I refuse to make a promise about cranking out these blog entries, when you and I both know that I will inevitably get distracted by an idea and spend months in the studio following where the inspiration leads me. It is not that I do not want to write these blog entries, it is just that the studio work tends to be more exciting. That said, I do have at least three short posts I can share. We will just have to see where this goes after this first one.
My meditations lately have been about the nature of art and creativity. This is in part due to a couple of discussion groups I have attended, some lectures my wife was wise enough to drag me to and some reading I have done on the nature of intellect as it pertains to art.
So, I began wondering what really makes someone an artist, and what makes their work art. Some say, like Warhol, it is anything you call art or "can get away with." If you say you are an artist you are. That doesn't really define it for me, so I asked these questions.
Is art simply technical mastery and the ability to faithfully render an image of a subject?
If that were the case you would have to call a camera or a photocopier an artist. These are fine artistic tools but do not guarantee the creation of art.
Is art the concept or thought process that someone conceives?
Unfortunately the expression of concept is done much too often in the name of art, but totally devoid of aesthetic merit.
Is art innovation or invention of new and different methods and techniques?
Although this lends interest and novelty to artwork, the argument could be made that many of the grandmasters merely followed long traditions when completing their masterworks.
Perhaps art is all and none of these things. I humbly submit that at the most basic level, art and true creativity is the ability to impart life (truth, beauty and goodness) into image, form, thing, etc. Without this element the work is merely craft and the production of soulless objects.
Monday, July 12, 2010
Monday, April 26, 2010
Regenerate, Renew & Restore
As I was going through my inventory of flat files, I came across a monotype whose divider sheet was missing. The seeming tragedy of this careless mistake was that the medium had adhered to the back of its neighboring monotype. I removed the piece as tenderly as possible, but heard the sickening tear of paper as part of the paint remained on the back of the other monotype and pulled away a thin layer of paper with it. I felt my temper flare as I turned the piece over and saw three white fibrous craters where paint had been.
To calm myself I returned to the chair I draw in and picked up where I had left off earlier. I had been exploring a design element I had seen employed by the master chef and autodidact Hiroyuki Doi. Hiroyuki had begun his drawings 20 years ago to help him deal with the death of his younger brother. Although my drawing was nowhere near the magnitude of Hiroyuki Doi's work, the repetitive drawing of circles was soothing and pleasing to the eye. Once I had returned to a calm state of mind, I picked up the ruined monotype again. The answer was now clear. I began to employ this design element in the void left by the missing paint and then continued it in the white space across the entire monotype.
This crystallized a notion I had been meditating on all week. As I mentioned last time I have been asked to act as director and host for a new exhibit using art to raise awareness about environmental issues. Certainly not a new idea, but one I believe in. I had begun with the concept of "Limitations," but immediately ran into the same territory everyone else crosses in exhibits like this. "Do you limit the entries to only environmentally safe materials? Do all the supports have to come out of a recycle bin to qualify?" I also played with the notion that the theme should be "Regenerated Art." This would have required the entrants to provide an original artwork (or print of the original) next to the piece that had been reconstructed from parts of the original. But, one thought prevailed as I sought different ways I might interest a wide range of artists in a project like this. The resource we must consider sustaining above all others is the artists themselves.
Last weekend I was honored to be invited back to the Affinity artists meeting at The Haley-Henman Gallery in Dallas. While others were getting coffee and water, I was waiting for the meeting to start near the front of the building. At that moment a young man came through the door, who at first I thought might have made a mistake about the address. The assumption was a natural mistake on my part. It was an art gallery and the meeting was for artists and this young man was being assisted by his guide dog. However the young man was much more at home than I was. He found a seat where both he and his guide were most comfortable and when I finally did enter the meeting room, he greeted me most cordially. I cannot say enough nice things about this writer and artist who introduced himself as John Bramblitt. I found him to be very engaging, gentle and generous. After the meeting, I hurried home to look up his work online, since his exhibit has not officially started at Haley-Henman. I think if you follow the links I have provided to John's website you will be as impressed as I was. Whether John Bramblitt is sighted or not this is beautiful work you really have to see to appreciate, although ironically John does not. However, the take away that makes this relevant to our topic is a statement that John made in his video. Basically as anyone would, John had a lot of anger over losing his sight. It was in the act of creating art that he was able to come to terms with and dissipate that anger. So, here is one more example of art sustaining and nourishing the artist.
I was also privileged to attend the PCPC kickoff for their yearly art festival this week. The speaker was the juror from last year, Makoto Fujimura. If you are not familiar, Fujimura's accomplishments are numerous, including being a writer and master of Nihonga painting (the traditional Japanese art form which he has fused quite successfully with his own abstract expressionist style,) being appointed to the National Council on the Arts in 2003, winning the Chairman's Medal for contributions to art advocacy, founding the International Arts Movement (IAM), and most notably being commissioned to illuminate the 400th Anniversary edition of The King James Bible.
