The Final Artomatic Top 10 Artists of 2009

Happy 4th of July! I've been working on this list forever, and superbusy on other stuff (more on those news later); but here it is!

With around 1,000 artists at AOM, it is pretty difficult, if not truly impossible to pick a list of the top 10 artists there and immediately piss off 990.

To make things easier for me, this year I decided to limit my own personal recommendations to artists whose work I am/was not overly familiar with or whose work I had not see before; so no Tim T., no Laurel L., no Kelly T., no Michael J., etc. in this list.

Canpello's top 10 AOM artists are listed in alphabetical order.

Sarah Blood - Space 513 0n the 5th floor. This British artist has some of the most memorable work in AOM this year. Her work is elegant and sophisticated, and easily amongst the best 3D work in the show, but she is in an universe by herself when it comes to the marriage of neon to glass and sculpture.

When one views her work, the viewer is left amazed not only by the technical skill and dexterous facility with which she handles the medium, but also how she makes an inherent gaudy and repetitive component (such as neon is) seem fresh and cool each time. Hers is the best neon work that I have ever seen.

David D'Orio. His work is at space 909 on the 9th floor. Add him to the list of amazing glass artists who are reinventing the genre one piece at a time. The latest from his "Feeder" project (detail to left) stands out in the 2009 Artomatic already showcasing the work of some very good glass artists from the area and Great Britain.

It is no secret that the Greater DC area has become one of the great fine art glass magnets in the world, and in this abundant sea of glass talent, D'Orio's glasswork stands out in a singularly unique way.

This is no small accomplishment when one also looks at the breath taking work of the British glass artists participating in this year's AOM as well as the many Washington Glass School artists and students in the show. Glass was possibly the strongest category in this year's AOM and D'Orio's work still managed to stand out.

James Halloran - Space 809 on the 8th floor. I know that I am a sucker for technical skill in any genre, but technical skill alone does not a good artist make.

Halloran's paintings appear very simple in composition and color schemes at first view, but once you study them they rank amongst the best paintings at AOM that I have seen in years and showcase what a very good painter can do with a very restricted palette of colors. This is another artist whose work would sell well at art fairs.

Rania Hassan - Space 903 on the 9th floor. I think that I know by now... and so I think that what Rania Hassan is doing in her ongoing marriage of knitting and painting is unique, maybe in the world. It sounds a little odd in words, so you need to see it to see what I mean.

It is not only clever, but also visually intriguing and breaks a very difficult three dimensionality aspect that many "painters" try to broach.

Jeannette L. Herrera - Space 210 on the 2nd floor. This blue face killer is all over the map with her artwork, and yet she covers that map very well. She makes and sells everything: T-shirts, buttons, stickers, skateboards, shoes, custom made frames, etc.

She is a GerhardtRichterian artist in the sense that her artwork is about what interests and makes her tick, not what the critics dictate. I love the energy and drive and zeal behind her work; it's like an artistic hurricane in violent motion at all times.

I know a lot of accomplished artists, now in the October of their careers (the best time for hurricanes) who wish they could find a way to rediscover 10% of the energy and intelligence that Herrera drives through your brain with paint-stained nails in each of her paintings.

Deb Jansen. Space 804 on the 8th floor. Seldom does a great artistic shout like Jansen's "Catharsis & Karma: An Open Thank You Letter to a Homewrecker" installation says it all for one artist, and as Jansen is a young artist, we have many years ahead to watch where she goes from here.

Having said that, her brilliant dedication and "this-is-not-a-revenge" discussion of the world's most expensive blow job as Jansen thanks the "other" woman who freed her from an allegedly abusive and destructive marriage was without a doubt, at least the multiple times that I visited AOM, the hit of the show, and it earns Jansen a top 10 ranking. I'll say it again: this alone is worth a visit to AOM.

Susan La Mont. Space 203 on the second floor. I know that I have mentioned this artist's work before, but AOM gave me the first opportunity to examine a lot of her work all in one place.

And while Dr. La Mont still has a lot of painting and examinations and thinking and work to create and do ahead of her, this Pratt Institute graduate's artwork shows the sophistication, elegance and artistic merit and weight that causes it to stand apart in the immense AOM world of painters.

Jessica Van Brakle. Space 916 on the 9th floor. When I was first exploring the 9th floor I almost missed Jessica's work.

Lucky for her, I was attracted by the work of Jenny Walton, and once that caught my eye, it was natural for me to be magnetized also by her neighbor's work. Vna Brakle's work is refreshing and very strong for such a young painter. If my fellow art dealers were to ask me about who to pick today and take to an art fair tomorrow and sell a lot of work, I would immediately send them to this new painter.

Megan Van Wagoner is a prime example of what happens when you pass judgement on an entire show without taking the proper time to examine the show.

I've never seen her work before, and the first time that I walked by her booth I almost missed it, as my eyes and brain were beginning to hit overload. But it did catch my eye and on the second visit, following my notes I went straight to her space on space 811 on the 8th floor. Let me say it succinctly: this will be the artist whose work stood out as the most technically brilliant in AOM and whose presentation was the most professional.

It is ready for prime time and I bet that she goes places fast. I can dream of a show of her work next to Joshua Levine out in the Left Coast.

Sean Welker. 712 on the 7th floor. This is an artist turning technology around on the viewer. When I first saw Sean Welker's drawings, I thought that they were prints. When I returned and talked a little to Sean, I discovered that they were each an individual drawing expressing Welker's interest in sugar skulls, matryoshka dolls, maneki neko figures and other odd elements.

Push the medium of drawing to a level where the artist says to the reproduction genre: I can do each one by hand. It is a novel twist on taking the short cut to everything. This artist will make DC look good all over the nation in the near future. Check out his sugar skulls here.

Tomorrow is the last day to see Artomatic; if you haven't been, and call yourself a member of the Greater DC area arts community, this is your last change to get there or have your membership in the community revoked.

You get a second chance of sorts in a gallery setting as my former gallery, Bethesda's Fraser Gallery continues a tradition started many Artomatics ago with Ms. Fraser's selection of her "Best of Artomatic 2009" with work by AOM artists Jennifer Bishop, Deb Jansen, Edward Johnston, Christine Keers, Andrew Livingstone, Brain Lusher, Joanne Mitchell, Molly Sheldon, Frank Turner and Andrew Zimmermann. An opening reception will be held in conjunction with the "Bethesda Art Walk" on Friday, July 10 from 6PM - 9PM.

I'm heading out West tomorrow... more from the California desert later, including my choice as the best artist in Artomatic for 2009.

Happy 4th of July! America rocks!

Jansen on the Torpedo Factory

I asked for input on the issue facing the Torpedo Factory and so far have received loads of comments and several key inputs from both artists and critics.

Torpedo Factory artist Deb Jansen (whose Artomatic installation was the hit of the recent AOM) responds with a very in depth opinion and commentary and a specific response to my Star Trek suggestion:

One of the first things implemented by the new TFAA board in June was to open the doors. The front doors are automatic sliders, so the board arranged to have the side entrance and the back doors open to the public during business hours.

Counts showed that leaving the doors open increased foot traffic into the building by 20%.

Several visitors who made it up to my studio on a back hallway on the 3rd floor were grateful the doors were open and said it made them feel welcome. One was a homicide detective from the Bronx. He started the conversation by saying that as a detective he had learned that people don’t go through closed doors unless they are sure what is on the other side.

Our signage is old and faded. Things aren’t clearly marked. Visitor’s Guide in hand, even he wouldn’t have come in if the doors hadn’t been open.

That one simple change was really working.

That did not stop a couple of building artists from complaining about “wasting our air conditioning and raising our energy costs and in turn our rent.” I personally watched one long-term lease-holding artist go back and close them more than once.

Someone in the building complained to the City. The City then sent someone over to review the matter and told us we COULD NOT leave the doors open. We increased traffic like the City had wanted and they were the ones who ordered the doors shut.

