on a day whose beginning was a mere seven minutes removed from that point surely bodes well. It is as if the Universe has blessed the painting, given it the significance of a new beginning.
And from a conceptual and existential level, this project is indeed, at least in some sense, at a new beginning. To explain why, however, will take some time; and so I will postpone the explanation until a future post.
I will, however, mention a fact that is of interest in its own right and is also crucial in understanding just how the conceptual and the existential have aligned.
In addition to creating such brilliant works of art and having such an awesome artist’s statement, Jeanette also has a characteristic that is terribly significant for this project. She has a precise description of the economic value of her art. She sells her paintings for $1 per square inch.
Ok. Enough for now. Except to say: if anyone wants to trade a painting for Jeanette Jones' Dora Maar, let me know.
Monday, March 21, 2011
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
Yay!
My next trade is on the way.
I shipped Take Me Home Toto on Saturday to an artist in Seattle, who shipped me one of her paintings on Friday. It is supposed to arrive in three days. I cannot wait.
Philosophers are often accused of not paying enough attention to emotion. Their critics contend: Reason -- that is all philosophers want to talk about; they completely overlook emotion.
I must admit to being somewhat guilty of such a charge. I sometimes think that with an appropriate amount of reason any problem can be solved. In my more reflective moments, I am willing to admit that such an attitude may be some sort of affliction. But it persists nonetheless.
So I found it interesting that I was emotionally affected when I shipped off Monika’s Take Me Home Toto. As I talked to the UPS agent who was about to package it, I could not help but feel sad at seeing it go. That sadness, then, turned into an exuberant pride, which led me to blurt out to the agent and two of his coworkers: this painting might be famous one day.
Will it be famous? Well, who knows? But I couldn’t help making that claim anyway. And I couldn’t help but be overcome by a feeling of loss when I saw the UPS agent remove the painting from my sight. For the brief time that painting hung on my wall, I loved it.
(Just as an aside, I will say that UPS has been absolutely fantastic so far in arranging the packing and shipping of the paintings involved in this process. So I would heartily recommend their services to anyone thinking about shipping a painting.)
The fact that I became so emotionally attached to Monika’s Take Me Home Toto made me think that I had perhaps isolated a source of the irrationality involved in art. If art stimulates emotion, and if emotion is fundamentally irrational, then of course the art world will be rife with irrationality.
But then I couldn't help but think about a view put forward by Franz Brentano according to which emotions are what track value in the world. According to Brentano, emotions stand to value as sight stands to features of physical objects. If Brentano is right, perhaps emotional experience, far from causing irrationality, in fact injects reason into the art world.
But I didn’t think about any of that for too long, since I was too excited by the prospect of receiving my next painting.
Yay!
I am once again pleased with the Universe.
So once again: Thank you. Universe.
Thank you.
I shipped Take Me Home Toto on Saturday to an artist in Seattle, who shipped me one of her paintings on Friday. It is supposed to arrive in three days. I cannot wait.
Philosophers are often accused of not paying enough attention to emotion. Their critics contend: Reason -- that is all philosophers want to talk about; they completely overlook emotion.
I must admit to being somewhat guilty of such a charge. I sometimes think that with an appropriate amount of reason any problem can be solved. In my more reflective moments, I am willing to admit that such an attitude may be some sort of affliction. But it persists nonetheless.
So I found it interesting that I was emotionally affected when I shipped off Monika’s Take Me Home Toto. As I talked to the UPS agent who was about to package it, I could not help but feel sad at seeing it go. That sadness, then, turned into an exuberant pride, which led me to blurt out to the agent and two of his coworkers: this painting might be famous one day.
Will it be famous? Well, who knows? But I couldn’t help making that claim anyway. And I couldn’t help but be overcome by a feeling of loss when I saw the UPS agent remove the painting from my sight. For the brief time that painting hung on my wall, I loved it.
(Just as an aside, I will say that UPS has been absolutely fantastic so far in arranging the packing and shipping of the paintings involved in this process. So I would heartily recommend their services to anyone thinking about shipping a painting.)
