Spray Painting

Depending on many variables (most of which I think have to deal with culture, upbringing, formation, sense of inferiority, elitist aspirations, and hidden wanna-be issues), often artsy people stand on definite sides when it comes to what the art world describes as "low brow art" and "high art."

In the various earlier discussions here on what makes good art, a lot of theory and art history has been discussed and written about.

I'm of the opinion that the only proven and tested art critic of what makes good art is time.

And often what was once considered low brow art, or art that wasn't good enough, stands the test of time just as well (or even better) than what the contemporary critics or artsy folks of the time would have selected.

History is full of such examples: Ukiyo-e in Japan, Salon des Refusés in France, most 19th century steelpoints, Frida Kahlo in Mexico, Norman Rockwell in the US, most photography until Steiglitz dragged it into art galleries, Florida's Highway Men, and on and on.

But now, even though anything and everything is art, there's still a world of low brow art that makes most members of the artworld scene roll their eyes. We all do it.


On the other hand, some low brow art has managed to make the jump to the high art side.

Like John Currin. Or Lisa Yuskavage and many others.

And that's OK - everything is art.

Perhaps one of the most refreshing developments of the last few years has been the recognition of the artists sometimes described as "street artists." Many, like Banksy, and in the DC region artists like Kelly Towles and Mark Jenkins, have made the jump and show equally at ease in galleries. In Jenkins' case, he has become a worldwide fixture and now creates his street tape sculptures all over the planet.

Another form of street art, which is new to me, are "spray paint artists."

A few weeks ago I was wandering around South Street in Philly, when I came across a group of people, including a cop, avidly observing a young man create artwork while kneeling down on the sidewalk at the entrance to the South Street Pedestrian Bridge. In front of him were displayed 20 or 30 pieces of art on cardstock... about 30 x 20 inches each.

He worked with amazing speed, to the tune of a very hip beat that played on the boom box next to him. His paper was taped to a spinning table, and he sprayed, dabbed, removed and spun to the beat of the music. We all watched hypnotized as image after image appeared.

It took him about 90 seconds to create a painting from scratch. "I may not be the best," he told me when I started talking to him during a break and while I was buying one of his pieces, "but I am the fastest spray painter around."

The subject imagery is of no consequence. It seemed to focus on otherwordly landscapes, Star-Trekkie vistas, or surrealist dreams. Mine was a mixture of some sort of a Anakin Skywalker viewpoint married to a glowing penis.

But the imagery is the least of the concerns here. What hypnotized and mesmerized the crowd was the performance of this young artist, arms flying, spray cans tumbling, music playing and the "ooohs" and "ahhhs" of the crowd as he created work after work every 90 seconds.

See for yourself in the below video (filmed in Mobile, Alabama earlier this year):

His name is Joshua Moonshine, and the streets of US cities are his galleries.

Wanna go to a Tyson's Corner, Virginia opening today?

Details here.

Bailey on What Makes Good Art?

One can always count on the Reverend to add some spice to any argument. Herewith Bailey's opinion on What Makes Good Art?

I really have to agree with Kevin Mitchell’s comments regarding art critics and their biased definitions of "great art."

A self-proclaimed art critic attempting to spin a definition of "great art" strikes me as being remarkably similar to a self-proclaimed Supreme Court Justice cop pulling a citizen over and attempting to define that citizen's Miranda Rights. This is the point I was attempting to make with this post.

Just as a rogue cop thinks he has the right to render on-site Supreme Court rulings defining the limitations of a citizen's Miranda Rights, so too do art critics think they have the right to spin a biased definition of great art. What's long been amusing to me is that art critics inevitably invoke the name of Clement Greenberg to "prove" their one-sided definitions by pulling something out of context that Greenberg once said and either agreeing or disagreeing it.

If a citizen were to question a cop about that cop's definition of the citizen's Miranda Rights, that cop (and they're trained to do this) will inevitably invoke the latest Supreme Court decision that affects the definition of Miranda Rights to either "prove" or "disprove" his definition.

The issue is one of authority, who has it, how did they get it and what are they doing with it.

One can only imagine the violent confrontation that would occur if a private citizen attempted to pull over a cop for speeding, ask for that cop's driver's license, read that cop his Miranda Rights before attempting to question that cop, and then arresting that cop when that cop attempts to resist.

That's exactly what I am encouraging artists to do to with respect to art critics who want to define the phrase "great art."