At first I was a little taken back with Fujimura's statement about using the best of materials possible, especially in light of my own recent struggles with trying to find ways to limit use of non-renewable materials. Here is a man who uses gold, platinum, azurite, malachite and other semi-precious stones and minerals in his Nihonga paintings. I almost found it impossible to reconcile that fact with his gentle words of hope for the arts community, recognition that most artists are marginalized and the idea I have long believed, that all men are creators painting with the fabric of their lives. It was only after I had time to read some of the blog entries Makoto calls Refractions that I realized how much he had struggled with that very issue, but had resolved the inner debate with the knowledge that his art (as well as all art) is meant to reveal those mysteries of the divine, speak peace and harmony into a world that brought destruction so close to his New York home near ground zero, and encourage creativity by sustaining artists. Much of Makoto's work and ministry has been to the arts community in New York where he strives to help artists "restore their humanity."
So, here's a novel idea for a sustainability awareness exhibit. I would like to see submissions of how art sustains you, the artist. I am interested in works that convey a sense of peace, harmony, truth, joy, beauty and goodness. Personally, I believe these are the ideals that comfort and strengthen our souls. These notions restore us, renew us and regenerate us as humans, and in doing so, encourage us to be better stewards of our home. These themes and the artists who present them should be what we endeavor to sustain.
To calm myself I returned to the chair I draw in and picked up where I had left off earlier. I had been exploring a design element I had seen employed by the master chef and autodidact Hiroyuki Doi. Hiroyuki had begun his drawings 20 years ago to help him deal with the death of his younger brother. Although my drawing was nowhere near the magnitude of Hiroyuki Doi's work, the repetitive drawing of circles was soothing and pleasing to the eye. Once I had returned to a calm state of mind, I picked up the ruined monotype again. The answer was now clear. I began to employ this design element in the void left by the missing paint and then continued it in the white space across the entire monotype.
This crystallized a notion I had been meditating on all week. As I mentioned last time I have been asked to act as director and host for a new exhibit using art to raise awareness about environmental issues. Certainly not a new idea, but one I believe in. I had begun with the concept of "Limitations," but immediately ran into the same territory everyone else crosses in exhibits like this. "Do you limit the entries to only environmentally safe materials? Do all the supports have to come out of a recycle bin to qualify?" I also played with the notion that the theme should be "Regenerated Art." This would have required the entrants to provide an original artwork (or print of the original) next to the piece that had been reconstructed from parts of the original. But, one thought prevailed as I sought different ways I might interest a wide range of artists in a project like this. The resource we must consider sustaining above all others is the artists themselves.
Last weekend I was honored to be invited back to the Affinity artists meeting at The Haley-Henman Gallery in Dallas. While others were getting coffee and water, I was waiting for the meeting to start near the front of the building. At that moment a young man came through the door, who at first I thought might have made a mistake about the address. The assumption was a natural mistake on my part. It was an art gallery and the meeting was for artists and this young man was being assisted by his guide dog. However the young man was much more at home than I was. He found a seat where both he and his guide were most comfortable and when I finally did enter the meeting room, he greeted me most cordially. I cannot say enough nice things about this writer and artist who introduced himself as John Bramblitt. I found him to be very engaging, gentle and generous. After the meeting, I hurried home to look up his work online, since his exhibit has not officially started at Haley-Henman. I think if you follow the links I have provided to John's website you will be as impressed as I was. Whether John Bramblitt is sighted or not this is beautiful work you really have to see to appreciate, although ironically John does not. However, the take away that makes this relevant to our topic is a statement that John made in his video. Basically as anyone would, John had a lot of anger over losing his sight. It was in the act of creating art that he was able to come to terms with and dissipate that anger. So, here is one more example of art sustaining and nourishing the artist.
I was also privileged to attend the PCPC kickoff for their yearly art festival this week. The speaker was the juror from last year, Makoto Fujimura. If you are not familiar, Fujimura's accomplishments are numerous, including being a writer and master of Nihonga painting (the traditional Japanese art form which he has fused quite successfully with his own abstract expressionist style,) being appointed to the National Council on the Arts in 2003, winning the Chairman's Medal for contributions to art advocacy, founding the International Arts Movement (IAM), and most notably being commissioned to illuminate the 400th Anniversary edition of The King James Bible.
At first I was a little taken back with Fujimura's statement about using the best of materials possible, especially in light of my own recent struggles with trying to find ways to limit use of non-renewable materials. Here is a man who uses gold, platinum, azurite, malachite and other semi-precious stones and minerals in his Nihonga paintings. I almost found it impossible to reconcile that fact with his gentle words of hope for the arts community, recognition that most artists are marginalized and the idea I have long believed, that all men are creators painting with the fabric of their lives. It was only after I had time to read some of the blog entries Makoto calls Refractions that I realized how much he had struggled with that very issue, but had resolved the inner debate with the knowledge that his art (as well as all art) is meant to reveal those mysteries of the divine, speak peace and harmony into a world that brought destruction so close to his New York home near ground zero, and encourage creativity by sustaining artists. Much of Makoto's work and ministry has been to the arts community in New York where he strives to help artists "restore their humanity."
So, here's a novel idea for a sustainability awareness exhibit. I would like to see submissions of how art sustains you, the artist. I am interested in works that convey a sense of peace, harmony, truth, joy, beauty and goodness. Personally, I believe these are the ideals that comfort and strengthen our souls. These notions restore us, renew us and regenerate us as humans, and in doing so, encourage us to be better stewards of our home. These themes and the artists who present them should be what we endeavor to sustain.
Sunday, April 11, 2010
Limitations and Lounge Acts
The experts say that as a marketing tool the enterprising artists should blog at least every week, if not every other day. That just proves either how terrible I am at blogging or how busy I have been. Consider the later and disregard the former.
