I've received nearly 200 emails in the last two days or so dealing with Artomatic; either dealing with the Gopnik root canal of the show or with the diversification of "lists."

Loads of interesting postings will be coming in the next few days (time permitting)... keep checking, and please go visit Artomatic: the show.

Last night I made my third visit, and spent about five hours re-visiting the show together with Prof. Chawky Frenn from George Mason University. I managed to find quite a few artists that I had missed during my first three visits, although I still haven't found Colin Winterbottom!

By the way, those people who have emailed me bitching about Gopnik's review of Artomatic - please remember that it is his right as a critic to express his opinion, and as much as I disagree with it, I will defend his right to express it.

If you disagree with Blake, respect his right to write his opinion, and then send a letter to his boss to express yours!

Letters should be sent to:

Arts Editor
Style Section
The Washington Post
1150 15th St. NW
Washington, D.C. 20071

Emails should be sent to Arts@washpost.com.

In your letter or email you need to include a daytime and nighttime phone number and an address, and the letters may be edited for length and clarity.

Area artist Jamie Wimberly steps into the Art-O-Matic debate ring with the below note:

"Well, Sacha and Blake really stepped into it . And now I go into the void. With reluctance, I may add since I will probably get blasted for it. But I have to agree with the general criticism made by Blake. Not necessarily about the Art-O-Matic show or the pieces in it, because I actually think the Jeff Koons and Damien Hirsts' of the world are much worse, but the need for standards in art.

There is a general perception that everything is art and everybody is an artist. This thinking came out of intellectual arguments on the most central question in art - what is art? - dating from Duchamp (R. Mutt toilet) and Warhol (15 minutes of celebrity, commercial images as art given a certain context), and really before them. But the thought process has been lost and now we simply have the rotten fruit. That there is no "bad" art and every hobbyist deserves to have their work up in public. Turned on its head, logically speaking, that is the same as saying: Nothing is art and nobody is an artist. After spending oodles of money and time in art school, in the studio, hitting the streets, etc., I, as an artist, absolutely reject that notion.

Given that there does not seem to be any definition to art, a vacuum has been created. And as everyone knows, nature abhors vacuums. So, I would argue non-art values have been filling that void - celebrity, propaganda, political correctness, marketing, corporate affiliations, art as commodity, shock/ outrageousness/ spectacle, or in the case of many of the respondents so far, a chance to party, to name a few. There are very real consequences to this state of affairs, including but not limited to:

1) Art - all contemporary art at least - gets somewhat devalued. And it is very hard - almost impossible - to make a living as an artist. Contrary to the depiction of galleries as ogres with their 30 to 50 percent commission structures, I would add that most galleries as well are struggling mightily. I would not want to be in that business.

2) Art schools have virtually stopped teaching art.

3) True patrons are an increasing rare breed. There are simply buyers of art.

4) Public support for spending on art is scarce due to public boredom/ disgust what is being purveyed as art, so companies are increasingly relied on for funding/ buying art with their own agendas.

5) Criticism - especially strong criticism - does not occur. And when it does, as with the case of Blake's piece, it is declared "elitist" and less likely to be repeated.

6) Superstar artists have become producers and do not actually touch the work themselves. They direct or design.

7) Art has become an excuse and platform - as therapy, to get laid, to party, to become a celebrity, etc.

8) Art has become a marketing exercise with as a commodity to market around.

I could go on. But I wonder what kind of legacy we are leaving in regard to art of this generation. What can be considered "important" art - which, to me, means what will influence future generations? Not much, I am afraid.

I would argue that there is a clear need for standards in art - not in regards to medium (with the conceit that "painting is dead"), or style, or substance/ content. But there needs to be a new/ old way of evaluating art. I offer four suggested standards:

1) Craftsmanship - How well is the piece made? Is it archival? Does the artist show mastery of their chosen medium? Most art today is sloppy and falling apart.

2) Aesthetics/ Beauty - Does this artist deal with the question of beauty in the work - even if the piece is intended to be off-center or even ugly? This is particularly important in regard to painting. Art today is oftentimes willfully ignorant of aesthetics.

3) Spirituality - What I mean here is what Kandinsky referred to as spirituality in art. Does the artist put something of themselves in the work? Does the work have essence? Art today can be awfully sterile.

4) Influences/ History - It is important to know what preceded you. What/ who influenced the work? What is the work trying to contribute? Traditionally, with guilds, a long apprenticeship was required before an individual artist would even be allowed to put that one touch or flourish that was their signature mark. Today's art seems to be very post modern in orientation - trashing history to always be creating the "new new". This is a race to the bottom.

Finally, I would add the all important ingredients of artistic success: hard work, discipline, talent, striving for excellence and luck.

Not everyone is an artist, and not everything is art.

Jamie Wimberly

You can email me responses to Jamie's points if anyone so desires.

