“Clown Vomit” (Part Two)

I hate asparagus.

Not the “Oh, I don’t care for asparagus! None for me, thanks!” kind of hate.

No.

I really despise asparagus.

I was at a restaurant involved in a conversation and I didn’t want the waitress to have to come back yet again for our order because she had already come to the table 3 or 4 times and our conversation was so involved. I just asked for something or other after everyone else ordered and then we continued the conversation. She asked what I would like for a “side” – I very politely told her it didn’t matter, whatever the chef chose – that would be fine. There was no animosity on her part, she knew the drill and she asked the chef to chose the side.

The dinner came out for everyone and everything was beautiful including the smile on her face when she lowered my plate in front of me. Next to the steak or whatever was a bundle of 6 or 7 hideous stalks of asparagus with bacon and butter and whatever the hell else on it. It permeated everything else on the plate. Damn.

I couldn’t send it back because I basically asked for it.

The beautiful Ms. Madonna – who is well-acquainted with my disgust for this opportunistic roadside brush, couldn’t stop laughing. The people at the table got a kick out of it as well.

It would have been hard to deftly handle the crisis if some dining companions didn’t help me out by sharing in my asparagal(?) bounty.

There really are just a few things in the world more horrid than a plate of asparagus.

Except for maybe the excrement of a bull – taurus excreta – which most of us have a passing familiarity with in our lives.

You can dress either of them up all you want – asparagus is still asparagus and taurus excreta is still, well, it’s not clown vomit.  Clown vomit is different.  Sometimes it is beautiful like the colors in an artist’s palette, and other times it appears to be a plateful of asparagus – despite what we may be told about the intrinsic value or the health benefits of asparagus – that is, despite the taurus excreta. It’s important to recognize clown vomit for what it is . . . an unintended incidental consequence stemming from another event or activity.

During my years in art school and when I began to work as an artist – I noticed in passing how objective reviews of the visual arts outside of academia appeared to become not only fewer in number – but weaker, more passive, more dilute with each passing year when compared to the examples of art criticism I saw in school.

Art criticism in college for me at Nebraska was paper after unforgiving paper. Ruthless and at times indifferent – the teacher was a washed-up museum something-or-other that insisted we focus on the four elements of art criticism: description, analysis, interpretation, and judgement. “DAIJ” (Defense Against Inane Jabs) – was my mneumonic to remember what to write in those classes to this day.

My favorite art professor in Denver was well-known throughout the university for his “Critique Day”.

Tears flowed,

chalk was thrown,

voices raised,

doors slammed.

Once I saw a drawing get pulled off the wall and thrown on the floor – one other time a composition was torn in half – the artist ignored the assignment and made a work she felt more comfortable with instead of focusing on the project at hand. This instructor and many others prepared us for the public – the viewers, the patrons, the critics.

This professor prepared artists for success and rejection. He was one of my strongest influences as well as a fantastic teacher and artist. He worked so hard to send artists out into the world and I don’t think very many people really understood what he was doing.

When I came to Iowa, art criticism was becoming more bland even in the academic environment. The concern and focus was directed toward the artist more than the work itself. The feelings of the student were paramount relative to the work being reviewed. Reviews of the work often seemed to deteriorate into reviews of the artist instead.

As an artist and a gallery owner over the last few years I see artists all the time telling me their story rather than showing me their work. Many artists bristle at critique and analysis. Consequently I see a decline in work ethic, business integrity, and productivity – but that’s not the clown vomit. The resistance to criticism is a natural consequence of a decline in the amount of art criticism in the environment. It has all but disappeared and it certainly has lost it’s punch.

Here’s the clown vomit: writing about art is still occurring, that is, the marketing and promoting for the “chosen one” or “ones” is happening, but art criticism – reviews of paintings have all but disappeared. Now it seems to be just plain old clown vomit – colorful prose that is indicative of propaganda. Advertising copy is the writing that has replaced art criticism. Nature abhors a vacuum, right? Remove art criticism and send in the clown vomit – it’s prettier and easier to sell to the readers.

There are very few art critiques written in the papers anymore relative to before the development of the internet for the average person. The reasons probably range from economic to legal to just plain inept writers and editors. While there are many excuses for the demise of critiques for the average person to read and contemplate in the printed media – the main culprit is probably economic. Art criticism certainly doesn’t bring the readers or advertising dollars by the boatload does it? To rub salt in the wounds of the art critics who are on the ropes, people that appreciate reviews and critiques of the visual arts – go online and read writers they prefer or admire or both as opposed to reading their local newspaper – leaving the few critics that do remain on the job in a very tenous position. A reader from Gardner, KS is not going to do much for advertising revenue for the Los Angeles Times.

Rather than critiquing art, some favored galleries and artists and art venues are provided with strong coverage and promotion of these select artists and the art businesses – but no real critique (description, analysis, interpretation, judgement) provided by the newspapers. The newspapers act as kingmakers and hold some artists up high as examples for their dwindling readership to admire and approve.  Copious amounts of bright, shiney clown vomit that make people go “ooh” and “ahh”.