The TFAA board has asked the City for parameters, so that when the weather is reasonable we can leave the doors open but have gotten no response. The board has offered other suggestions to work around the City’s concerns but has so far heard nothing back. The doors aren’t open not for lack of trying. We know most businesses along King St. already do this to draw customers. We know the shuttle boat waiting area, under the Chart House Restaurant, funded by the City blasts air conditioning while leaving the doors open so that people will be drawn in.

The TFAA board has offered to paint the back doors and make them more inviting but the City who owns the building said that was their responsibility. They would look into it. The board has checked back with the City on any progress. Still no response on that.

Two exciting projects that were designed, approved and funded by the City have been dropped by the them with no explanation. The first, to replace the back doors all together with something more inviting and visitor/traffic friendly. The second, a complete redesign of our back entry area with new lighting, flooring, display and educational information. Why were they dropped after they were funded we haven’t been told. The TFAA board has since taken a grassroots approach, come up with a plan and painted it with the help of artists.

Even with the doors to our studios open, I am well aware of the force field you spoke of. Some visitors will stop and literally lean through the doorway but won’t come in unless I invite them.

I kind of thought that if they had made it to the 3rd floor they would have figured out that the doors are open for a reason. I have gotten more traffic in my studio since starting to bring my dog to work. I work in fiber and find that people who might not understand or be familiar with fiber work, at least cross the threshold to greet the dog. More common mediums like painting or photography might not have that problem. Once they come in I can turn them into fiber art lovers. The dog is just the loss leader, of sorts. Hey, if it works, my dog is up to the challenge of unstoppable belly rubs to help me bring visitors through my door.

As for bringing edgier art into the factory, I’m as guilty of that as anyone here.

My installation for Artomatic that got so much press is a departure from the work I show here. I wanted to do it at Artomatic because I thought I could be more creative there. I felt that if produced the piece the way I wanted to, it would never be seen inside these walls.

Now, to my total amazement, there is even talk started by one of the oldest members, of bringing it here and displaying it in one of the public areas. I never thought I would see the day where Catharsis & Karma would be in the halls at the Factory. I have lost track of the people who have come in to my studio here specifically to see more of the same and are disappointed I haven’t taken such a risk in my other work. That is all going to change.

Most of us in the Factory ARE striving for change. Most of us. We want to be the best art center possible for 2009 and are well aware that we can’t rest on 35 year old laurels.

Unfortunately we also have some people here who don’t welcome or want to recognize the impending and necessary changes, some who might want to hide in their studios and ignore the situation because they think the City would never kick us out, or people who, I think would rather the current board fail than the building as a whole succeed. It isn't split along age lines as you might think with the younger members wanting change and the older members resistant. Some of the most active and vocal for change have been here the longest. Our troubles come as much from within as from outside forces.

You have already posted statistics supplied by Margaret Huddy of the Factory. It shows the continuous turnover we actually have and the enormous number of artists who have juried in. Even with that it is hard to get new, up and coming artists to either jury or once they get in, to stay because a studio doesn’t guarantee you make a living and most people I know need to make a living. There are rules about how many hours you have to be here and what you can and cannot do. A lot of those rules are from the City. Not everyone can work within those guidelines. If you can, it is a wonderful place to be. A safe refuge where art is made and the public is educated in the process.

We know we have a gem that is in serious need of polishing to regain its glow. The new TFAA board has all kinds of new projects in the works to prove to the City how serious we are to save our home. The number of events and activities has increased substantially, there is art in the hallways now, there is live music, projects and events are being co-sponsored with younger, hipper arts organizations and with King St. hotels.

But, change doesn’t come without major growing pains. Change won’t come without the cooperation and understanding (that we are first a working art center, not a mall) of the City, who is demanding these changes in the first place.

It won’t come without the help of ALL the Torpedo Factory artists to see these changes through successfully. Those who think – either artist or city official - that dragging their feet isn’t going to end up hurting both sides in the end is mistaken. Otherwise I fear the doors, at least for the Torpedo Factory Artist Association will be permanently closed and the City will move a slicker more profitable tourist attraction into the space. The City will lose an important cultural landmark, arts, education and tourist destination and we the artists will lose our studios and the daily joy of getting to share and educate the public about art.

Thanks for bringing the situation to light. Light is good. Our problems won't be solved in a vacuum. The Torpedo Factory is too valuable an asset to the greater DC art community to see it die of old age without a fight.

deb jansen
studio 344

My Artomatic picks

Now that I have visited Artomatic three times, I have finally managed to cover all nine floors of art of that mega art exhibition, easily the largest group art show on planet Earth.

Nine floors of artwork and 1,000 artists; not an easy task for anyone to review and interpret, much less critics used to gallery-sized art shows.

Last year's AOM set a new record with over 70,000 visitors, and I found out a few days ago that they are about 12,000 visitors ahead of last year's pace at this time. The show ends July 5.

This year I decided not only to pick my usual group of Top 10 artists there, but to isolate and keep that coveted list to ten "new" artists, or at least new to me, or newer. So I will skip all the blue chip artists in the show who obviously stand out. People like Laurel Lukaszewski, Kelly Towles, Tim Tate, Michael Janis and a Hamiltonian Fellow or two.

Instead, my focus will be ahhh... focused on a newer set of fresh artwork and names. But first, some special mentions to other people who caught my eye for other various and sundry reasons (including some who also made the Top 10 List).

Best Installation Award - Easily won by Deb Jansen's "Catharsis & Karma: An Open Thank You Letter to a Homewrecker" installation, dedication and not-a-revenge discussion of the world's most expensive blow job as Jansen thanks the "other" woman who freed her from an allegedly abusive and destructive marriage. This alone is worth a visit to AOM.

Best Female Nude Photography - There are dozens and dozens of female nude photographers at AOM, and curiously not so many male nude photogs. The vast majority of these female nudes pics are mildly interesting, some almost cross the soft porn border (unlike past AOM's where hardcore porn was almost always present), but most are in the OK category. The best in this vast offering of female flesh, and best by far, is the newer work of Fierce Sonia, an artist whose work I hadn't seen since I included her in "Seven" more than four years ago. Sonia's work has grown and matured into not only a seductive celebration of the female body, but also an intelligent marriage of digital manipulation of the figure that while still revealing that subtle erotic nature which is a key part of all of her work, it also begins to substantiate her work as photography that is pushing the boundaries of eroticism into a new digital valley of visual surprises.

Second Best Female Nude Photography - Abbie Miller; superbly sexy work.

Best Glass Artist - David D'Orio's latest from his "Feeder" project stands out in an Artomatic showcasing the work of some very good glass artists. It is no secret that the Greater DC area has become one of the great fine art glass magnets in the world, and in this abundant sea of glass talent, D'Orio's glasswork stands out in a singularly unique way. This is no small accomplishment when one also looks at the breath taking work of the British glass artists participating in this year's AOM as well as the many Washington Glass School artists and students in the show. Glass was possibly the strongest category in this year's AOM and D'Orio's work still managed to stand out.

Best Use of Aluminum - Clearly a homerun for Eve Hennessa's cool and clever sculptures. Also hottest-looking robot on "Meet the Artists" Night.

Weirdest Art - Steven Jones's oddly and slightly macabre human-chicken babies (is that what they are?). They've caught my eyes two years in a row and they fascinate me in a very odd way.

Best Monotypes - Jenny Walton's monotypes are elegant and deceptively minimalist.

Best Marriage of Genres - I don't know for sure. but I think that what Rania Hassan is doing in her marriage of knitting and painting is unique, maybe in the world. And it is not only clever, but also visually intriguing and breaks a very difficult three dimensionality aspect.

Most Blasphamous Art - Dana Ellyn's art takes no prisoners and her caustic observations though her skilled brush are always a sure pick. This year she takes on The Christ in many of her pieces. Now I want to see her bring Allah down a notch or two.

Second Most Blasphemous Art - "The Passion of Snoopy" by Will Mallon.

Best Portrait of Che Guevara - Yay for Matt Sesow, who brings the Argentinean psychopath to a very scary level as he tackles the 20th century's most famous face.

Best Portrait in General - Joe Granski.

Freshest New Portrait Artist - Greg Scott's portraits are very cool.

