Category Archives: The Vulnerable Artist

Color: A Guilty Pleasure Dome

If we needed art shows to always be somber and appropriate, we might be disappointed with a show dedicated to Xanadu. Why is this necessary, this homage to Olivia Newton John and roller skates? Is Seattle really better off with neon laser beams and thirty-something women in legwarmers dancing down Third Avenue?

I think it is.

Like Erin Shafkind, I spent my childhood in the 1980s in Los Angeles, yet I somehow have never seen Xanadu. (My parents weren’t purists or hippies, but if I wanted to bite snowflake shapes out of Velveeta cheese and watch non-PBS TV I had to go down the street to Tracy Clark’s house and I guess I was never there when Xanadu was on.) At this point I don’t feel like I need to see Xanadu now that I’ve seen how several artists have used Xanadu.

Xanadu, the film, is about the frustration, then celebration, of an artist. It’s about fantasy clashing and exploding into reality; utopias and dystopias. It’s about color. Xanadu: A Stately Pleasure Dome, curated by Erin Shafkind at SOIL, is about letting yourself have a hot relationship with media. By “hot” I mean Marshall McLuhan hot. McLuhan wrote about how different media are hot or cold, and our responses to them are hot or cold. TV (a show on a box in your living room), he said, is cold because it’s easy to control; it’s smaller than you. Film (a movie in a theatre) is hot because it is huge and enveloping and becomes your world. Hot is engaged, cold is distanced. In inviting these artists to participate in this show, Shafkind was essentially inviting them to let themselves have a hot response to Xanadu. The same invitation is extended to the viewer of her curated exhibition– except here the invitation is to have a hot exchange with hot art.

That is a lot to ask on both counts, when hot isn’t what’s cool.

In Chromophobia, David Batchelor writes succinctly about how color has been uncool for much of the lifespan of the Western world. Throughout art, history, and literature, color is associated with base desires, sex, the feminine, intellectual decay, loss of control, fall from grace.

Charles Blanc in 1867:”The taste for colour, when it predominates absolutely, costs many sacrifices; often it turns the mind from its course, changes the sentiment, swallows up the thought. . . The lower strata of nature takes the first place instead of human beings [who] alone represent the loftiest expression of life, which is thought.”

Roland Barthes, 1970′s: “Colour. . . is a kind of bliss. . . like a closing eyelid, a tiny fainting spell.”

L. Frank Baum’s Dorothy, on leaving colorful Oz to return to black-white-gray Kansas, 1900: “East, West, Home is Best.”

Kant, 1790: “The colours which give brilliancy to a sketch are a part of the charm. They may no doubt, in their own way, enliven the object for sensation, but make it really worth looking at and beautiful they cannot.”

In more subtle, less specific language, contemporary art criticism still often communicates a preference for non-color. I think of Jen Graves’ writing about Isaac Layman’s photographs at Lawrimore Project. She explains how this photograph

is fine as a cover for The Stranger, but it lacks the conceptual rigor of the “darker, almost morbid, and therefore interesting” Hot Dog Wrapper.

Aside from the fact that Otter Pops is colorful and Hot Dog Wrapper is not, I can’t find any differences in the conceptual implications of the two works; except to say that the mere use of color is meaningful, with its own host of conceptual implications and seedy association with pleasure.

Xanadu the art show has helped elucidate for me this quiet yet persistent discourse about color. During the Xanadu artists’ talk at SOIL, Cable Griffith talked about how participating in this show gave him the excuse he needed to finally use the neon colored acrylic paint he always pined for in the art supply store.

Cable Griffith, Pleasure Pan-Portal, 2010

Andy Arkley and Julie Alpert talked about their giddy opportunity to use colored laser beams in their collaborative video Gene’s Got Lasers, Who Could Ask For Anything More?

Color is a forbidden fruit that the artists in Xanadu: A Stately Pleasure Dome let themselves eat for the purpose of this show. Like Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz and Sonny in Xanadu, they had a dream/lapse/fall/trip into color. Like Dorothy and Sonny, I expect they’ll need to return to Kansas/Earth/greyness. Though I’m not sure I buy the reason why.

{photo by Stewart McCullough}

p.s. Also in the show, and fitting with this post was Joey Veltkamp’s PINK portrait of Gretchen Bennett and Amanda Manitach’s “hermaphrodite, bathing in the fuchsia and banana yellow glow of Gene’s Got Lasers, Who Could Ask for Anything More?

Amanda Manitach, Glory, Utopia (the head of Samuel Taylor Coleridge on the body of Terpischore)

A neat pile of pink bubblegum lies at the rollerskates of this blushing hermaphrodite who sheepishly, daintily, resides somewhere between utopia and dystopia.