The fact that I became so emotionally attached to Monika’s Take Me Home Toto made me think that I had perhaps isolated a source of the irrationality involved in art. If art stimulates emotion, and if emotion is fundamentally irrational, then of course the art world will be rife with irrationality.
But then I couldn't help but think about a view put forward by Franz Brentano according to which emotions are what track value in the world. According to Brentano, emotions stand to value as sight stands to features of physical objects. If Brentano is right, perhaps emotional experience, far from causing irrationality, in fact injects reason into the art world.
But I didn’t think about any of that for too long, since I was too excited by the prospect of receiving my next painting.
Yay!
I am once again pleased with the Universe.
So once again: Thank you. Universe.
Thank you.
Monday, March 7, 2011
Meanderings
Some news: I may have another trade lined up.
I want to thank everyone who has approached me about trading since my last trade and apologize to those I haven’t contacted. This damn thing called a job has kept me too busy to respond to everyone. So thank you.
I won’t say much about my next potential trade, lest I jinx it. But I will say that I am very excited: the conceptual, the existential and the astrological are all lining up very nicely.
I have been thinking about the nature of art lately and have been inclining to some bizarre form of Kantianism.
Kant’s view can be understood best by considering a peculiar claim he makes about genius: genius only occurs in art.
Kant’s view strikes many as strange, since most people would readily apply the ‘genius’ label to a scientist like Einstein or a mathematician like Kurt Gödel.
But according to Kant, a true genius makes the rule according to which others are judged. Mathematicians and scientists, though they can be intellectually extraordinarily gifted, nonetheless must at the end of the day respond to some set of objective facts that, so to speak, force their hands.
Artists, on the other hand, are not so constrained. That is partly the result of the elusive nature of beauty: there is no actual specification of artistic beauty that demands our assent as beautiful apart from some standard that results from artists producing their art.
That sounds fairly abstract, I know. Here is a way to think about it. Until Van Gogh painted Starry Night, nothing in the world would have recommended that he paint his painting in quite the way he did. But once produced, Starry Night itself becomes some kind of standard that defines beauty, so much so that one is inclined to think: of course that’s the way Van Gogh painted Starry Night.
Well, at least Kant’s view starts to sound good to me if I say it enough times. But then, most views of beauty are like that.
That beauty; that damn, damn beauty!
I want to thank everyone who has approached me about trading since my last trade and apologize to those I haven’t contacted. This damn thing called a job has kept me too busy to respond to everyone. So thank you.
I won’t say much about my next potential trade, lest I jinx it. But I will say that I am very excited: the conceptual, the existential and the astrological are all lining up very nicely.
I have been thinking about the nature of art lately and have been inclining to some bizarre form of Kantianism.
Kant’s view can be understood best by considering a peculiar claim he makes about genius: genius only occurs in art.
Kant’s view strikes many as strange, since most people would readily apply the ‘genius’ label to a scientist like Einstein or a mathematician like Kurt Gödel.
But according to Kant, a true genius makes the rule according to which others are judged. Mathematicians and scientists, though they can be intellectually extraordinarily gifted, nonetheless must at the end of the day respond to some set of objective facts that, so to speak, force their hands.
Artists, on the other hand, are not so constrained. That is partly the result of the elusive nature of beauty: there is no actual specification of artistic beauty that demands our assent as beautiful apart from some standard that results from artists producing their art.
That sounds fairly abstract, I know. Here is a way to think about it. Until Van Gogh painted Starry Night, nothing in the world would have recommended that he paint his painting in quite the way he did. But once produced, Starry Night itself becomes some kind of standard that defines beauty, so much so that one is inclined to think: of course that’s the way Van Gogh painted Starry Night.
Well, at least Kant’s view starts to sound good to me if I say it enough times. But then, most views of beauty are like that.
That beauty; that damn, damn beauty!