Worst Signature - Greg Scott; smaller Hancock's dude!

Best Large Work - The gorgeous wood work by Sergio Martinez.

Best Wall Sculpture - Leila Holtsman was my top AOM pick last year and since then her career has blossomed and her return to AOM this year didn't disappoint. Her large wall sculpture at AOM is the price steal of the show. One of you needs to go buy this piece right away.

Best New Painter - Although she doesn't have a very good spot at AOM, Jessica Van Brakle will be in 2-3 galleries around the Mid Atlantic by this time next year. Her refreshing work will also sell well at art fairs. Buy her paintings now.

Best Abstract Painting - I like the geometrical, textured work of Jorge Caligiuri.

Best Monochromatic Realist Painter - Superb works by James Halloran rank amongst the best paintings at AOM and showcase what a very good painter can do with a very restricted palette of colors.

Best Sculpture - Megan Van Wagoner's "Comforts of Home" are elegant and sophisticated works by an artist who is completely new to me. They showcase a level of skill in both delivering the art commodity itself as well as its presentation (a set of skills that many AOM artists need to learn desperately). This is an artist to keep an eye on.

Best Printmaker - Johanna Mueller's prints showcase an enviable set of printmaking skills married to a very active visual imagination. I am buying one of her pieces; her work is one of the best deals at AOM. She is a very talented artist and we will keep an eye on her work.

Artist Most Likely To Get Sued - Wait until the Dora, The Explorer people find out what Andrew Wodzianski's brilliant but disturbed mind has done to adorable Dora. Someone needs to buy that piece of art now, before it is confiscated by cartoon moguls.

Best Minimalist Sculpture - m. gert barkovic's refreshing employment of everyday objects, in this case sheets (I think), deliver a new twist on artists who re-use common objects to invent intelligent art forms. But in barkovic's case, they look like art, rather than cleverly titled junk in a gallery.

Best Barbie Art - This is a very tough category, as nearly all the Barbie artworks at AOM are clever and well-done. But Michele Banks' "Army of Terracotta Barbies" will one day, 100 years from now, befuddle and astound the art experts of the Antique Road Show. For now, I like it a lot! Hey Michelle: Wanna trade?

Best Repetitive Artwork - When I first saw Sean Welker's drawings, I thought that they were prints. When I returned and talked a little to Sean, I discovered that they were each an individual drawing expressing Welker's interest in sugar skulls, matryoshka dolls, maneki neko figures and other odd elements. Welker would have easily also won the "Best Skeleton Art" category, but it wouldn't be fair to give him two awards. This guy is one of the best artists at AOM.

Best Digital Manipulator - Suffice it to say that Mark Parascandola had me fooled. This guy belongs in the next 10 DC landscape photography shows; the photographs are clever and refreshing!

Best Neon Artist - Sarah Blood has some of the most memorable work in AOM this year. Her work is elegant and sophisticated, and easily amongst the best 3D work in the show, but she is in an universe by herself when it comes to the marriage of neon to glass and sculpture. Buy Sarah Blood.

Best Drawing - Tie between Rita Elsner and the amazing Ben Tolman.

Largest Penis Artwork - Easily won by many inches by the very skilled "Bip" Diggs.

Best Erotica - J.R. Harke.

Worst Erotica - Too many to mention!

Best Lovecraftian Artist - Jeannette Herrera has a wall full of gems and she's easily one of the key finds at AOM. Her Cthulhu reference gets her extra points.

Best Portrait - Margaret Dowell's portrait of Joseph Barbaccia runs away with this very competitive category.

Best Fruit Painting - "Fruit Bowl" by Nabila A. Isa-Odidi; the way the banana absorbs the space is terrific.

Best Pastel Artist - Ellen Cornett has superb mastery of this most difficult genre.

Best Small Oil - A series of georgeous small nudes by Christine Bailey.

Best Robot Art - This was not an easy category to win, as there are a lot of robots at AOM this year! But the best ones are the cute ones by Candace Keegan.

Best Skeleton - OK, so I lied and Jeannette Herrera wins this category too and wins two awards.

Best Combo Skeleton-Robot Art - Todd Gardner.

Best B&W Artist - Everytime that I see Ben Tolman's art I am more and more amazed.

Scariest Art in AOM - Mark Eason.

Most Minimalist Art in Show - A brilliant installation work by JT Kirkland. No one will ever do better.

Second Most Minimalist - Lisa K. Rosenstein.

Best New Realist - Susan La Mont did not disappoint when viewed up close.

Best Male Nude - Geoff Ault.

Scariest Painter of Babies - The most excellent work of Phyllis Mayes; she's a very good painter.

Best Statuary - Brian Lusher is a riot.

Artist Most Influenced by WGS - The glass work of Carlos Rodriguez.

Best Bugs - Erika Rubel.

Best Vegetable - "My Dancing Red Chili Peppers" by Soline Krug.

Harshest Model Pose - The naked women with massive breasts stretched out with their legs grappling the rough bark of trees in Bert HeNe's photo.

Best Video - Tim Tate.

Best Sculptural Drawings - Laurel Lukaszewski.

Scariest Monkey Painting - Jared Davis.

Potential Arsonist - Paula Katharina Rylands... I bet her favorite song is by the Ohio Players.

Second Best Arsonist - Andrea Noble.

Best Metal - Hamiltonian Fellow Michael Enn Sirvet.

Best Obama Likeness - Roy Utley.

Worst Obama - Joshua Tiktin from planet YoMomma.

Best Obama Deal - Kimberly Keyes Stark; great deal at $150 a piece.

Lustiest Obama Portrait - Roger James' piece which has Obama breathing into Michelle's ear.

Scariest Nudes - Elizabeth Crisman' they're good but scary... a little.

Most Illegal Art - "Merry Hollow Days" by Gary Irby.

Best Nipple-less Boobs - Torso by Howard Connelly.

Sexiest Photo in all of AOM - There's an image by Julia Mazur that depicts a gorgeous and voluptous woman sitting on a fire escape ladder and she seems to be peeping on a nude, skinny woman who is sitting on a window sill. The back lighting on the skinny woman is so strong that all the delicate hairs on her body are highlighted to such a harsh extreme that they make her look like a nude beast. It is an amazing photo!

Most Fragile Work - UK artist Steven Revely's spectacularly delicate work is a wonder of glass.

Best Female Ass - One of the pics by Rodney Mickle.

Best Vagina Art - Kerry Britton.

Best Artist Channeling Dali - Dejan Roncevic.

Best Animal Art - Caren Quinn

Best Artist Channeling Van Gogh - "Smoking Skull" by Eric Jaeckel.

Best Portrait Photographer - Matt Dunn.

Best Religious Art - WOW Jen Dixon!

Best New WGS Artist - Paula Hoffman

Best Landscape - Kathryn Trillas.

Second Best Landscape - Michael Pierce.

Best Pen & Ink and WC - Emily Sloat; superbly refreshing!

Best Teapots - Laura Peery.

Next: My AOM Top 10.

Criticism, Journalism ethics and AOM

I've been reviewing art shows since the beginning of the 80s decade during the last century, when I started doing so as an art student at the University of Washington School of Art.

Since then I have moved at least 25 times, lived twice in California, twice in Rhode Island, twice in Europe and twice in the Greater Washington, DC area, to highlight a few of those moves. And throughout all those years I have been involved in the arts, usually as an artist, quite often as a dealer, but always as a writer.

And as part of those experiences I have met dozens and dozens of art critics and writers who write about art, and using those experiences I feel that I can form a pretty decent and sound opinion about what I will discuss next.

Most writers who write about contemporary art shows start by physically visiting the gallery, or museum or space where the show is being held, in order to look at the artwork (I say most because I know of at least two well-known writers, one a critic for a major newspaper and one a well-known blogger, who wrote reviews as if they'd been to the shows, but it was later proven that they had never visited the space nor seen the show).

Is it the case that some reviews are being written after simply viewing an art show online? Probably, but let's say that generally speaking, most art writers and art critics (there's a difference by the way), start by visiting the space where the show is being held.