Since last I posted I have been running a pop-up gallery at 2501 Parkview Dr in Fort Worth under the name ARTworks DFW. Pop-up is the term art marketers and hip artists use for a temporary space for exhibition negotiated with the realtor in exchange for beautifying their space and making it more appealing. Some of the artists whose work I have the pleasure of showing along side mine include Robert Berry, James Haddock, Anita McConnell, Michael D. Smith, Eddie Phillips, Linda Little, Sheri Jones, Danny Owens, Nancy Dekolb, and Sleepy Gomez. The property owners liked what I did with space so much that they have purchased several of my pieces, and have improved the space to my specifications while expanding the area in which we can exhibit. So, if the space has not rented, look for a call for additional artists from me shortly.
I managed to squeeze in a couple of lectures at The Modern, most notably Liam Gillick. Gillick, a minimalist, writer, sculptor, artist, composed a public art project (one of his many) in Japan with uncomfortable seats and a joke about God limiting Himself to the idiosyncrasies of a popular director. The joke actually works better with God and a famous golfer. (Write or call. I will tell you both versions and you can decide for yourself.)
I have also attended an Affinity meeting at the Haley-Henman Gallery in Dallas. Dr. John Marcucci, the director of the gallery, honored me with his invitation to this meeting at which all the other artists attending had exhibited in that gallery. The speaker at this particular gathering was David Rodriguez (LEED accredited professional and Former Chairman of the board of Directors for the North Texas US Green Building Council.) Dave spoke about his own paradigm shift and considering limitations as a response to the challenges of preserving our planet. He also inspired me to check the VOC (volatile organic compound) numbers associated with the paints I use.
So, there is all this talk about the challenge of limiting ourselves in the creation process, and vast amounts of discussion on creating an exhibit to raise awareness. Now, God is not a minimalist, and since I am trying to be more like Him than Liam Gillick, I am not a minimalist either. However, I know that God does limit Himself in dealing with us, so I suppose that is why I have come up with a new project and a proposal for an exhibit. Instead of limiting the material that artists use, which only stifles creativity, I propose that each artist interested in participating take one of their pieces already created and regenerated it into something else. I do not mean to chop up one of your paintings and use the pieces, although I did something like this. The original image can also be manipulated digitally into something fresh (something else I frequently do.) The bottom line is that we limit the use of new materials by repurposing artwork.
The new project I have undertaken to accomplish this exact concept is something I call "Underworks." I have found several photo prints of digital collages I have made, sliced them into strips and folded those. I will give you a sneak peek at what I mean.
Since last I posted I have been running a pop-up gallery at 2501 Parkview Dr in Fort Worth under the name ARTworks DFW. Pop-up is the term art marketers and hip artists use for a temporary space for exhibition negotiated with the realtor in exchange for beautifying their space and making it more appealing. Some of the artists whose work I have the pleasure of showing along side mine include Robert Berry, James Haddock, Anita McConnell, Michael D. Smith, Eddie Phillips, Linda Little, Sheri Jones, Danny Owens, Nancy Dekolb, and Sleepy Gomez. The property owners liked what I did with space so much that they have purchased several of my pieces, and have improved the space to my specifications while expanding the area in which we can exhibit. So, if the space has not rented, look for a call for additional artists from me shortly.
I managed to squeeze in a couple of lectures at The Modern, most notably Liam Gillick. Gillick, a minimalist, writer, sculptor, artist, composed a public art project (one of his many) in Japan with uncomfortable seats and a joke about God limiting Himself to the idiosyncrasies of a popular director. The joke actually works better with God and a famous golfer. (Write or call. I will tell you both versions and you can decide for yourself.)
I have also attended an Affinity meeting at the Haley-Henman Gallery in Dallas. Dr. John Marcucci, the director of the gallery, honored me with his invitation to this meeting at which all the other artists attending had exhibited in that gallery. The speaker at this particular gathering was David Rodriguez (LEED accredited professional and Former Chairman of the board of Directors for the North Texas US Green Building Council.) Dave spoke about his own paradigm shift and considering limitations as a response to the challenges of preserving our planet. He also inspired me to check the VOC (volatile organic compound) numbers associated with the paints I use.
So, there is all this talk about the challenge of limiting ourselves in the creation process, and vast amounts of discussion on creating an exhibit to raise awareness. Now, God is not a minimalist, and since I am trying to be more like Him than Liam Gillick, I am not a minimalist either. However, I know that God does limit Himself in dealing with us, so I suppose that is why I have come up with a new project and a proposal for an exhibit. Instead of limiting the material that artists use, which only stifles creativity, I propose that each artist interested in participating take one of their pieces already created and regenerated it into something else. I do not mean to chop up one of your paintings and use the pieces, although I did something like this. The original image can also be manipulated digitally into something fresh (something else I frequently do.) The bottom line is that we limit the use of new materials by repurposing artwork.
The new project I have undertaken to accomplish this exact concept is something I call "Underworks." I have found several photo prints of digital collages I have made, sliced them into strips and folded those. I will give you a sneak peek at what I mean.
In addition to everything else I have been working on a non-fiction work concerning the limitations (there is that word again) on creativity imposed by the artist or by other external authorities such as culture, religion, economy etc. Since most of my material is derived from my own experience I have decided to title it (get ready for this biblically inspired doozie) First & Second Kenneth.