Thursday, February 24, 2011
The Underbelly
Although artists may aspire to beauty, where there is money to be made, there will be people trying to make it. And where there are people trying to make money, there will be people trying to control the market.
Beauty it would seem has an underbelly.
After my latest trade, I corresponded with two different artists who talked about the underbelly of the art world. Regina Valluzzi (whose art can be seen here: http://www.nerdlypainter.com/) is both a research scientist and an artist. She made the following comments.
One thing I have noticed is that artists will protest vehemently about being sorted into categories that seem to describe accomplishment level, for example "amateur" "student" "emerging" "established" "acclaimed". Nevertheless, they (we?) do self-sort into levels.
According to Regina, the art world consists in levels of increasing perceived value. At the top are the untouchables: Rembrandt, Picasso, Van Gogh, etc. At the bottom are beginning artists. And there are several levels between.
And who controls entry from one level into the next?
This is where beauty’s underbelly begins to pop out. One might think that the answer would (or should) be beauty: an artist goes from one level to the next when he or she paints increasingly beautiful paintings. But alas, it would appear that the control rests, at least in some important instances, with the galleries.
Laura Zurowski, who has a very cool website called ‘The Lovelorn Poets’ (http://www.lovelornpoets.com/), put the point to me this way:
The art world is ripe for a dismantling just as the music industry was shaken by the likes of Napster, MySpace, and other mechanisms (like the now defunct Aimie Street) for musicians to share their work outside of the corporate controlled music/radio industry. The elite "gallery" structure, which positions itself as the arbiter of quality and value, has done nothing but make most individuals feel that art is beyond their reach both financially and intellectually.
According to Laura, the galleries have imposed a structure on the art world that artificially separates art from most individuals.
And Regina pointed to the influence of galleries as well:
I suspect that buzz and other social factors in the art world create a sort of resonance or "virtuous cycle" as somebody transitions between levels. For example, if gallery representation is the mark of a newly established no longer "emerging" artist, gallery exposure may quickly lead to critical attention and more gallery representation.
Beauty thus has an underbelly; and that underbelly apparently has an enabler: art galleries.
At some point I hope to pursue the issue of beauty's underbelly, since it presents so many fascinating questions. But for now, I am most concerned about a problem that it presents for my project.
If I am going to trade up to a Van Gogh, I am going to need to jump from one level of art to the next. But how can I do that, especially if artists and galleries are hyper sensitive to perceived status and won't trade between levels?
As Regina said:
There are a few established artists who will trade with emerging artists, but generally they want to select the work they'll receive...As you continue, purely tactical trading is likely to send you on an extremely tortuous route through each band, and I question whether pure tactics will bring you a net trade-up (case in point - BOO).
You need a strategy.
I think Regina is right: I need a strategy.
I don’t have one of those.
But I know whom to ask:
Universe:
I want a strategy that will allow me to move from one level of art to the next.
I want a strategy that will allow me to move from one level of art to the next.
I want a strategy that will allow me to move from one level of art to the next.
Beauty it would seem has an underbelly.
After my latest trade, I corresponded with two different artists who talked about the underbelly of the art world. Regina Valluzzi (whose art can be seen here: http://www.nerdlypainter.com/) is both a research scientist and an artist. She made the following comments.
One thing I have noticed is that artists will protest vehemently about being sorted into categories that seem to describe accomplishment level, for example "amateur" "student" "emerging" "established" "acclaimed". Nevertheless, they (we?) do self-sort into levels.
According to Regina, the art world consists in levels of increasing perceived value. At the top are the untouchables: Rembrandt, Picasso, Van Gogh, etc. At the bottom are beginning artists. And there are several levels between.
And who controls entry from one level into the next?
This is where beauty’s underbelly begins to pop out. One might think that the answer would (or should) be beauty: an artist goes from one level to the next when he or she paints increasingly beautiful paintings. But alas, it would appear that the control rests, at least in some important instances, with the galleries.