If they are lucky enough to write for a publication which pays them to review shows, they either get a flat, per review payment, or a per-word payment (usually also associated with a maximum number of words limit). Some also write the reviews for free, just to be published.

So a typical writer either (maybe even and/or):
(a) Get's a flat payment for a review - let's say $500 in our forthcoming example
(b) Get's a per word payment for a review - Let's say $1 per word with a limit of 600 words
(c) Does it for free

So let's say Billy Artsy writes for a publication which uses either (a) or (b) above, and usually Billy goes to a gallery to see a show that interests him, or is assigned to cover a new museum show. It's a little different in either case (museums usually have press previews with all kinds of packages and hand-outs and discussions and opportunities to meet the curators and/or artists and ask questions.

But in the case of galleries, Billy either drives to the gallery, or takes the subway or bikes to the gallery, arrives and enters the space. In the Greater DC area, your average gallery's group show probably has 30-35 works of art hanging by maybe 15-20 artists. Some juried competitions may have as many of 50 artists. The largest (non AOM) group show that I can recall in our region was "Seven," which I curated a few years ago for the WPA and which had 66 artists in the seven galleries of the Warehouse spaces on 7th Street. There were around 200 works of art in that show, as well as a couple of installations and several performances.

But your average gallery group show that Billy is used to seeing and reviewing and getting paid for is about 30-35 pieces of art by a dozen or so artists. That is his average reference point for a group show.

Once he arrives at the gallery, the owner or attendant recognizes Billy, gets up and greets him (heaven forbid that Billy is not recognized and treated a little special by the dealer). Depending on several variables, Billy can either be aloof or very friendly to the dealer.

Some art writers see art dealers as the "enemy," while others are mature and understand that just like the writers, the dealer is a key part of the art world universe.

Billy then spends about 15 or 20 minutes looking at the artwork, reading any press materials that he may have been handed, and taking notes on his forming opinions on the show. He may ask a question or two, or simply ignore everyone and focus all his attention on the art at hand. If Billy is especially tuned to a show, he may spend longer there, but let's say that all the artists are new to Billy and after 15 minutes he leaves.

Let's do a little Math and let's keep the numbers simple for simplicity sake. We're accelerating Billy a bit (in my own experience as a gallerist, our DC area critics hang around closer to 30 minutes per visit), but he takes 15 minutes to look at 30 works of art; this equals 30 seconds per work of art.

Later Billy submits the review, and a couple of weeks later he gets a check for $500.

A few weeks later Billy's editor emails Billy and asks Billy to do a review on Artomatic, as the editor keeps hearing about this "Artomatic thing" and getting dozens of letters (cleverly being written to the editor by the Artomatic artists) asking why the editor's newspaper hasn't covered Artomatic.

Billy takes the subway to go see AOM, as he has never really driven around SE and the AOM website tells him that the event is located in a building right on top of a subway exit.

When Billy arrives he is greeted by two volunteers who hand him material on AOM, and neither of the volunteers recognize Billy, nor he them. He asks on which floor the show is, and the volunteers suggest that Billy start on the 9th floor and work his way down. Billy finds it hard to believe that there are nine floors of art.

Billy takes the elevator to the 9th floor and comes out to face yet another volunteer sitting on a desk by the elevators. The volunteer smiles at Billy, but does not recognize him.

Billy begins walking the 9th floor. Already, on this floor alone, is the biggest group show that Billy has ever been to; it hasn't hit Billy yet, but soon he'll realize that there are eight more floors to go.

Billy is a little overwhelmed from the very beginning, and because of the large number of artwork and artists, he comes across a lot of what he considers really bad art: lots of tasteless nudies, loads of unsophisticated beginner art, terrible portraiture including more boudoir portraits in one place that Billy has ever seen in his life.

Billy is seeing a lot of the type and level of artwork which Billy has never seen and most probably would never see in the galleries that Billy tends to favor.

Because of the way the artists' booth are, Billy started (pre-conditioned from his many gallery visits) by weaving a sine wave walking pattern around the gallery walls and working his way around the floor and looking at each artist's gallery individually.

An hour later Billy realizes that he's not even three quarters of the way through the 9th floor and he still has 8 more floors to go.

And so Billy begins to (as humans do) adapt to the sheer size of the art show in front of him, and begins to speed up a little. He no longer visits each artist's gallery wall, but walks at a fast clip between the walls and glancing from the middle left and right covering 8-10 artists at a glance and only pausing to look at the work a little closer if something catches his eye from afar.

He begins to miss details and also misses entire groups of artists. When he walks by the Barbies, he doesn't realize that there are multiple artists in that set of Barbie artwork. He also misses the nuances of David D'Orio's wonderfully minimalist glass sculptures of recycled materials. As he makes the turn into a new aisle, his speeded up sightseeing is directed to one side at that moment and he completely misses Rania Hassan's deceptively complex marriage of painting with 3D sculpture.

By the time Billy finishes the 9th floor, he's sure of four things:

(a) no way that he can cover nine floors of art in this one visit unless he speeds up considerably.
(b) most of the work in the show is dreck.
(c) his notes are all from the first hour on the floor
(d) None of these artists are really good enough to show in a gallery and that's why they are here.

He walks down to the 8th floor, where the AOM floor attendant smiles at him, but once again does not recognize Billy.

He is now in full speed mode; if the artist's work doesn't grab Billy from ten feet away, forget it. At this point all that Billy is seeing are robots, skulls and a lot of bad photos of nude women, plus an annoying huge number of bad portrait artists. he is also missing a lot of intelligent, good art, a lot of it.

And then Billy is recognized by an AOM artist, and to Billy's dismay the artist wants to make sure that Billy sees his work. Billy promises to swing by, but in a nice way tells the artist that he is busy and needs to move on.

There's a small crowd of people in front of Deb Jansen's amazing revenge installation on this floor, and Billy, attracted by the crowd, slows down to see what the fuss is all about. He is hypnotized by what Jansen has done and Billy makes some notes about this installation. It's the first time that he has stopped to actually look at work closely on the 8th floor. Had not there been a crowd in front of Jansen's installation, Billy would have missed it as well.

Fifteen minutes later Billy has finished his whirlwind walk through of the 8th floor. It still took him half an hour, and in that 30 minutes he has "reviewed" about 100 artists and about 2500 works of art. He has completely missed the work of nearly a dozen artists on this floor who are already in the collection of major museums and represented by galleries all over the US and Europe. Blue chip artists in a plebian art show.

He also misses several "new" artists who will soon move on to galleries, museums and other such high art places.

By this time Billy's mind is made up. Nothing in the remaining seven floors can save AOM from the wrath of Billy's review.

He debates if it is even worth it for him to look at the rest of the show, but Billy's ethical side wins out and he descends to the 7th floor, where he is greeted by yet another floor attendant who doesn't know Billy from her aunt Elvira.

Billy finishes the 7th floor in 15 minutes, a new floor record. He only stops to glance at the glass displays by the British Sunderland artists because the displays caught his eyes as very "gallery like." The professional-looking displays put Billy in his comfort zone.

But he has already been at AOM for over two hours and has only seen three floors.

He debates skipping the six other floors, and "just to be fair," decides to pick one more floor at random, to "see if anything is different."

He decides on the 5th floor. By now it's getting a little into the evening and Billy is surprised at to how many people are viewing the show. Billy has never seen more than a couple dozen people in an art show at any time in any gallery, and even on the rare openings that he goes to, not more that 30-40 people in at once.

At AOM Billy sees hundreds and hundreds of people pouring in, and the elevators are getting crowded and slow and a tired Billy has to wait for an elevator to take him down.

On the ride down Billy decides on the 3rd floor and gets out. He sort of glances around and tries to absorb the entire floor from the edge of the elevators' entry points.

Billy decides to pack it and go home to write his review of Artomatic. He has seen more artwork in the last three hours that he has all year round. Most of it quite forgettable to Billy, atrocious even. In the process he has also missed seeing more artwork than most critics see in a year. And his visually overloaded mind has not seen the truly outstanding work of dozens and dozens of new and established good artists.