Keeping with the Bible motif, I considered the fifth book of the New Testament which we all know as Acts, short for The Acts of The Apostles. In my own case I do more lounging than acting so as I tried to fit that notion into my new book it turned into The Lounge Acts of The Apostles. In the performance piece, Paul would be played by Paul Anka singing "Having My Savior...what totally immaculate way to say you love me."
The standup routine would include the topics of environment. Peter would be talking about how despite the oil situation cars get bigger and bigger. The Hummer, Hummer II, III, the Hummer limo as big as a city block, and the new Hummer Condo. It's six stories, seven counting the wheels and tires with a racquetball court and a laundry room. On the other end of the spectrum, Ford announced its new Mini-Nan. That is not a van. With the help of nano-technology, Ford has developed a totally functional vehicle smaller than the head of a pin. Of course, it has no real market potential, but was commissioned by the Vatican since it can seat six angels comfortably.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Just Clothes?
It seems most appropriate that after almost a month since last posting that I should start out this new year with a post about some other artist beside myself. Don't worry, I'll be back to me before we're finished here.
I was impressed by an article I recently read in the January 2010 issue of ARTnews.
Barbara Pollack wrote about Baltimore artist Shinique Smith whose work includes calligraphy based paintings incorporating second-hand clothing and sculptures which also use clothing as the primary material. Ms. Smith, a once-upon-a-time graffiti artist, pursued a formal art education at the Maryland Institute College of Art, where in addition to calligraphy, she studied anatomy and assemblage then became involved in creating performance pieces and videos. The artwork is exquisite and the article is very complimentary (I don't think I've seen ARTnews articles that aren't complimentary. It must be a rule not to review work you don't like.) This review addresses the materials and the influences on Smith's work and peers into the connections of clothing to each of us and the rest of the world. Perhaps, that is all that needs to be said. Good article. Great artwork. And yet, there seems to be a more visceral, raw and emotional story that goes untold.
This is where I inject myself into the topic and make this all about me again. Told you not to worry.
Most of my work (as well as the work of every other thinking artist I've ever met) depends on vision and perception. Personally, that vision keys on the whole left brain / right brain question, on the order of seeing specific shapes and figures in a bank of clouds or in the patterns running through a slab of marble. When I first started creating abstract paintings, my inclination was to finish a piece by painting darker lines on the images within the image to bring them forward so everyone else could see them as well. I have often pondered the possibility that my subconscious guides my hand to create these images for my meditative mind to find upon nearing the completion of the work.
Likewise, as I view Shinique Smith's work the same thought occurs. When I look at "Twilight's Compendium," her installation piece in multiple blues in both paint and clothing created for the EMBRACE exhibit at the Denver Art Museum, I see the strong profile of a black male built into the central core of the piece which hangs from the ceiling. The lines of the face etched out in the way she has tied the bundle of clothing together could be the victim of a lynching. Of course, this may not be some subconscious rage over injustice gone unpunished. It may simply be what I see in the beautifully executed sculpture/painting. It could just as easily be an angel.
I was impressed by an article I recently read in the January 2010 issue of ARTnews.
Barbara Pollack wrote about Baltimore artist Shinique Smith whose work includes calligraphy based paintings incorporating second-hand clothing and sculptures which also use clothing as the primary material. Ms. Smith, a once-upon-a-time graffiti artist, pursued a formal art education at the Maryland Institute College of Art, where in addition to calligraphy, she studied anatomy and assemblage then became involved in creating performance pieces and videos. The artwork is exquisite and the article is very complimentary (I don't think I've seen ARTnews articles that aren't complimentary. It must be a rule not to review work you don't like.) This review addresses the materials and the influences on Smith's work and peers into the connections of clothing to each of us and the rest of the world. Perhaps, that is all that needs to be said. Good article. Great artwork. And yet, there seems to be a more visceral, raw and emotional story that goes untold.
This is where I inject myself into the topic and make this all about me again. Told you not to worry.
Most of my work (as well as the work of every other thinking artist I've ever met) depends on vision and perception. Personally, that vision keys on the whole left brain / right brain question, on the order of seeing specific shapes and figures in a bank of clouds or in the patterns running through a slab of marble. When I first started creating abstract paintings, my inclination was to finish a piece by painting darker lines on the images within the image to bring them forward so everyone else could see them as well. I have often pondered the possibility that my subconscious guides my hand to create these images for my meditative mind to find upon nearing the completion of the work.
Likewise, as I view Shinique Smith's work the same thought occurs. When I look at "Twilight's Compendium," her installation piece in multiple blues in both paint and clothing created for the EMBRACE exhibit at the Denver Art Museum, I see the strong profile of a black male built into the central core of the piece which hangs from the ceiling. The lines of the face etched out in the way she has tied the bundle of clothing together could be the victim of a lynching. Of course, this may not be some subconscious rage over injustice gone unpunished. It may simply be what I see in the beautifully executed sculpture/painting. It could just as easily be an angel.
Sunday, October 25, 2009
No Art For Rush
Recently the National Football League determined that Rush Limbaugh would not advance to the next round of bids to be considered as the owner of the Saint Louis Rams. The League cited that Mr. Limbaugh while obviously wealthy enough to make the purchase would pose too great a distraction to the league's efforts to maintain its image.