Laura Zurowski, who has a very cool website called ‘The Lovelorn Poets’ (http://www.lovelornpoets.com/), put the point to me this way:
The art world is ripe for a dismantling just as the music industry was shaken by the likes of Napster, MySpace, and other mechanisms (like the now defunct Aimie Street) for musicians to share their work outside of the corporate controlled music/radio industry. The elite "gallery" structure, which positions itself as the arbiter of quality and value, has done nothing but make most individuals feel that art is beyond their reach both financially and intellectually.
According to Laura, the galleries have imposed a structure on the art world that artificially separates art from most individuals.
And Regina pointed to the influence of galleries as well:
I suspect that buzz and other social factors in the art world create a sort of resonance or "virtuous cycle" as somebody transitions between levels. For example, if gallery representation is the mark of a newly established no longer "emerging" artist, gallery exposure may quickly lead to critical attention and more gallery representation.
Beauty thus has an underbelly; and that underbelly apparently has an enabler: art galleries.
At some point I hope to pursue the issue of beauty's underbelly, since it presents so many fascinating questions. But for now, I am most concerned about a problem that it presents for my project.
If I am going to trade up to a Van Gogh, I am going to need to jump from one level of art to the next. But how can I do that, especially if artists and galleries are hyper sensitive to perceived status and won't trade between levels?
As Regina said:
There are a few established artists who will trade with emerging artists, but generally they want to select the work they'll receive...As you continue, purely tactical trading is likely to send you on an extremely tortuous route through each band, and I question whether pure tactics will bring you a net trade-up (case in point - BOO).
You need a strategy.
I think Regina is right: I need a strategy.
I don’t have one of those.
But I know whom to ask:
Universe:
I want a strategy that will allow me to move from one level of art to the next.
I want a strategy that will allow me to move from one level of art to the next.
I want a strategy that will allow me to move from one level of art to the next.
Monday, February 21, 2011
Monika's Thesis
Everything is art.
That is what I am now calling Monika’s Thesis.
Just to make it official, here it is again.
Monika’s Thesis: Everything is art.
Monika Blichar asserted her thesis while we were talking on the phone about the recent trade we were about to make; and I’ve been intrigued by it ever since.
(Just as a quick aside, I’m not sure that I have publicly thanked either Monika or Gregory Dolnikowski for participating in my project. So thank you both. Meeting both of you, albeit over the phone, and trading paintings with you was really an incredible pleasure.)
Now, back to Monika’s Thesis. In some senses of the terms ‘everything’ and ‘art', I think that her thesis is probably false but in other senses probably true. I like claims like that. Indeed, there is something of an art to making them.
Here is a related thesis. I will call it The Ubiquity Thesis.
The Ubiquity Thesis: Beauty is everywhere.
Like Monika’s Thesis, I think that in some senses of the words ‘beauty’ and ‘everywhere’ The Ubiquity Thesis is probably false but in other senses probably true.
Just because I’m in a thesis-making mood, here is one more. I’ll call it The Money Thesis.
The Money Thesis: Economic value tends to track aesthetic value.
Something in me finds The Money Thesis distasteful if for no other reason that that it seems to conflict with both Monika’s Thesis and The Ubiquity Thesis, two theses that I like.
But then again something in me finds The Money Thesis comforting.
But is it true?
That’s always an interesting question to ask.
That’s what I want to find out.
That is what I am now calling Monika’s Thesis.
Just to make it official, here it is again.
Monika’s Thesis: Everything is art.
Monika Blichar asserted her thesis while we were talking on the phone about the recent trade we were about to make; and I’ve been intrigued by it ever since.
(Just as a quick aside, I’m not sure that I have publicly thanked either Monika or Gregory Dolnikowski for participating in my project. So thank you both. Meeting both of you, albeit over the phone, and trading paintings with you was really an incredible pleasure.)
Now, back to Monika’s Thesis. In some senses of the terms ‘everything’ and ‘art', I think that her thesis is probably false but in other senses probably true. I like claims like that. Indeed, there is something of an art to making them.
Here is a related thesis. I will call it The Ubiquity Thesis.