But Billy will write a review about the entire show, including the 700 plus artists whose work Billy never saw. Had Billy known about the scope of this huge show, Billy would have studied the artists' list ahead of time and highlighted the well-known artists whom Billy has already reviewed in the past, when they showed in the galleries that Billy frequents. That way Billy covers his own review foot prints.

But Billy missed them, and he's about to carpet bomb the entire show, including artists who Billy actually likes and whose gallery shows he has reviewed in a positive light.

Billy goes home and he is tired. Because it is now rush hour the subways are crowded and by the time Billy gets home, he is exhausted, both physically and mentally overloaded.

A couple of glasses of wine from a wine box helps Billy to relax a little as he sits in front of his laptop and Googles the web to see what other critics have written about AOM. After all, Billy wants to ensure that he is aligned with his elder critics and with the faddish new ones from the art blogs.

Almost to a man (woman) they all write bad things about AOM's artwork. What Billy doesn't realize is that many of them saw AOM in the same manner that Billy did. Some of them have never even visited AOM, but they still trashed it.

Billy revs up his trendy Mac and begins to earn his $500, which is what he would have been paid if he just went and had reviewed a "regular" gallery show, with maybe one artist's solo or a dozen artists' group show.

Billy trashes AOM, lest he be ever asked to do that much work again.

When the review is published, Billy's editor is surprised by the large outpouring of hate letters and emails and comments about the review. They come mostly from AOM artists, disgusted with Billy's review of the show. But they are unaware that they're about to help with Billy's career at the paper.

Billy's editor is pleased to discover that Billy has so many readers; after all, a letter is a letter, and Billy's AOM review column has received more letters and comments than all of Billy's previous columns added together.

This becomes a good checkmark on Billy's record with his editor. Who knew that Billy's gallery review column had some many followers?

Billy is pleasantly surprised by the positive outcome of an otherwise exhausting event.

Sometimes it bothers Billy to recall that he never really saw all the work in the manner that it deserved, but he does a little Math and he feels better when he discovers that in order to review AOM in the way that he reviews all other art shows, he would have had to spend a dozen hours there just to give each artist about 3/4 of a minute. That's an impossible task, if you ask Billy, especially for a measly $500 bucks.

That makes Billy sleep better at night and feel like he's still an ethical writer.

Why do art critics hate Artomatic?

Artomatic, as I once noted on the Kojo Nmandi show, is the visual arts extravaganza that everyone loves, but art critics hate.

Why do they hate AOM? In 2009 I explained it thus, referencing the 2009 AOM version:

Criticism, Journalism ethics and AOM

I've been reviewing art shows since the beginning of the 80s decade during the last century, when I started doing so as an art student at the University of Washington School of Art.

Since then I have moved at least 25 times, lived twice in California, twice in Rhode Island, twice in Europe and twice in the Greater Washington, DC area, to highlight a few of those moves. And throughout all those years I have been involved in the arts, usually as an artist, quite often as a dealer, but always as a writer.

And as part of those experiences I have met dozens and dozens of art critics and writers who write about art, and using those experiences I feel that I can form a pretty decent and sound opinion about what I will discuss next.

Most writers who write about contemporary art shows start by physically visiting the gallery, or museum, or space where the show is being held, in order to look at the artwork (I say most because I know of at least two well-known writers, one a critic for a major newspaper and one a well-known blogger, who wrote reviews as if they'd been to the shows, but it was later proven that they had never visited the space nor seen the show).

Is it the case that some reviews are being written after simply viewing an art show online? Probably, but let's say that generally speaking, most art writers and art critics (there's a difference by the way), start by visiting the space where the show is being held.

If they are lucky enough to write for a publication which pays them to review shows, they either get a flat, per review payment, or a per-word payment (usually also associated with a maximum number of words limit). Some also write the reviews for free, just to be published.

So a typical writer either (maybe even and/or):
(a) Get's a flat payment for a review - let's say $500 in our forthcoming example
(b) Get's a per word payment for a review - Let's say $1 per word with a limit of 600 words
(c) Does it for free

So let's say Billy Artsy writes for a publication which uses either (a) or (b) above, and usually Billy goes to a gallery to see a show that interests him, or is assigned to cover a new museum show. It's a little different in either case (museums usually have press previews with all kinds of packages and hand-outs and discussions and opportunities to meet the curators and/or artists and ask questions.

But in the case of galleries, Billy either drives to the gallery, or takes the subway or bikes to the gallery, arrives and enters the space. In the Greater DC area, your average gallery's group show probably has 30-35 works of art hanging by maybe 15-20 artists. Some juried competitions may have as many of 50 artists. The largest (non AOM) group show that I can recall in our region was "Seven," which I curated a few years ago for the WPA and which had 66 artists in the seven galleries of the Warehouse spaces on 7th Street. There were around 200 works of art in that show, as well as a couple of installations and several performances.

But your average gallery group show that Billy is used to seeing and reviewing, and getting paid for is about 30-35 pieces of art by a dozen or so artists. That is his average reference point for a group show.

Once he arrives at the gallery, the owner or attendant recognizes Billy, gets up and greets him (heaven forbid that Billy is not recognized and treated a little special by the dealer). Depending on several variables, Billy can either be aloof or very friendly to the dealer.

Some art writers see art dealers as the "enemy," while others are mature and understand that just like the writers, the dealer is a key part of the art world universe.

Billy then spends about 15 or 20 minutes looking at the artwork, reading any press materials that he may have been handed, and taking notes on his forming opinions on the show. He may ask a question or two, or simply ignore everyone and focus all his attention on the art at hand. If Billy is especially tuned to a show, he may spend longer there, but let's say that all the artists are new to Billy and after 15 minutes he leaves.

Let's do a little Math and let's keep the numbers simple for simplicity sake. We're accelerating Billy a bit (in my own experience as a gallerist, our DC area critics hang around closer to 30 minutes per visit), but he takes 15 minutes to look at 30 works of art; this equals 30 seconds per work of art.

Later Billy submits the review, and a couple of weeks later he gets a check for $500.

A few weeks later Billy's editor emails Billy and asks Billy to do a review on Artomatic, as the editor keeps hearing about this "Artomatic thing" and getting dozens of letters (cleverly being written to the editor by the Artomatic artists) asking why the editor's newspaper hasn't covered Artomatic.

Billy takes the subway to go see AOM, as he has never really driven around SE and the AOM website tells him that the event is located in a building right on top of a subway exit.

When Billy arrives he is greeted by two volunteers who hand him material on AOM, and neither of the volunteers recognize Billy, nor he them. He asks on which floor the show is, and the volunteers suggest that Billy start on the 9th floor and work his way down. Billy finds it hard to believe that there are nine floors of art.

Billy takes the elevator to the 9th floor and comes out to face yet another volunteer sitting on a desk by the elevators. The volunteer smiles at Billy, but does not recognize him.

Billy begins walking the 9th floor. Already, on this floor alone, is the biggest group show that Billy has ever been to; it hasn't hit Billy yet, but soon he'll realize that there are eight more floors to go.

Billy is a little overwhelmed from the very beginning, and because of the large number of artwork and artists, he comes across a lot of what he considers really bad art: lots of tasteless nudies, loads of unsophisticated beginner art, terrible portraiture including more boudoir portraits in one place that Billy has ever seen in his life.

Billy is seeing a lot of the type and level of artwork which Billy has never seen and most probably would never see in the galleries that Billy tends to favor.

Because of the way the artists' booth are, Billy started (pre-conditioned from his many gallery visits) by weaving a sine wave walking pattern around the gallery walls and working his way around the floor and looking at each artist's gallery individually.

An hour later Billy realizes that he's not even three quarters of the way through the 9th floor and he still has 8 more floors to go.

And so Billy begins to (as humans do) adapt to the sheer size of the art show in front of him, and begins to speed up a little. He no longer visits each artist's gallery wall, but walks at a fast clip between the walls and glancing from the middle left and right covering 8-10 artists at a glance and only pausing to look at the work a little closer if something catches his eye from afar.