Of course, Rush immediately tried to make this snub into an issue about his conservative stance and the overall liberal leanings of the league, it's owners and players. I thought about this and decided that even with all the NFL players
(and coaches) that have been arrested for DUI, drug and weapons charges, I have to agree with the league. Limbaugh is way more distracting and presents a much less desirable image to those that might someday want to be affiliated with football.
I continued this thought into the arena of art, because that is where I work and play. Should Rush Limbaugh be allowed to buy art, in particular my art? One must be mindful that there are a couple of preliminary questions to hurdle in order to even get that main query. The first ,naturally, is would Limbaugh know art if he saw it? This is of course a rhetorical question, because we all know that Rush has been exposed to the wonder and beauty of all the best the world has to offer, and is barely able to manage an extremely narrow view of life, other people or God's majestic creation. So, no to the first question. Secondly, can he grasp abstract concepts and be inspired and motivated by them? Well seeing that he has navigated the competitive world of Talk Radio and survived, this should be a given. He's learned how to manipulate plain truths into twisted macabre shadows of reality. So, even though he stumbled on it by accident, yes to the second. The third is about me. Given the state of the economy which Rush and other conservatives fostered, would I refuse to sell if he made an offer? The paintings are my creations, children of my soul if not my body. If I were to allow someone to adopt one of my children, I would want that child to go into a loving nurturing environment where they would be celebrated and accepted for who they are. I would not send any child, much less one of my own into a place where they would be ridiculed or mistreated. So, yes to the third, I could refuse sale regardless of my financial situation. Final answer. No art for Rush. Not from me, anyway. He can apply at the starving artist sale (see my blog archive).
Now there are a few other celebrity types that I applied this same question to, and here are the results.
No art for former vice president Dick Cheney. My concerns ranged from him shooting the artwork with his wayward shotgun to the possibility that if he bought one of my oil paintings he would find a way to start a war to artificially raise the price of oil and oil paintings.
I would be willing to sell art to former president George W. Bush, but only if he agreed to pay eight times the market value to compensate for eight years of tanking our economy and giving all Americans (and Texans) a bad name.
My ability to create artwork is a gift from Almighty God, creator of the universe. Ricky Gervais or Richard Dawkins do not believe in God; any god except for themselves. So no art for either of them. I don't feel like I am being too cruel on this point, because they probably wouldn't be able to see the artwork even if it was right in front of them.
The list could go on and on in this vein, but I will wrap it up with one last example. Louisiana justice of the peace, Keith Bardwell, refuses to marry biracial couples on the grounds that "neither black or white society accepts children born in such marriages." Well, no art for you, Keith. Instead, I will be holding the artwork you might have purchased for President Barack Obama, who not only appreciates contemporary art, but oddly enough is biracial himself and seemed to be accepted by both black and white society when he won his last election. Something we hope you, Keith, won't be able to accomplish.
If you would like to see if you qualify to purchase my art, you can apply through my email, ken@otoolestudio.com. Here's wishing you good fortune on your application.
Of course, Rush immediately tried to make this snub into an issue about his conservative stance and the overall liberal leanings of the league, it's owners and players. I thought about this and decided that even with all the NFL players
(and coaches) that have been arrested for DUI, drug and weapons charges, I have to agree with the league. Limbaugh is way more distracting and presents a much less desirable image to those that might someday want to be affiliated with football.
I continued this thought into the arena of art, because that is where I work and play. Should Rush Limbaugh be allowed to buy art, in particular my art? One must be mindful that there are a couple of preliminary questions to hurdle in order to even get that main query. The first ,naturally, is would Limbaugh know art if he saw it? This is of course a rhetorical question, because we all know that Rush has been exposed to the wonder and beauty of all the best the world has to offer, and is barely able to manage an extremely narrow view of life, other people or God's majestic creation. So, no to the first question. Secondly, can he grasp abstract concepts and be inspired and motivated by them? Well seeing that he has navigated the competitive world of Talk Radio and survived, this should be a given. He's learned how to manipulate plain truths into twisted macabre shadows of reality. So, even though he stumbled on it by accident, yes to the second. The third is about me. Given the state of the economy which Rush and other conservatives fostered, would I refuse to sell if he made an offer? The paintings are my creations, children of my soul if not my body. If I were to allow someone to adopt one of my children, I would want that child to go into a loving nurturing environment where they would be celebrated and accepted for who they are. I would not send any child, much less one of my own into a place where they would be ridiculed or mistreated. So, yes to the third, I could refuse sale regardless of my financial situation. Final answer. No art for Rush. Not from me, anyway. He can apply at the starving artist sale (see my blog archive).
Now there are a few other celebrity types that I applied this same question to, and here are the results.
No art for former vice president Dick Cheney. My concerns ranged from him shooting the artwork with his wayward shotgun to the possibility that if he bought one of my oil paintings he would find a way to start a war to artificially raise the price of oil and oil paintings.
I would be willing to sell art to former president George W. Bush, but only if he agreed to pay eight times the market value to compensate for eight years of tanking our economy and giving all Americans (and Texans) a bad name.
My ability to create artwork is a gift from Almighty God, creator of the universe. Ricky Gervais or Richard Dawkins do not believe in God; any god except for themselves. So no art for either of them. I don't feel like I am being too cruel on this point, because they probably wouldn't be able to see the artwork even if it was right in front of them.