The Ubiquity Thesis: Beauty is everywhere.
Like Monika’s Thesis, I think that in some senses of the words ‘beauty’ and ‘everywhere’ The Ubiquity Thesis is probably false but in other senses probably true.
Just because I’m in a thesis-making mood, here is one more. I’ll call it The Money Thesis.
The Money Thesis: Economic value tends to track aesthetic value.
Something in me finds The Money Thesis distasteful if for no other reason that that it seems to conflict with both Monika’s Thesis and The Ubiquity Thesis, two theses that I like.
But then again something in me finds The Money Thesis comforting.
But is it true?
That’s always an interesting question to ask.
That’s what I want to find out.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Take Me Home, Toto!
Fuck yeah!
Look at that painting. It is my latest trade. I love it.
It is by Monika Blichar, who is an artist and entrepreneur in Vancouver Canada.
I have much to say about Monika and her painting, too much for one blog entry.
But here are some highlights:
The painting is part of a series called 'The Sweetheart Collection'.
In addition to painting, Monika is the founder and president of Mab Ventures, Inc. and the Make and Break Arts Foundation.
Here is a link to the foundation’s Facebook page:
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=116132355099793
Both the series and Monika’s entrepreneurial efforts were inspired in part by the advice of her aunt, who told Monika that life is short and precious – Monika’s aunt was sick with cancer at the time – and that Monika must pursue her dreams.
Monika did.
The painting is two feet by three feet.
The series draws inspiration from glam beauties like Marilyn Monroe, Sophia Loren, and Greta Garbo.
Monika’s art foundation has the following goals:
(a) to raise awareness of the arts in the community;
(b) to support artists and offer assistance for community projects;
(c) to offer community workshops, events, and opportunities for arts education and programming;
(d) to provide similar and related services as determined by the membership.
Monika also teaches French to young children.
Monika’s paintings sell for quite a bit of money.
Ok. Enough highlights for now. I will give more later.
But I must say before I end that I am quite pleased with the Universe. So pleased, in fact, that I considered for a moment addressing it in the second rather than the third person. I have decided, though, that it has yet to earn such an honor.
So until then, Universe:
I want someone to trade me my original Monika Blichar for a painting that is equally if not even more inspiring than her Take Me Home, Toto!
I want someone to trade me my original Monika Blichar for a painting that is equally if not even more inspiring than her Take Me Home, Toto!
I want someone to trade me my original Monika Blichar for a painting that is equally if not even more inspiring than her Take Me Home, Toto!
Look at that painting. It is my latest trade. I love it.
It is by Monika Blichar, who is an artist and entrepreneur in Vancouver Canada.
I have much to say about Monika and her painting, too much for one blog entry.
But here are some highlights:
The painting is part of a series called 'The Sweetheart Collection'.
In addition to painting, Monika is the founder and president of Mab Ventures, Inc. and the Make and Break Arts Foundation.
Here is a link to the foundation’s Facebook page:
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=116132355099793
Both the series and Monika’s entrepreneurial efforts were inspired in part by the advice of her aunt, who told Monika that life is short and precious – Monika’s aunt was sick with cancer at the time – and that Monika must pursue her dreams.
Monika did.
The painting is two feet by three feet.
The series draws inspiration from glam beauties like Marilyn Monroe, Sophia Loren, and Greta Garbo.
Monika’s art foundation has the following goals:
(a) to raise awareness of the arts in the community;
(b) to support artists and offer assistance for community projects;
(c) to offer community workshops, events, and opportunities for arts education and programming;
(d) to provide similar and related services as determined by the membership.
Monika also teaches French to young children.
Monika’s paintings sell for quite a bit of money.
Ok. Enough highlights for now. I will give more later.
But I must say before I end that I am quite pleased with the Universe. So pleased, in fact, that I considered for a moment addressing it in the second rather than the third person. I have decided, though, that it has yet to earn such an honor.
So until then, Universe:
I want someone to trade me my original Monika Blichar for a painting that is equally if not even more inspiring than her Take Me Home, Toto!