He begins to miss details and also misses entire groups of artists. When he walks by the Barbies, he doesn't realize that there are multiple artists in that set of Barbie artwork. He also misses the nuances of David D'Orio's wonderfully minimalist glass sculptures of recycled materials. As he makes the turn into a new aisle, his speeded up sightseeing is directed to one side at that moment and he completely misses Rania Hassan's deceptively complex marriage of painting with 3D sculpture.

By the time Billy finishes the 9th floor, he's sure of four things:

(a) no way that he can cover nine floors of art in this one visit unless he speeds up considerably.
(b) most of the work in the show is dreck.
(c) his notes are all from the first hour on the floor
(d) None of these artists are really good enough to show in a gallery and that's why they are here.

He walks down to the 8th floor, where the AOM floor attendant smiles at him, but once again does not recognize Billy.

He is now in full speed mode; if the artist's work doesn't grab Billy from ten feet away, forget it. At this point all that Billy is seeing are robots, skulls and a lot of bad photos of nude women, plus an annoying huge number of bad portrait artists. he is also missing a lot of intelligent, good art, a lot of it.

And then Billy is recognized by an AOM artist, and to Billy's dismay the artist wants to make sure that Billy sees his work. Billy promises to swing by, but in a nice way tells the artist that he is busy and needs to move on.

There's a small crowd of people in front of Deb Jansen's amazing revenge installation on this floor, and Billy, attracted by the crowd, slows down to see what the fuss is all about. He is hypnotized by what Jansen has done and Billy makes some notes about this installation. It's the first time that he has stopped to actually look at work closely on the 8th floor. Had not there been a crowd in front of Jansen's installation, Billy would have missed it as well.

Fifteen minutes later Billy has finished his whirlwind walk through of the 8th floor. It still took him half an hour, and in that 30 minutes he has "reviewed" about 100 artists and about 2500 works of art. He has completely missed the work of nearly a dozen artists on this floor who are already in the collection of major museums and represented by galleries all over the US and Europe. Blue chip artists in a plebian art show.

He also misses several "new" artists who will soon move on to galleries, museums and other such high art places.

By this time Billy's mind is made up. Nothing in the remaining seven floors can save AOM from the wrath of Billy's review.

He debates if it is even worth it for him to look at the rest of the show, but Billy's ethical side wins out and he descends to the 7th floor, where he is greeted by yet another floor attendant who doesn't know Billy from her aunt Elvira.

Billy finishes the 7th floor in 15 minutes, a new floor record. He only stops to glance at the glass displays by the British Sunderland artists because the displays caught his eyes as very "gallery like." The professional-looking displays put Billy in his comfort zone.

But he has already been at AOM for over two hours and has only seen three floors.

He debates skipping the six other floors, and "just to be fair," decides to pick one more floor at random, to "see if anything is different."

He decides on the 5th floor. By now it's getting a little into the evening and Billy is surprised at to how many people are viewing the show. Billy has never seen more than a couple dozen people in an art show at any time in any gallery, and even on the rare openings that he goes to, not more that 30-40 people in at once.

At AOM Billy sees hundreds and hundreds of people pouring in, and the elevators are getting crowded and slow and a tired Billy has to wait for an elevator to take him down.

On the ride down Billy decides on the 3rd floor and gets out. He sort of glances around and tries to absorb the entire floor from the edge of the elevators' entry points.

Billy decides to pack it and go home to write his review of Artomatic. He has seen more artwork in the last three hours that he has all year round. Most of it quite forgettable to Billy, atrocious even. In the process he has also missed seeing more artwork than most critics see in a year. And his visually overloaded mind has not seen the truly outstanding work of dozens and dozens of new and established good artists.

But Billy will write a review about the entire show, including the 700 plus artists whose work Billy never saw. Had Billy known about the scope of this huge show, Billy would have studied the artists' list ahead of time and highlighted the well-known artists whom Billy has already reviewed in the past, when they showed in the galleries that Billy frequents. That way Billy covers his own review foot prints.

But Billy missed them, and he's about to carpet bomb the entire show, including artists who Billy actually likes and whose gallery shows he has reviewed in a positive light.

Billy goes home and he is tired. Because it is now rush hour the subways are crowded and by the time Billy gets home, he is exhausted, both physically and mentally overloaded.

A couple of glasses of wine from a wine box helps Billy to relax a little as he sits in front of his laptop and Googles the web to see what other critics have written about AOM. After all, Billy wants to ensure that he is aligned with his elder critics and with the faddish new ones from the art blogs.

Almost to a man (woman) they all write bad things about AOM's artwork. What Billy doesn't realize is that many of them saw AOM in the same manner that Billy did. Some of them have never even visited AOM, but they still trashed it.

Billy revs up his trendy Mac and begins to earn his $500, which is what he would have been paid if he just went and had reviewed a "regular" gallery show, with maybe one artist's solo or a dozen artists' group show.

Billy trashes AOM, lest he be ever asked to do that much work again.

When the review is published, Billy's editor is surprised by the large outpouring of hate letters and emails and comments about the review. They come mostly from AOM artists, disgusted with Billy's review of the show. But they are unaware that they're about to help with Billy's career at the paper.

Billy's editor is pleased to discover that Billy has so many readers; after all, a letter is a letter, and Billy's AOM review column has received more letters and comments than all of Billy's previous columns added together.

This becomes a good checkmark on Billy's record with his editor. Who knew that Billy's gallery review column had some many followers?

Billy is pleasantly surprised by the positive outcome of an otherwise exhausting event.

Sometimes it bothers Billy to recall that he never really saw all the work in the manner that it deserved, but he does a little Math and he feels better when he discovers that in order to review AOM in the way that he reviews all other art shows, he would have had to spend a dozen hours there just to give each artist about 3/4 of a minute. That's an impossible task, if you ask Billy, especially for a measly $500 bucks.

That makes Billy sleep better at night and feel like he's still an ethical writer.

Why do art critics hate Artomatic? Let me explain...

Artomatic, as I once noted on the Kojo Nmandi show, is the visual arts extravaganza that everyone loves, but art critics hate.

Why do they hate AOM? In 2009 I explained it thus, referencing the 2009 AOM version:

Criticism, Journalism ethics and AOM

I've been reviewing art shows since the beginning of the 80s decade during the last century, when I started doing so as an art student at the University of Washington School of Art.

Since then I have moved at least 25 times, lived twice in California, twice in Rhode Island, twice in Europe and twice in the Greater Washington, DC area, to highlight a few of those moves. And throughout all those years I have been involved in the arts, usually as an artist, quite often as a dealer, but always as a writer.

And as part of those experiences I have met dozens and dozens of art critics and writers who write about art, and using those experiences I feel that I can form a pretty decent and sound opinion about what I will discuss next.

Most writers who write about contemporary art shows start by physically visiting the gallery, or museum, or space where the show is being held, in order to look at the artwork (I say most because I know of at least two well-known writers, one a critic for a major newspaper and one a well-known blogger, who wrote reviews as if they'd been to the shows, but it was later proven that they had never visited the space nor seen the show).

Is it the case that some reviews are being written after simply viewing an art show online? Probably, but let's say that generally speaking, most art writers and art critics (there's a difference by the way), start by visiting the space where the show is being held.

If they are lucky enough to write for a publication which pays them to review shows, they either get a flat, per review payment, or a per-word payment (usually also associated with a maximum number of words limit). Some also write the reviews for free, just to be published.

So a typical writer either (maybe even and/or):
(a) Get's a flat payment for a review - let's say $500 in our forthcoming example
(b) Get's a per word payment for a review - Let's say $1 per word with a limit of 600 words
(c) Does it for free

So let's say Billy Artsy writes for a publication which uses either (a) or (b) above, and usually Billy goes to a gallery to see a show that interests him, or is assigned to cover a new museum show. It's a little different in either case (museums usually have press previews with all kinds of packages and hand-outs and discussions and opportunities to meet the curators and/or artists and ask questions.