A gay day at SOIL

It was a hot, sweaty Saturday Talk at SOIL last week when we new members talked briefly about our work. I could be wrong, but I think SOIL might have been all hetero before this round of homos joined this year.  It was nice/interesting to see common yearnings in our work. All three of the gay members present for the talk (one bear couldn’t make it) are making work about our sexual identities, histories, and relationships. And, all three of us are using somewhat abstract means to do this. Also, I think talking comfortably about these things in a gallery setting is relatively new to all of us.

Chris Buening talked about how Mad Dog is a kind of abstract “portrait” of his fifteen-year-old self drunk on a date with his much older boyfriend.

Derrick Jefferies found the body for Anatomy in cinnamon and mint chewing gum, stretched and and molded together to shape sinews and nakedness.

I’m using The Song of Songs from the Bible as a way to paint the trajectory of my love song to my wife and son.

Related: Erin Shafkind’s take on the Saturday Talk.

Happy New Year, Art Worldies

Love and light to you in 2010

Me + You + December

I usually put stuff about my own work on my other blog, but right now there are several things happening that I’d like to invite you to.

Right NOW – December 11th:

The ownership of my piñata is up for grabs for Strangercrombie.

December 11th:

Matt Offenbacher and Margie Livingston have invited me and about 30 other painters to talk for five minutes each at The Henry about paintings we love right now. It’s a “Seattle Painters Mini-Symposium” because “painting is awesome, interesting, central to contemporary art discourse, and we’re doing it here in Seattle.” Let’s talk about Painting!

{left to right, top to bottom; some of the participating painters: Margie Livingston, Joey Veltkamp, Ken Kelly, Kimberly Trowbridge, Nicholas Nyland, Matt Offenbacher, Eric Elliott, Susanna Bluhm, Robert Hardgrave}


December 12th:

I’m opening my studio in Georgetown during the Georgetown Art Attack. Come see my new paintings and have some cookies!

How do artists live?

I would love to go on some kind of massive research expedition to explore this very question. I want to know details about how other artists are making ends meet and making things work. I don’t know if it’s for commiseration or inspiration, or purely because no one ever talks about it. It was an unmentionable even in my grad school program, this “how to survive” issue. Is it because you don’t? Or at least not by doing art?  I’ve heard “There’s always teaching,” but really there isn’t. Teaching art at the college level is extremely competitive, and in order to get a stable teaching job, MFA graduates must first be willing to (typically) move anywhere in the country to adjunct part-time at near-poverty wages.

dalton_will_having_children{Jennifer Dalton, How Do Artists Live? 20-image slide show, detail, 2006}

Unless they are independently wealthy, artists have “day jobs,” right? As I’ve waded through several career crises in the past ten years, I’ve gathered that some day jobs seem to be more valuable than others, regardless of the income they yield. They have a higher romance factor, thereby enhancing the perception of the art career. Like: Zookeeper, Baker, Fireman, Roofer, Hair Stylist.  Then, other jobs seem like they would actually hinder an artist’s standing: Therapist, Nurse, Accountant, High School History Teacher. Is manual labor somehow better for the artist’s reputation? Is it the same for men as for women? Would it be cool to be a mailman delivering mail, but uncool to work in the post office proper? Does anyone know what I’m talking about?

How do you pay your bills?

Has having a child helped or hurt your art career?

Do your parents give you money?

Is there a day job you’d like to have, but haven’t pursued because it wouldn’t “look good?”

Do you like your day job? How did you get it?

jdalton{Jennifer Dalton, How Do Artists Live? 20-image slide show, installed at Winkleman Gallery, 2006}

Alice Wheeler on Seattle, the wild west, the physical space of a woman, and Feminism.

I [yes, finally] listened to Jen Graves’ podcast of her interview with Alice Wheeler. Wow. The interview is more of a monologue, but it’s one that is wholly worthwhile. She said so many things that no one else seems to be saying; yet lots of people must be thinking about them, right?

I hadn’t realized that I have this idea of what the [contemporary] [female] [American] artist is supposed to be like. I hadn’t ever articulated it or heard it articulated before; at least not in this way. There’s this female artist template, and I’ve been sharing studio space with her all along. Negotiating.

There are conversations about feminism and what it means to be a female artist, but they are usually among feminists, and they are few and far between. If they make it into a larger arena, they seem to be bullied back into specificity so quickly that no response is required from the greater community.