The list could go on and on in this vein, but I will wrap it up with one last example. Louisiana justice of the peace, Keith Bardwell, refuses to marry biracial couples on the grounds that "neither black or white society accepts children born in such marriages." Well, no art for you, Keith. Instead, I will be holding the artwork you might have purchased for President Barack Obama, who not only appreciates contemporary art, but oddly enough is biracial himself and seemed to be accepted by both black and white society when he won his last election. Something we hope you, Keith, won't be able to accomplish.
If you would like to see if you qualify to purchase my art, you can apply through my email, ken@otoolestudio.com. Here's wishing you good fortune on your application.
Monday, August 10, 2009
Starving The Artists
It has been a short while since one of these groups has graced the Dallas/Fort Worth area, so brace yourselves for their next media onslaught. I’m referring to the charlatans that call themselves the “Starving Artists”. You’ve probably seen their commercials advertising the event at a hotel in your area. The ad promises a great selection of hand-painted canvases at amazingly low prices. This is actually a deception in more ways than one.
First, you will not find anything in their stacks of canvases other than prints. Granted some of these have been “embellished” by hand with small strategically placed dabs of paint. Still, these are all still technically mass-produced prints.
Secondly, the only starving artists involved are either the poor artists that produced the original painting and sold their image along with their rights to some publishing house, or an aspiring student artist hired at below minimum wage to daub those dabs onto prints.
The damage these merchants do to artists and subsequently to our culture is a devaluation of art and the artist. Their tactics deceive the public into thinking that art should be cheap and that artists should be poor. The only good thing coming from this is that people with a love for art but no budget for art can obtain some art. That is certainly understandable given the current state of the economy. But, I must add that saving your pennies for one genuine original piece of art is much more rewarding than filling your walls with cheap knock-offs.
Artists deserve to make as good a living as anyone else. They are the teachers, guides, and prophets of our culture. Their expressions should be honored.
It is true. A genuine artist will produce fine art regardless of whether he or she ever sees a dime for their efforts, and sadly many do starve or otherwise suffer for this passion. That does not excuse those who perpetuate a cut-rate mentality towards art by making a commodity of their beautiful work.
If you would indeed like to acquire exquisite artwork, but not pay what some galleries feel they must charge, I would like to suggest a couple of alternatives to putting money into the pockets of yet another faceless corporation instead of actually feeding the artists.
Many new and emerging artists find opportunities to exhibit their work as well as draw support (if you will forgive the play on words) from their community art center. These exhibits are generally open to the public and well publicized in your local media. These exhibits not only provide the artists much needed exposure, but also afford the public the chance to meet and get to know the artists. This is a very real and meaningful way to grow in understanding and appreciation for the art, and generally speaking since these artist are in the early stages of their careers the prices for their work is much more affordable. However, if it does not sink to the level of starving the artist, keep in mind that these will tend to be original paintings as opposed to mass produced prints.
Another alternative way to purchase original artwork at reasonable prices is to become acquainted with local charity functions. Many local charities put on art auctions as fund raisers for their causes. These charities often call upon artists to donate their work for these auctions. Artists generally donate their work because they believe in the cause, they are usually very generous, and because it is a way to share their work with the world. However, this is yet another way to starve the artist. The artist gets no remuneration for their valuable work, despite the excellent value afforded to the buyer and the benefit to the charity. The artist, under current tax code, cannot even write off the donation for its full value, but must only cite material costs as a deduction. Consequently, many artists get to a point where they can simply not afford to donate to a charity regardless of how much they believe in the cause.
The solution that I would like to propose to charities, artists and art collectors alike is a collaboration for whatever the cause might be. Charities should be willing to host exhibits where artist are invited to showcase their work, but also share in the revenue. The events could still be held as an auction with the individual artists setting a minimum limit on their work.
If you really love art, or maybe even an artist the next time you receive notice of a charity art auction, contact the chairperson and ask, "What are you doing for the artists involved?" Then if the answer sounds like someone has forgotten to feed the artist, make a suggestion similar to the one above. Remind them that no one wants to starve.
Ken O'Toole is a abstract expressionist painter working in the Dallas Fort Worth area.
First, you will not find anything in their stacks of canvases other than prints. Granted some of these have been “embellished” by hand with small strategically placed dabs of paint. Still, these are all still technically mass-produced prints.
Secondly, the only starving artists involved are either the poor artists that produced the original painting and sold their image along with their rights to some publishing house, or an aspiring student artist hired at below minimum wage to daub those dabs onto prints.
The damage these merchants do to artists and subsequently to our culture is a devaluation of art and the artist. Their tactics deceive the public into thinking that art should be cheap and that artists should be poor. The only good thing coming from this is that people with a love for art but no budget for art can obtain some art. That is certainly understandable given the current state of the economy. But, I must add that saving your pennies for one genuine original piece of art is much more rewarding than filling your walls with cheap knock-offs.
Artists deserve to make as good a living as anyone else. They are the teachers, guides, and prophets of our culture. Their expressions should be honored.
It is true. A genuine artist will produce fine art regardless of whether he or she ever sees a dime for their efforts, and sadly many do starve or otherwise suffer for this passion. That does not excuse those who perpetuate a cut-rate mentality towards art by making a commodity of their beautiful work.