As an artist and a business owner, I used to worry about attention and no attention from the media – especially the art critics. But then I realized, there were no critiques – there was attention and there was no attention – that was about it in a nutshell – no reviews, no critiques. I used to simply ignore the lack of attention from the kingmakers in the papers – the conventional wisdom was to not make waves. Just keep quiet and ignore being ignored. Many people offered advice such as: take the writer(s) out to lunch, talk to them and encourage them to understand your generosity as an artist and and businessman.

I don’t think so.

Instead I chose to ignore the clown vomit and hope against all hope that the writers would do their job and critique art for the readers for several years.

Great strategy, lousy results.

More clown vomit began to pile up higher in the last year or so as more propaganda came out of the media outlets. One writer grabbing a camera and running down to an art show to photograph and interview artists at the show two days after he was chastised for not reviewing art, but simply regurgitating press releases. Was he critiquing art or simply documenting his own activity? Taurus excreta or clown vomit? We’ll never really know on that one.

Even more disheartening – another writer who knows so much better but tried anyway to compare an above-average-locally-known-interior-design-painter with a world class, first class, high class Olympic athlete! It was an embarrassingly lame attempt to equate the artist and the gallery that represents him with the phenomonal success and work ethic of a local athlete who clawed and is literally running  her way through her career with all it’s ups and downs (and with all of us watching in admiration for the way she handles victory and defeat – with class and dignity whether the camera is on or not).  Lousy art review, lousy comparison, lousy treatment of an incredible athlete – but it was outstanding clown vomit (aka fantastic promotion of the gallery and the artist – all during the week of a major art festival weekend that was coinciding with a major track and field event). You can’t make this stuff up!

Another writer who claims to be a critic, but instead is promoting (once again) four very good, but not great artists – to be the coolest thing since the Beatles in his writing. Complete with titles like Artist of the Decade. It’s no wonder so many people preface their discussion of art with “I don’t know much about art, but . . .” It’s because they are not learning anything about art from art critics – they are being spoon-fed you-know-what, from guess-who. Bold-faced, clown-vomit splattered propaganda – no description, no analysis, no interpretation – just advertising copy.

Plain old clown vomit – it’s not a lie or an embellishment – clown vomit is actually a side product. It’s an indication of something else being made. The clown vomit observed in my palette – a creation that parallels the compositions the paint produces. The pizza – an abstract mixed media work painting on a platter. Clown vomit can present the illusion of something beautiful and colorful like the palette in the studio or the pizza resting on the make table, or it can be indicative of something regurgitated like a worthless review by a critic, crooked expectations of corrupt policeman or the newspaper writer always looking for the free lunch, or even the senseless advertising copy produced by the art reviewers turned propagandists. It’s different from taurus excreta, it’s not a lie or a story – clown vomit is an indicator of a truth – there was a palette, there was a pizza, there was a critic, there was a policeman, and there people who write about art who are not reviewing art either because they are incompetent or for more sinister reasons.

Here’s the good news:

No longer do artists, galleries, and art shows need to cater to the free lunch needs of a propagandist. Ignoring being ignored is no longer the only option available to the art businesses in any newspaper’s circulation that are used to be treated like red-headed stepchildren. Art patrons, fans, and artists themselves are craving some independent thought in the review of work being created in studios and artist-run businesses. They are getting it too, but it’s not at most of the papers.

Many newspapers have made art criticism irrelevant and consequently they marooned their propagandists without validation as well. Can’t blame them, they have a business to run. The kingmakers and propagandists are no longer needed by the artists or the galleries or the art groups or really by any institution seeking a fair review of art by a knowledgable, reputable, open-minded critic focused on providing an intelligent art review. The people that need propagandists will use them as they always have, but now there are options and the old rules no longer apply for artists, galleries, co-ops, critique groups, patrons, and critics.

Many artists, gallery owners, co-op’s and so forth are by-passing the old art critic route like a bad artery and communicating with their patrons and artists directly via writing on websites, blogs, and forums. The old propagandists are quickly becoming irrelevant in light of new tools and methods available for the common man with a keyboard and a password. Discussion of art is coming to the ranks of the unwashed masses – where it started thousands of years ago and where it belongs.

Look at art the next time you are in (or near) a gallery or a museum or a show or an artist’s studio, or a park or a zoo, etc. Look at the art, not the artist. Describe the art to yourself or to each other. Analyze it. Try to interpret what it means – and then make your own subjective judgement about the work.

Above all, don’t wait for a supposed art writer to review art for you. Right now – right after reading this article – you know more than most of them. Nonetheless, if you insist on learning more – to begin with,  there is a very interesting and compelling article by an art critic named Jonathan Jones in the UK. It’s about a year or so old, very provocative and timely, but above all – insightful. I plan to read up on his other articles as time allows me.  Please take time to read some of his work: http://www.guardian.co.uk/artanddesign/jonathanjonesblog/2009/apr/24/art-criticism We need more critics like Mr. Jones.

It’s a great time to be involved in the visual arts.

Don’t let the clown vomit distract you, smile at it – but recognize it for what it is.

And always ask the waitress for exactly what you want.
F8VAURD659V6