Apparently I’m chickenshit because I can’t find the words to elaborate on my own experience as a female artist, nor bring myself to provide examples for any of the points I’m making. Sometimes it feels dangerous enough just writing this blog. Sometimes I’m struck with the thought that writing a blog about the art scene I’m participating in isn’t really what I’m “supposed” to be doing. I’m fairly certain it would have been safer to be quiet. Ah well, it’s too late for that.

Warm Streams of Logic

I’ve started a new blog, where I’m writing about stuff that doesn’t fit on this here art blog. I’m using it like a sketchbook for my own art practice, and also as a catch-all for sundry impressions. I try to write on it every day.

actionnotwords

Eco-Macho, Not-So-Macho, Thoughts on Bloggery, and a Media Invasion

susan

[Susan Robb, I Am A Land Animal]

“Eco-macho…taps into that old and apparently endlessly rich metaphor of the Northwest as a place rooted in the interpenetration between the urban and the rural, a place that’s both somehow ahead of the mainstream and off the grid. The idea has been cultivated by Northwest artists and writers from time immemorial. Just to name a few recent examples: Charlie Krafft, with his Mystic Sons of Morris Graves crew and his weapon ceramics; Gretchen Bennett, with her Native American blankets, street stickers in the form of Mount Rainier, and colored-pencil adaptations of Kurt Cobain on YouTube (not to mention the Aberdeen native himself); Claude Zervas, with his Eva Hesse–like Northwest rivers and passages made in thin, white cold-cathode fluorescents with their dangling wires; Susan Robb, with her both hopeful and dark insistence on humans as animals. This is the current Northwest School.”

I just read this article by Jen Graves this morning, though it was written last April. It is so directly pertinent to our conversation about Regionalism. Talk about forgetting our own art history; even one that was articulated just one year ago! Or, in my case–rather than forgetting–just now learning our art history. For various reasons of life and cliff-hanging tumult, my attendance to all things art-related in my three years here has been spotty, at best.

I am very excited to be becoming a part of this art community, but I don’t really know that much about it, yet. It is with this confession that I named this blog; I started writing as a way to get to know the artists and spaces in my city. Also, my baby was taking twenty minute naps (which, to any babies reading this, DOES NOT REALLY COUNT as a nap) and blogging was a way to do something creative, at home, in a short amount of time. This medium is ripe for someone with a rather impulsive personality. I get all excited and worked up about something and make some seemingly-confident statements, click “Publish” and proceed to be overcome by the urge to run and hide under the nearest pile of dirt. Maybe this is just another extension of what it means to try to make your life as an artist — sticking your neck out; submitting to likely rejection; passionately, unknowingly, reinventing the wheel.

stickerlayout.indd[Gretchen Bennett, Mountain of Dirt Sticker]

Sometimes the abundance of what I don’t know hits me like a sack of glass bricks, and I’m humbled by people that really do know a lot.

Seattle’s art-writing media are changing in nature, and I wonder how this will change the content. We are losing the model of the few people (i.e. “critics” that are invested full-time, employed, and published on real live paper) that know everything, and we’re gaining many voices (many of them artists who are already spread thinly across many projects, with time to write only in the wee hours of the morning) that know some things about some things. It is mind-boggling to me that I, for example, now have a platform not too different from that of some people who are much more entitled to it. Despite this fact, the seasoned critics have been nothing but gracious and welcoming to us renegade blogging artists. They could have relegated us as cocky, hapless, new-sheriffs-in-town; instead they’ve added us to their blogrolls with open arms, declaring that if people aren’t reading our blogs, they’re not reading about art in this town.

claude

[Claude Zervas, La Bûche]

Likewise with some of the art spaces here. In the spirit of exercising my rights as the gushy, why-not-lay-it-all-on-the-line artist, I wrote my letter of (intentionally unrequited) love to the Henry, never thinking they’d entertain my ideas. (It simply felt necessary go through the motions of asking the question, if that makes any sense.) Now Betsey Brock wants to meet me for coffee and help me with an exhibition proposal.

So, in light of our collective examination of what’s missing in the Seattle art scene, this here is a gleaming representation of what we’ve got. Instead of an art establishment that turns up its nose at artists challenging the foundation, Seattle has one that joins in.