If you would indeed like to acquire exquisite artwork, but not pay what some galleries feel they must charge, I would like to suggest a couple of alternatives to putting money into the pockets of yet another faceless corporation instead of actually feeding the artists.
Many new and emerging artists find opportunities to exhibit their work as well as draw support (if you will forgive the play on words) from their community art center. These exhibits are generally open to the public and well publicized in your local media. These exhibits not only provide the artists much needed exposure, but also afford the public the chance to meet and get to know the artists. This is a very real and meaningful way to grow in understanding and appreciation for the art, and generally speaking since these artist are in the early stages of their careers the prices for their work is much more affordable. However, if it does not sink to the level of starving the artist, keep in mind that these will tend to be original paintings as opposed to mass produced prints.
Another alternative way to purchase original artwork at reasonable prices is to become acquainted with local charity functions. Many local charities put on art auctions as fund raisers for their causes. These charities often call upon artists to donate their work for these auctions. Artists generally donate their work because they believe in the cause, they are usually very generous, and because it is a way to share their work with the world. However, this is yet another way to starve the artist. The artist gets no remuneration for their valuable work, despite the excellent value afforded to the buyer and the benefit to the charity. The artist, under current tax code, cannot even write off the donation for its full value, but must only cite material costs as a deduction. Consequently, many artists get to a point where they can simply not afford to donate to a charity regardless of how much they believe in the cause.
The solution that I would like to propose to charities, artists and art collectors alike is a collaboration for whatever the cause might be. Charities should be willing to host exhibits where artist are invited to showcase their work, but also share in the revenue. The events could still be held as an auction with the individual artists setting a minimum limit on their work.
If you really love art, or maybe even an artist the next time you receive notice of a charity art auction, contact the chairperson and ask, "What are you doing for the artists involved?" Then if the answer sounds like someone has forgotten to feed the artist, make a suggestion similar to the one above. Remind them that no one wants to starve.
Ken O'Toole is a abstract expressionist painter working in the Dallas Fort Worth area.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Delivered From Delusion
Realizing that some of you might have a hard time telling when I am being serious or not, I thought it might be appropriate to place a big smiley face along side the articles that are meant for fun and entertainment.
This article, in particular, would NOT have such an emoticon present.
This subject is so important that I have wrestled with the proper way to present it for some time. I know it to be important, not merely by its nature, but by the obstacles and distractions that have been laid in my path to dissuade and delay me writing this.
I hope you will read this to the end. I know some will and some will not. Regardless of how this affects my reputation, I must make it clear for you all what I believe and why I believe it.
It would be easy to simply keep silent in a time when the most popular voices in our culture belittle and ridicule those of us with faith. I cannot keep silent. My silence would be a disservice to you, and a dishonor to the subject and author of my belief. There are those that would call me deluded and dangerous for my beliefs. I could argue that I am far from either. But, I really don't have to argue my case, because my beliefs are based on more than something I read, heard or saw. They are more than the culmination of the teachings I was exposed to throughout my life. In fact, they are in spite of a large portion of those teachings. My beliefs are based on experience and relationship.
I believe in the Bible as the Word of The Living God, who is the Creator Spirit. God created everything that exists and He spoke all of creation into existence. He created man as another speaking spirit (in His image) and gave man authority over the earth.
I believe because man chose to doubt the Word of God and His goodness, that man became broken in his relationship to the Creator who loved him. I also believe that God loved His creation despite the rejection, because He is LOVE. He and His love are so complete that He spoke from eternity into time and continued speaking to His creation until His Word found purchase and became human.
I believe that human to have been Jesus of Nazareth, who was both man as he was originally created, obedient to the will of God, and God incarnate. He sacrificed Himself as the only acceptable and perfect atonement for the broken relationship between Himself and His creation. As obedient man He died, but as man created as God intended with God's Holy Spirit within him, death could not hold Him. God raised Jesus from the grave and after bearing witness to His disciples ascended to His place in the eternal Godhead.
Because this atonement was made perfectly, any person who chooses to believe in God's Word and His goodness can enter into relationship with Him and as a token of that relationship, He imparts His spirit to live within.
I have not always been able to claim these beliefs, because for many years I misunderstood the dynamic of the relationship. I was taught that a relationship with God looked a certain way. When my relationship didn't match up to that standard I felt like I had been rejected by God, so I began to look for other answers. Answers that caused me to question God's existence, my purpose and the meaning of such a pitiful group of beings called humanity. Frankly, I was at a loss. I studied other world religions, but none made sense or resonated in my inner man like Christianity. So, was there something unforgivable in my past?
I asked, and hoped for forgiveness. God answered that question. Into my spirit He spoke these words. "I HAVE NEVER TURNED MY BACK ON YOU. I HAVE ALWAYS BEEN HERE, BECAUSE I LOVE YOU."
I have not been perfect since then, but His perfect Holy Spirit has been faithful to stay in close relationship with me. Not because of my deeds, but in spite of them, because He loves me.
I am better than I used to be. I am more creative, and my art is my prayer language. I paint to glorify God. I write to honor Him.
If you have ever longed for a relationship that will never end, all you need do is pray this prayer. "Lord Jesus, I believe that You died so that I could have a relationship with God. Please, forgive all the ways that I have missed the mark because of my unbelief and doubt. Please, come into relationship with me."