But in the case of galleries, Billy either drives to the gallery, or takes the subway or bikes to the gallery, arrives and enters the space. In the Greater DC area, your average gallery's group show probably has 30-35 works of art hanging by maybe 15-20 artists. Some juried competitions may have as many of 50 artists. The largest (non AOM) group show that I can recall in our region was "Seven," which I curated a few years ago for the WPA and which had 66 artists in the seven galleries of the Warehouse spaces on 7th Street. There were around 200 works of art in that show, as well as a couple of installations and several performances.

But your average gallery group show that Billy is used to seeing and reviewing, and getting paid for is about 30-35 pieces of art by a dozen or so artists. That is his average reference point for a group show.

Once he arrives at the gallery, the owner or attendant recognizes Billy, gets up and greets him (heaven forbid that Billy is not recognized and treated a little special by the dealer). Depending on several variables, Billy can either be aloof or very friendly to the dealer.

Some art writers see art dealers as the "enemy," while others are mature and understand that just like the writers, the dealer is a key part of the art world universe.

Billy then spends about 15 or 20 minutes looking at the artwork, reading any press materials that he may have been handed, and taking notes on his forming opinions on the show. He may ask a question or two, or simply ignore everyone and focus all his attention on the art at hand. If Billy is especially tuned to a show, he may spend longer there, but let's say that all the artists are new to Billy and after 15 minutes he leaves.

Let's do a little Math and let's keep the numbers simple for simplicity sake. We're accelerating Billy a bit (in my own experience as a gallerist, our DC area critics hang around closer to 30 minutes per visit), but he takes 15 minutes to look at 30 works of art; this equals 30 seconds per work of art.

Later Billy submits the review, and a couple of weeks later he gets a check for $500.

A few weeks later Billy's editor emails Billy and asks Billy to do a review on Artomatic, as the editor keeps hearing about this "Artomatic thing" and getting dozens of letters (cleverly being written to the editor by the Artomatic artists) asking why the editor's newspaper hasn't covered Artomatic.

Billy takes the subway to go see AOM, as he has never really driven around SE and the AOM website tells him that the event is located in a building right on top of a subway exit.

When Billy arrives he is greeted by two volunteers who hand him material on AOM, and neither of the volunteers recognize Billy, nor he them. He asks on which floor the show is, and the volunteers suggest that Billy start on the 9th floor and work his way down. Billy finds it hard to believe that there are nine floors of art.

Billy takes the elevator to the 9th floor and comes out to face yet another volunteer sitting on a desk by the elevators. The volunteer smiles at Billy, but does not recognize him.

Billy begins walking the 9th floor. Already, on this floor alone, is the biggest group show that Billy has ever been to; it hasn't hit Billy yet, but soon he'll realize that there are eight more floors to go.

Billy is a little overwhelmed from the very beginning, and because of the large number of artwork and artists, he comes across a lot of what he considers really bad art: lots of tasteless nudies, loads of unsophisticated beginner art, terrible portraiture including more boudoir portraits in one place that Billy has ever seen in his life.

Billy is seeing a lot of the type and level of artwork which Billy has never seen and most probably would never see in the galleries that Billy tends to favor.

Because of the way the artists' booth are, Billy started (pre-conditioned from his many gallery visits) by weaving a sine wave walking pattern around the gallery walls and working his way around the floor and looking at each artist's gallery individually.

An hour later Billy realizes that he's not even three quarters of the way through the 9th floor and he still has 8 more floors to go.

And so Billy begins to (as humans do) adapt to the sheer size of the art show in front of him, and begins to speed up a little. He no longer visits each artist's gallery wall, but walks at a fast clip between the walls and glancing from the middle left and right covering 8-10 artists at a glance and only pausing to look at the work a little closer if something catches his eye from afar.

He begins to miss details and also misses entire groups of artists. When he walks by the Barbies, he doesn't realize that there are multiple artists in that set of Barbie artwork. He also misses the nuances of David D'Orio's wonderfully minimalist glass sculptures of recycled materials. As he makes the turn into a new aisle, his speeded up sightseeing is directed to one side at that moment and he completely misses Rania Hassan's deceptively complex marriage of painting with 3D sculpture.

By the time Billy finishes the 9th floor, he's sure of four things:

(a) no way that he can cover nine floors of art in this one visit unless he speeds up considerably.
(b) most of the work in the show is dreck.
(c) his notes are all from the first hour on the floor
(d) None of these artists are really good enough to show in a gallery and that's why they are here.

He walks down to the 8th floor, where the AOM floor attendant smiles at him, but once again does not recognize Billy.

He is now in full speed mode; if the artist's work doesn't grab Billy from ten feet away, forget it. At this point all that Billy is seeing are robots, skulls and a lot of bad photos of nude women, plus an annoying huge number of bad portrait artists. he is also missing a lot of intelligent, good art, a lot of it.

And then Billy is recognized by an AOM artist, and to Billy's dismay the artist wants to make sure that Billy sees his work. Billy promises to swing by, but in a nice way tells the artist that he is busy and needs to move on.

There's a small crowd of people in front of Deb Jansen's amazing revenge installation on this floor, and Billy, attracted by the crowd, slows down to see what the fuss is all about. He is hypnotized by what Jansen has done and Billy makes some notes about this installation. It's the first time that he has stopped to actually look at work closely on the 8th floor. Had not there been a crowd in front of Jansen's installation, Billy would have missed it as well.

Fifteen minutes later Billy has finished his whirlwind walk through of the 8th floor. It still took him half an hour, and in that 30 minutes he has "reviewed" about 100 artists and about 2500 works of art. He has completely missed the work of nearly a dozen artists on this floor who are already in the collection of major museums and represented by galleries all over the US and Europe. Blue chip artists in a plebian art show.

He also misses several "new" artists who will soon move on to galleries, museums and other such high art places.

By this time Billy's mind is made up. Nothing in the remaining seven floors can save AOM from the wrath of Billy's review.

He debates if it is even worth it for him to look at the rest of the show, but Billy's ethical side wins out and he descends to the 7th floor, where he is greeted by yet another floor attendant who doesn't know Billy from her aunt Elvira.

Billy finishes the 7th floor in 15 minutes, a new floor record. He only stops to glance at the glass displays by the British Sunderland artists because the displays caught his eyes as very "gallery like." The professional-looking displays put Billy in his comfort zone.

But he has already been at AOM for over two hours and has only seen three floors.

He debates skipping the six other floors, and "just to be fair," decides to pick one more floor at random, to "see if anything is different."

He decides on the 5th floor. By now it's getting a little into the evening and Billy is surprised at to how many people are viewing the show. Billy has never seen more than a couple dozen people in an art show at any time in any gallery, and even on the rare openings that he goes to, not more that 30-40 people in at once.

At AOM Billy sees hundreds and hundreds of people pouring in, and the elevators are getting crowded and slow and a tired Billy has to wait for an elevator to take him down.

On the ride down Billy decides on the 3rd floor and gets out. He sort of glances around and tries to absorb the entire floor from the edge of the elevators' entry points.

Billy decides to pack it and go home to write his review of Artomatic. He has seen more artwork in the last three hours that he has all year round. Most of it quite forgettable to Billy, atrocious even. In the process he has also missed seeing more artwork than most critics see in a year. And his visually overloaded mind has not seen the truly outstanding work of dozens and dozens of new and established good artists.

But Billy will write a review about the entire show, including the 700 plus artists whose work Billy never saw. Had Billy known about the scope of this huge show, Billy would have studied the artists' list ahead of time and highlighted the well-known artists whom Billy has already reviewed in the past, when they showed in the galleries that Billy frequents. That way Billy covers his own review foot prints.

But Billy missed them, and he's about to carpet bomb the entire show, including artists who Billy actually likes and whose gallery shows he has reviewed in a positive light.

Billy goes home and he is tired. Because it is now rush hour the subways are crowded and by the time Billy gets home, he is exhausted, both physically and mentally overloaded.

A couple of glasses of wine from a wine box helps Billy to relax a little as he sits in front of his laptop and Googles the web to see what other critics have written about AOM. After all, Billy wants to ensure that he is aligned with his elder critics and with the faddish new ones from the art blogs.

Almost to a man (woman) they all write bad things about AOM's artwork. What Billy doesn't realize is that many of them saw AOM in the same manner that Billy did. Some of them have never even visited AOM, but they still trashed it.