Art-O-Matic Top Ten Lists

As you know, I spent seven hours walking Artomatic's halls, passageways and rooms in order to select my top 10 artists from that show. That list is here. I have begun to receive other people's top ten lists and will post them here soon.

I am also working on the following "other" lists:

(a) Copyright Infringement List
(b) Porn List
(c) Hannibal Lechter Art List
(d) Funniest Art List
(f) Top Ten Artists I Had Never Heard Of List

Some advance notice on those lists:

(a) has been won in a close race by Robert Steel. I applaud his courage to take on THE Mouse.

(b) has been won by Iver Olson's photos of lesbian fisting.

(c) has been won by Ira Tattelman's really disturbing installation. Someone best put an ankle tracker on Ira ahead of time.

(d) is still up for grabs... more visits needed.

(f) is still a work in progress... more visits needed.

Sorry folks, there won't be a "Best Dicks in the Show" list, although there are plenty of entries in that stiff category as well. If anyone wants to email me such such a list, I will gladly post it here.

Fun with Lenny and art...

If you haven't visited Art-O-Matic yet, then please do so over the next few days. The show runs until December 5, 2004.

Meanwhile, you can view a lot of the artwork online here. In that online library of artwork, artist Dana Ellyn Kaufman sends this response to Gopnik's review with the painting to the right.

ArtDC and Thinking About Art have both joined the storm caused by Gopnik's rootcanalization of Art-O-Matic. I still think that Gopnik's review will be better for Art-O-Matic in the long run and also reveals his disdain for nearly all things that involve Washington area artists and galleries.

Over at Jesse Cohen's ArtDC, Thomas Edwards (who has one of the most creative pieces at the Artomatic wonderland) writes:

"I'm sorry - I simply don't believe in the hierarchical theories of art criticism. Like a lot of the social sciences, it is mainly BS. Good art speaks for itself, and I believe art critics should talk more about artwork and less about their BS theories and trying to predict what art historians will theorize about in 50 years."

One of ArtDC's commenters writes: "Oh well, I guess the clown couldn't pass up the opportunity to insult 700 people at once, instead of the one or two he usually gets to criticize."

That is funny!

The Washington Blade reviews Art-O-Matic and offers a slightly different viewpoint and in the process re-affirms the true power of this event: the tremendous artistic energy that it generates.

Alexandra Silverthorne and Scott Lassman both note at Thinking About Art that:

In view of Blake Gopnik's overarching dental school analogy, I thought this quote from the Washington Blade article was pretty humorous:

"This is the first major exhibition for gay painter Fortunato “Forty” Dela Cruz, who is finishing his art degree part time at University of Maryland, University College, while working full-time as a dental lab technician."

Maybe Blake was on to something . . ."

Nice catch Scott...

"My sources in the Post tell me..." (does that sound pretentious or what?)

Anyway... the Blake Gopnik root canal of Art-O-Matic is getting so much heat and complaints at the Post, that the world's second most influential newspaper has opened a forum for people to discuss Art-O-Matic, Blake and associated angsts.

Visit the forum and express your opinion.

And let us not forget, that as much as we may disagree with Gopnik's carpet bombing of this most democratic of art shows, it is his right as an art critic to express his opinion.

And let's not forget that if given the choice between no review at all, or a murderous review such as this one, it is manna from heaven to have such a biased, short-sighted, blindfolded review as Gopnik's was.

Why? Because dental surge of anti-provincial negativity will help to drive people by the hordes to Art-O-Matic.

All of the Art-O-Matic artists should send Gopnik thank you notes!

Art-O-Matic Top Ten List

This was not easy to do: 600 plus artists in a maze of rooms and corridors involving over seven hours of walking during the last two nights. Later I will post the top ten lists of several other gallerists, dealers, curators and artists. Email me your top ten list and I will also post it here. They are listed in alphabetical order:

Joseph Barbaccia
Margaret Dowell
Matt Dunn
M. Rion Hoffman
Michal Hunter
Michael Janis
Mark Jenkins
Syl Mathis
Allison B. Miner
Tim Tate

Of the ten artists listed above, I was familiar with the work of all but M. Rion Hoffman, Syl Mathis and Mark Jenkins. We, of course, represent the work of Tim Tate.

Note that four of the artists on this list do not have a web presence (at least that I can find). I find this astounding in this day and age.

Even after all the hours spent so far at Art-O-Matic, I am pretty sure that I've probably missed quite a few artists, as sometimes the building can get quite disorienting.

I am also preparing the following lists:

(a) Copyright Infringement List
(b) Porn List
(c) Hannibal Lechter Art List
(d) Funniest Art List
(f) Top Ten Artists I Had Never Heard Of List

And, no... I've decided not to publish my "Somebody Please Burn This" list. Sorry...