That's it. If you believe and you call on Jesus, you will be saved from a life without relationship with God.
I am sure that there are those that will never read this blog again, because of this writing. God still loves you. So, do I.
There are those that will say that I am deluded in believing as I do. Delusion according to the dictionary is a persistent false psychotic belief regarding self or something or someone outside of self, which is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary. Looking at nature and all of creation, I can honestly say that one must be deluded not to recognize the handiwork of God.
Those popular atheistic voices might scoff and say, "There is no proof of God. You cannot see Him. Man is merely a bio-mechanical organism and all these thoughts and emotions you are talking about are just so many neural-chemical reactions. Love is only a random firing of your synapses." To those, I only say that you have eyes, but you choose not to see. You have limited your vision to what is in front of you. Love is not a chemical; He is the creator. The only proof I need of God is what I already have; His spirit within me. And He wants you to know that as limited as you are, He knows no limits. That is how He loves you even though you doubt and reject Him.
Ken O'Toole is a published author and abstract expressionist artist living in the Dallas / Fort Worth area.
This article, in particular, would NOT have such an emoticon present.
This subject is so important that I have wrestled with the proper way to present it for some time. I know it to be important, not merely by its nature, but by the obstacles and distractions that have been laid in my path to dissuade and delay me writing this.
I hope you will read this to the end. I know some will and some will not. Regardless of how this affects my reputation, I must make it clear for you all what I believe and why I believe it.
It would be easy to simply keep silent in a time when the most popular voices in our culture belittle and ridicule those of us with faith. I cannot keep silent. My silence would be a disservice to you, and a dishonor to the subject and author of my belief. There are those that would call me deluded and dangerous for my beliefs. I could argue that I am far from either. But, I really don't have to argue my case, because my beliefs are based on more than something I read, heard or saw. They are more than the culmination of the teachings I was exposed to throughout my life. In fact, they are in spite of a large portion of those teachings. My beliefs are based on experience and relationship.
I believe in the Bible as the Word of The Living God, who is the Creator Spirit. God created everything that exists and He spoke all of creation into existence. He created man as another speaking spirit (in His image) and gave man authority over the earth.
I believe because man chose to doubt the Word of God and His goodness, that man became broken in his relationship to the Creator who loved him. I also believe that God loved His creation despite the rejection, because He is LOVE. He and His love are so complete that He spoke from eternity into time and continued speaking to His creation until His Word found purchase and became human.
I believe that human to have been Jesus of Nazareth, who was both man as he was originally created, obedient to the will of God, and God incarnate. He sacrificed Himself as the only acceptable and perfect atonement for the broken relationship between Himself and His creation. As obedient man He died, but as man created as God intended with God's Holy Spirit within him, death could not hold Him. God raised Jesus from the grave and after bearing witness to His disciples ascended to His place in the eternal Godhead.
Because this atonement was made perfectly, any person who chooses to believe in God's Word and His goodness can enter into relationship with Him and as a token of that relationship, He imparts His spirit to live within.
I have not always been able to claim these beliefs, because for many years I misunderstood the dynamic of the relationship. I was taught that a relationship with God looked a certain way. When my relationship didn't match up to that standard I felt like I had been rejected by God, so I began to look for other answers. Answers that caused me to question God's existence, my purpose and the meaning of such a pitiful group of beings called humanity. Frankly, I was at a loss. I studied other world religions, but none made sense or resonated in my inner man like Christianity. So, was there something unforgivable in my past?
I asked, and hoped for forgiveness. God answered that question. Into my spirit He spoke these words. "I HAVE NEVER TURNED MY BACK ON YOU. I HAVE ALWAYS BEEN HERE, BECAUSE I LOVE YOU."
I have not been perfect since then, but His perfect Holy Spirit has been faithful to stay in close relationship with me. Not because of my deeds, but in spite of them, because He loves me.
I am better than I used to be. I am more creative, and my art is my prayer language. I paint to glorify God. I write to honor Him.
If you have ever longed for a relationship that will never end, all you need do is pray this prayer. "Lord Jesus, I believe that You died so that I could have a relationship with God. Please, forgive all the ways that I have missed the mark because of my unbelief and doubt. Please, come into relationship with me."
That's it. If you believe and you call on Jesus, you will be saved from a life without relationship with God.
I am sure that there are those that will never read this blog again, because of this writing. God still loves you. So, do I.
There are those that will say that I am deluded in believing as I do. Delusion according to the dictionary is a persistent false psychotic belief regarding self or something or someone outside of self, which is maintained despite indisputable evidence to the contrary. Looking at nature and all of creation, I can honestly say that one must be deluded not to recognize the handiwork of God.
Those popular atheistic voices might scoff and say, "There is no proof of God. You cannot see Him. Man is merely a bio-mechanical organism and all these thoughts and emotions you are talking about are just so many neural-chemical reactions. Love is only a random firing of your synapses." To those, I only say that you have eyes, but you choose not to see. You have limited your vision to what is in front of you. Love is not a chemical; He is the creator. The only proof I need of God is what I already have; His spirit within me. And He wants you to know that as limited as you are, He knows no limits. That is how He loves you even though you doubt and reject Him.
Ken O'Toole is a published author and abstract expressionist artist living in the Dallas / Fort Worth area.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