Of course, to be open and honest about my own bias with respect to the debate between Jeffry Cudlin and Mark Cameron Boyd, I have to confess that I'm sympathetic to the arguments of Mark. Not because I think Jeffry is a bad art critic, but because Mark's opinions are not published in a weekly newspaper that features art criticism. A newspaper that publishes art criticism is somewhat like the Supreme Court publishing its decisions. I question every word of every published Supreme Court decision.

The more the Supreme Court attempts to “define” our Miranda Rights, the more the more those rights evaporate. The more an art critic attempts to “define” great art, the more great art becomes an illusion.

The Right Reverend James W. Bailey

Congratulations!

To Gean Moreno, who creates multi-textural, suspended images, and who is the 2007 winner of the $15,000 Cintas Foundation Emilio Sanchez Award in Visual Arts for artists of Cuban lineage residing outside of Cuba.

Artist Looking for Cigarrettes

DC area artist Jackie Hoysted has recently started a new blog to document her visual arts project "The Psychology of Smoking & Quitting."

Jackie writes: "I have smoked cigarettes for over 20 years and am a cigarette and nicotine addict. On July 9th I quit smoking for what I hope is the last time and plan to document the process, my feelings, etc., through posts to the blog and the creation of related art work over the course of thirteen months. Two paintings that I created for this project, using cigarette butts and ash entitled Destruction I and II can be seen as DCAC Wall Mountables Exhibition until Sept. 6th.

I am also asking other smokers to participate in the project by asking them to send me their Last Cigarette so that I can include it in my artwork.

The blog is jackiehoysted.com/ashestoashes/.

DC area Studio Space Available

Studio 4903, a working artist space focusing on contemporary art jewelry, has space available for an artist, graphic designer, or other creative type. Each person has a space, but there are no walls dividing the room. The 1500 sq ft. studio is open, filled with light, hardwood floors, and 7 windows. Rent is $420 and includes all utilities, insurance, alarm, trash, wireless internet, and 24-hour access. We are located at 4903 Wisconsin Ave., 2nd floor, between Tenley and Friendship Hts. metros.

The Studio hosts regular arts-related events to create community and gain exposure. A good candidate would be serious about his art, want to grow and expand her business, and be eager to participate in events (past ones have been: live music, poetry reading, artist slide show & lecture, dance party, art shows and sales).

If interested, please contact Gayle at gaylefriedman@aol.com.

Mitchell on What Makes Good Art?

Reader Kevin Mitchell opines on the question and debate of "What Makes Good Art?"

We're all going to be a little wrong and a little right on our definitions of art especially since we're trying to arrive at a singular definition that art should be held accountable to.

Just when I had fashioned what I regarded as a prized response to art nitwitism a newsflash saved me some time. I could literally sit here forever refuting the changing idea of art but I'd be fighting with words a visual argument. The true testament to a work's greatness is that no amount of words can assail it... unless its premise is vocabulary, such as modern art.

Both Cudlin and Boyd could be refuted in instances but in the end as this thing of exploring new frontiers goes, why? As an artist, I didn't grow up interested in Greenberg or his principles and upon being force fed them and regurgitated in every other academic argument because justification has to refute, I still don't care.

Rosenberg, I don't care and if to understand a lot of the work of this genre, I have to read Rosenberg then it seems like he was part ring master and was able to create his own niche.

Which is why I agree with Boyd's last paragraph that art criticism currently isn't doing its job, even at a personal look at me level. If everyone is and can be an artist or it's learned or a matter of ideas, how come critics aren't artists?

Greenberg couldn't paint flatness? How come he couldn't be or convey his own ideas? It's worthless this definition thing.

I understand the purist way of thinking about materials and usage but in the words of a past teacher, stop headf'ing your canvas.

I think it's such a small market here that every word and every paragraph count in each write up whereas when I'm in Chelsea, I'm confronted with everything in its hordes and it's all accounted for.

If I had to fashion an argument it would be against styles. The progressive form of art is ended as soon as a style or label is applied, thus tying it to the past, regardless as to its completion or prospects. Rothko's are Rothko's and demonstrate Rothko qualities so they are no longer exploring or pushing. Art is the unknowing.

Having said this, I want nothing to do with this definition. Nobody can afford to sit in their studio not knowing what they're doing and effectively afford their studio. Art ended and renewed with the acceptance of the urinal.

See what you’re getting into... before you go there.

- Kevin Mitchell