I want someone to trade me my original Monika Blichar for a painting that is equally if not even more inspiring than her Take Me Home, Toto!
I want someone to trade me my original Monika Blichar for a painting that is equally if not even more inspiring than her Take Me Home, Toto!
Monday, January 31, 2011
Sarah's Thesis Revisited Again
It is in the mail - my newest trade. It took a while for it all to happen. But according to UPS I should be getting the painting on Friday. Yay!
I must admit that I'm incredibly excited. But I must also admit that I have a residual feeling of consternation. I had hoped that by trying to trade up to a Van Gogh I would gain some insight into the nature of aesthetic value; but I can’t say that I have.
In my last post, I discussed Platonism, which is the view that certain properties, e.g. order, symmetry, unity and diversity, are objective features that works of art can instantiate to greater or lesser degrees; and paintings are the more beautiful the more perfectly they instantiate them.
In contrast to Platonism is the Humean view (named after David Hume, an 18th century Scottish philosopher) according to which beauty is subjective, or to use an oft-quoted maxim, in the eye of the beholder. According to the Humean view, if enough people end up really liking some work of art, it ends up getting a reputation for being beautiful (or at least important.) And if a work of art is deemed important throughout the ages, it becomes a classic.
Although something about the Humean view rubs me the wrong way, it does seem to explain how one could call both Michelangelo’s David and Andy Warhol’s Tomato Soup Cans important works of art. They seem to have very little in common other than the fact that lots of people like both.
In addition to making sense of the wide variety of so-called ‘beautiful art’, the Humean view would also make Sarah’s Thesis potentially true. If the Humean view is correct, then Dominic’s Face With a Line Through It could be getting more beautiful as this project goes on for no other reason than that more people are looking at it and thinking to themselves: I like Dominic’s drawing.
There is on final view worth discussing, namely the Kantian view (named after Immanuel Kant, an 18th century German philosopher.)
But I am feeling too excited right now to write much more. I just can't wait for my new painting. As I said already: Yay!
So I will end by making a very simple request of the universe:
I want my newest painting to arrive sooner rather than later.
I want my newest painting to arrive sooner rather than later.
I want my newest painting to arrive sooner rather than later.
I must admit that I'm incredibly excited. But I must also admit that I have a residual feeling of consternation. I had hoped that by trying to trade up to a Van Gogh I would gain some insight into the nature of aesthetic value; but I can’t say that I have.
In my last post, I discussed Platonism, which is the view that certain properties, e.g. order, symmetry, unity and diversity, are objective features that works of art can instantiate to greater or lesser degrees; and paintings are the more beautiful the more perfectly they instantiate them.
In contrast to Platonism is the Humean view (named after David Hume, an 18th century Scottish philosopher) according to which beauty is subjective, or to use an oft-quoted maxim, in the eye of the beholder. According to the Humean view, if enough people end up really liking some work of art, it ends up getting a reputation for being beautiful (or at least important.) And if a work of art is deemed important throughout the ages, it becomes a classic.
Although something about the Humean view rubs me the wrong way, it does seem to explain how one could call both Michelangelo’s David and Andy Warhol’s Tomato Soup Cans important works of art. They seem to have very little in common other than the fact that lots of people like both.
In addition to making sense of the wide variety of so-called ‘beautiful art’, the Humean view would also make Sarah’s Thesis potentially true. If the Humean view is correct, then Dominic’s Face With a Line Through It could be getting more beautiful as this project goes on for no other reason than that more people are looking at it and thinking to themselves: I like Dominic’s drawing.
There is on final view worth discussing, namely the Kantian view (named after Immanuel Kant, an 18th century German philosopher.)
But I am feeling too excited right now to write much more. I just can't wait for my new painting. As I said already: Yay!
So I will end by making a very simple request of the universe:
I want my newest painting to arrive sooner rather than later.
I want my newest painting to arrive sooner rather than later.
I want my newest painting to arrive sooner rather than later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