Billy revs up his trendy Mac and begins to earn his $500, which is what he would have been paid if he just went and had reviewed a "regular" gallery show, with maybe one artist's solo or a dozen artists' group show.

Billy trashes AOM, lest he be ever asked to do that much work again.

When the review is published, Billy's editor is surprised by the large outpouring of hate letters and emails and comments about the review. They come mostly from AOM artists, disgusted with Billy's review of the show. But they are unaware that they're about to help with Billy's career at the paper.

Billy's editor is pleased to discover that Billy has so many readers; after all, a letter is a letter, and Billy's AOM review column has received more letters and comments than all of Billy's previous columns added together.

This becomes a good checkmark on Billy's record with his editor. Who knew that Billy's gallery review column had some many followers?

Billy is pleasantly surprised by the positive outcome of an otherwise exhausting event.

Sometimes it bothers Billy to recall that he never really saw all the work in the manner that it deserved, but he does a little Math and he feels better when he discovers that in order to review AOM in the way that he reviews all other art shows, he would have had to spend a dozen hours there just to give each artist about 3/4 of a minute. That's an impossible task, if you ask Billy, especially for a measly $500 bucks.

That makes Billy sleep better at night and feel like he's still an ethical writer.

Robin Tierney's Artomatic picks

Robin Tierney is a freelance writer and art critic who writes for a lot of different magazines, newspapers and online outlets, including this one. She responds to my call for AOM favorites and sends the below report, which once again proves that my Billy Artsy critic caricature is imperfect to say the least!

10 works that I enjoyed at Artomatic by artists I’ve never written about before:

* Edward Hahn’s photographs of a wrecked sailing vessel in Oregon, eroded moorings in Ocean City and other images in the series “The Planet Fights Back.”

* Tracey Clarke’s oil painting of The Guide with her telling of new mythology.

* Johanna Mueller’s intricate prints of animals in mythical and mysterious settings that suggests really good fables and dreams.

* Pam Barton’s “I thought you loved me” metal art in her motif jewelry display.

* Lisa Schumaier’s raku-fired, papier mache, mixed media sculpted beings. Eerie and wondrous stories there.

* Deb Jansen’s fiber Homewrecker Dolls $100 per skank accompanied by Catharisis & Karma open letter. Ouch. Oooh. Fury, the great motivator.

* Jenny Walton’s big monotypes that seem to visually articulate some deep thought. Or maybe just random ones. In any case, she snagged a Pyramid Atlantic residency.

* Nabila Isa-Odidi’s acrylic of the little girl in “Yellow Dress.”

* David Alfuth’s funny surreal cut-paper stories. Go on be snarky...some folks like reality TV; I like things that tell stories.

* Noisebots by Elliot Williams. Artful, amusing science projects/audio sculptures. Photocells respond to light. Did you move the mic around? Flip the switch? Go back and check ‘em out. Nice view of the new stadium from there too.

And while not exactly enjoyable, Antomatic by Rebecca and Eric Gordon calls attention to the plight of the bumble bee. The world is losing the bees pollinate the crops that feed us. This easy-to-miss multimedia installation prompts thought. A good addition to the sensory arcade that makes Artomatic worth multiple visits. Go.

Tiny masterpieces in Alexandria

We all stopped by the Torpedo Factory last weekend, mostly wanting to check out the Ofrenda: Art for the Dead exhibition. This was an exhibition of local artists' shrines, altars, paintings, photography, music, dancing, magic and spoken word based on the Dia de los Muertos (Day of the Dead) Mexican tradition.

In the process we also discovered some tiny masterpieces in the current exhibitions at the Art League Gallery and the always interesting Target Gallery.

At Target, and through Nov. 21st is "5 x 5 Exposed," which is an exhibition of small photographic works (in a tiny 5 x 5 inches format) by 46 artists from around the country, Iceland and Australia. The show was juried by the amazing Kathleen Ewing, considered by most of us to be one of the most influential persons on the planet when it comes to photography. She writes that:

"At a time when in some circles of the photography art world bigger is better, it is fascinating to view the remarkable range of photographs which have been produced to fit the relatively small dimension of 5 x 5 inches. The photographers in this exhibition have accepted the challenge of a limited format within which they have succeeded in expressing their personal vision. Not only did they print small; they let their imagination create small images.

I found an unanticipated diversity of subject matter in the photographs submitted for this exhibition. It was a refreshing experience to view images where size is irrelevant and content is paramount. By the very nature of their intimate scale, the visitors to this exhibition will need to get up close and personal to fully experience the creativity of these artists and the magic of the photographic process."

I agree, and it was refreshing to see the anti-thesis of Teutonic-sized photography, most of which follows the Dali maxim of "if you can't paint well, then paint big." You can view the selected photographs here.

I particularly liked Missouri's Ann Dinwiddie Madden piece titled Fishing, one of those Seinfeldian photographs about nothing that seem to capture a lot in the image.

That is until we get drawn closer and closer into the tiny image and discover the man to the right and the reason for the title.

I also liked all of California's Therese Brown's tea toned cyanotypes on fabric and the pinhole C-print as well as Florida's Joseph Mougle's purposefully and vastly overexposed series.

Even in this tiny format and in spite of the urban subject, Mougel's entries almost show like modern icons. The exaggerated contrast delivers an unexpected elevation of the subject from the mundane to some sort of unexpected sublimation of almost saint-like status.

The major surprise to me was to find five very elegant architectural photos by the DMV's own Deb Jansen, a fiber artist who now shows remarkable facility with the camera as well.

Overall, this is quite a satisfying show and well worth the trip to Old Town Alexandria. If you are a fan of the early Sally Mann, you will also like Iceland's Agnieszka Sosnowska's very strong entries. If you liked Joyce Tenneson's most recent work with dead flowers you will love North Carolina's Joel Leeb's intelligent exploration of this subject.

Ohio's Savitri Maya Sedlacek's work falls in the fan of Chan Chao's portrait work category, as Sedlacek offers a strong and powerful selection of portraits of India's Kolkota School children.

And since I've let the Washington Post's erudite chief art critic Blake Gopnik influence my words in the above couple of paragraphs, I think that Gopnik would approve of California's Sky Bergman's series on Japanese subways. They offer an intimate view of the denizens of the subway, capture their boredom, or attempts to pass the time, but always in a manner that seems to make the act of taking their photo illicit somehow. Only the lady to the right of the dude checking for reception in his cell phone seems to have caught Sky in the act.

My absolute favorite in the show? Virginia's Hugh Jones Vie de Boheme, a gorgeous nude which is illustrated by words projected onto the body. If you know my own work, then you know why I would love that tiny, sexy image with writing on the body. The unachievable and fantasized critic objectivity flies out the window with this photo; well done Hugh!

Next: Tiny successes at the Art League Gallery.

Anderson on Jensen at AOM

John Anderson from the CP focuses on Deb Jansen's installation at Artomatic; read it here.

Metamorphosis at Arlington, VA

I am a big fan of art shows in alternative art venues and you can find exceptional art and food under one roof as Arlington's Willow Restaurant hosts the Fourth Annual Metamorphosis Art Show on Sunday, September 14 from 11 a.m. to 5 p.m.

The show will feature art for sale by 25 local and regional artists of all mediums, live music by many local musicians including singer - song writer Ken Wenzel, Star F.K. Radium, and Adrianne Krygowski from the Differents. Willow chefs Tracy O’Grady and Kate Jansen will provide complimentary gourmet food to art show guests. A portion of the artists’ proceeds will benefit the Non-profit Reading Connection of Arlington's Special Project "Imagination Blooms." Admission to this event is free.

“We are delighted to host this event again because we feel it is very important to support the local arts community” said the show’s creator and Willow’s wine director Alison Christ. “Willow is a natural location for an art show because our décor and our cuisine is representative of art.”

This year’s chosen charity is the Reading Connection.

The Reading Connection is dedicated to improving the lives of at-risk children and families by helping them create and sustain literacy-rich environments and motivation for reading.