Arrived in San Diego extraordinarily late, due to weather issues at Philadelpia. On the flights here I read Thomas Cahill's most excellent book How The Irish Saved Civilization.

I'm heading to California tomorrow... will post from the Left Coast as I am bringing the faithful laptop.

No excuse for this.

The Post's chief art critic, Blake Gopnik delivers his veredict on the DC pandas public art projects as "art."

Regardless of whatever opinion one may have about this project (which by the way nearly every American city now has a version (New York has apples, Los Angeles has angels, Norfolk has mermaids, Baltimore has fish - or it is crabs?) being "art" (in the hi-fallutin' sense of the word - after all I thought that these days everything is art) -- but after all these years I am still amazed by how true the trite saying "art is in the eyes of the beholder" truly is.

Of interest to me, Blake makes the statement:

"The finished sculptures are coloring-book art, too, only blown up in 3-D.

It would take a really skilled contemporary artist to turn a coloring book into something worth an art lover's time. There probably aren't more than a half-dozen artists in this city who could do it. But even those six don't seem to have made it onto the project's 150 artist list. On the long roster of panda decorators, there wasn't anyone whom the city's art aficionados would be likely to count as a top local talent."

This is interesting food for thought.

It's a message to the 150 people on the list: not only does the Chief Art Critic of the Washington Post think your are not a top local talent, but neither do "the city's art aficionados," by his account.

Ouch!

Blake also writes: "There were barely a handful of artists whose names I even recognized at all from any of my visits to studios or galleries or art schools in the region."

I certainly consider myself an "art aficionado," but I have neither been asked nor have I seen the list until now. And after having gone through it, I agree with Blake, as I do not recognize most names, although I did find a few artists that I did recognize, plus a DC gallery owner, plus a well-known national muralist, plus someone with the unfortunate same name as a world famous model (I bet she gets great tables at restaurants).

There were also a large number of schools participating in teams, which I think is a positive effect of this project, and pushes it more toward the "public art" effort that Gopnik objects to.

On the positive side, some his words are good news, because until that statement I was not aware that Mr. Gopnik regularly visited studios or galleries, or art schools around here on a regular basis. I stand corrected and I applaud Gopnik for doing that.

This eloquent man also writes: "For a city its size, it [Washington, DC] also has a surprisingly large and vibrant community of contemporary artists, dealers, collectors and curators who keep things humming on the local scene, and have been steadily pushing its standards up."

It would also be good if he'd help with getting that "large and vibrant community" not be such a surprise by starting to write also about "local" artists and "local" galleries more often so that we'd all realize that he's "in tune" with our "local" art scene.

The proof is in the pudding, I mean writing.

Joanna Shaw-Eagle, the Washington Times Chief Art Critic has a great review of the Sandra Ramos gallery debut show currently on exhibition in Georgetown.

Blake Gopnik is not going to like this:

Carol Strickland, writing in the Christian Science Monitor makes the case that "painting is back."

"In the past two decades, cutting-edge galleries and museums have focused on everything but painting. The halls were chockablock with installations, photo-based work, conceptual art, new media, and digital and video art.

But a fundamental shift has taken place. For a survey exhibition of contemporary work at the Brooklyn Museum of Art, Charlotta Kotik and her co-curator looked at thousands of works by emerging artists...

"The taste of the art world is changing," Ms. Kotik says. "Suddenly painting is allowed to exist again."

Read the whole article here, then print it and mail it to every museum curator, museum director and art critic that you know.

The rest of us already knew that no matter what gets written, and no matter what gets exhibited in museums, what truly makes an impact here in the trenches is and has been, and will continue to be painting.

(Thanks to ArtsJournal for the lead.)

Thanks to ArtsJournal for this:

A new for-profit company has formed in New York that will create a first-of-its-kind pension fund for artists. The fund, called the Artist Pension Trust, is designed to offer some retirement security for up-and-coming visual artists who are now in their 20s and 30s.

Instead of contributing money to the fund, the selected artists will contribute their own artwork to a trust. The artwork will be held for a number of years, then sold, with the proceeds going into the trust, from which artists will then draw their pensions.

But at issue is how does one guess who (in the 20s) will be a sellable artist in their 60s. Nonetheless, it is a novel and interesting idea.

There will be regional trusts in New York and Los Angeles. Each trust will have 250 artists. The artists will be chosen by a "prominent" group of artists, art professors and gallery owners in each region. Eventually, this outfit plans to have trusts in London, Berlin, Tokyo, Shanghai or Beijing, and possibly Miami.

Read the whole story here.

It may be fun to come up with a list of, say 25 DC area artists in their 20s and 30s, that we'd nominate for this Artist Pension Trust.... that is, if our area is considered for a trust fund.