Charlie

[Charles Krafft, porcelain firearm]

Dear Henry

Dear Henry,
Hi, I love you. We’ve met on several occasions (I worked for you as a Gallery Attendant in 2000), and I talk about you on my blog rather often (gettingtoknowyoubetter.wordpress.com). You are super. You have style and class, and you hit the nail on the head a good 8.5 times out of 10.
I have a great idea that YOU are a part of! I think we should create a “Seattle Exchange Program” that would be situated in one of your galleries!
Together (my contribution would be of no cost to you) we would explore the cities of the world, depositing Seattle artists in them, and in exchange, gathering artists to show here in our Seattle Exchange Program. (We could think of a new name if you don’t like that one.)
For example, I happen to know of the perfect space in Berlin where a group of Seattle artists could have a show. Simultaneous to this show in Berlin would be a show here in Seattle featuring work of some Berlin artists. I am sure YOU know of possible exhibition spaces in most cities anywhere! You are grand.
We could play with themes and curatorial ideas, so that there might be two exhibitions on different sides of the globe tackling the same concept. The inherent messages and audiences would be initially transplanted in physical location, but would ultimately take on a boomerang effect: The scope and intent of the exhibitions will have been made more significant by their travels.
I imagine this being a kind of process-based endeavor, where the focus is on the act of exchange rather than making the pristine exhibitions you’re known for. The exhibitions might be messy and alive and possibly perfect in their imperfections.
If you don’t want to devote one of your beautiful galleries to this project, I bet we could think of some kind of satellite space. The possibilities are endless, don’t you think?
I hope this doesn’t come across as flippant; please know that you have my heart. I could shop my affections elsewhere, but it just wouldn’t be the same.
Love,
Susanna
   

Friday June 12, 2009

Dear Henry,

Hi, I love you. We’ve met on several occasions (I worked for you as a Gallery Attendant in 2000), and I talk about you on my blog rather often (gettingtoknowyoubetter.wordpress.com). You are super. You have style and class, and you hit the nail on the head a good 8.5 times out of 10.

I have a great idea that YOU are a part of! I think we should create a “Seattle Exchange Program” that would be situated in one of your galleries!

Together (my contribution would be of no cost to you) we would explore the cities of the world, depositing Seattle artists in them, and in exchange, gathering artists to show here in our Seattle Exchange Program. (We could think of a new name if you don’t like that one.)

For example, I happen to know of the perfect space in Berlin where a group of Seattle artists could have a show. Simultaneous to this show in Berlin would be a show here in Seattle featuring work of some Berlin artists. Then a few months later, a different group of Seattle artists would show in, say, Austin, and Austin artists would show here in Seattle. I am sure YOU know of possible exhibition spaces in most cities anywhere! You are grand.

We could play with themes and curatorial ideas, so that there might be two exhibitions on different sides of the globe tackling the same concept. The inherent messages and audiences would be initially transplanted in physical location, but would ultimately take on a boomerang effect: The scope and intent of the exhibitions will have been made more significant by their travels.

I imagine this being a kind of process-based endeavor, where the focus is on the act of exchange rather than making the pristine exhibitions you’re known for. The exhibitions might be messy and alive and possibly perfect in their imperfections.

If you don’t want to devote one of your beautiful galleries to this project, I bet we could think of some kind of satellite space. The possibilities are endless, don’t you think?

The economy is rough, and you’ve probably suffered budget cuts in recent months. Programs are dying and relationships ending. Maybe that makes this the perfect occasion to sow some new seeds?

I hope this doesn’t come across as flippant; please know that you have my heart. I could shop my affections elsewhere, but it just wouldn’t be the same.

Love,
Susanna

 

309446819TUDFPi_fs
pleasedonttouchberlin

At the Campfire {Part One: Same-Sex Marriage: What YOU can do!}

I have to admit, I’m daunted with the thought of being left alone in the comments section of my own blog with my former grad school professor’s pastor. (Tim, you strike me as a nice, reasonable person, but we are coming from such vastly different points of view I’m not sure how to respond. Also, your comments are more like sermons. I do appreciate your participation, and I’m not trying to turn you away; rather, I want to redirect this conversation.) My original post raised many different issues, and I worry that if I let the conversation continue the way it is, it will die the slow death of specialization. I hope I can open this back up to a wider group and examine the range of issues at hand. I’ve been getting many thoughtful private emails, Facebook messages and comments on the various topics, and I want to sort them out and give each one the attention it deserves. 

While I’ve got all these Christians at my art blog, I’m going to cut to the chase. So, first up: gay marriage. 

To Christians who oppose gay marriage: 

It’s time to accept that it is going to become legal in this country, in every single state. It is an obscene violation of the Constitution that the Church has infiltrated the State regarding this, and other, issues. You have no right to deny any American citizen their basic rights. Nor do you have the right to segregate American citizens with arbitrary laws, by declaring that some Americans are permitted to marry while others may only have “domestic partnerships” or “civil unions.” It is time to start spending your time, money, and energy elsewhere.  If you don’t change your attitude soon, your grandchildren will be embarrassed when they remember you. 

To Christians who guess for now that they probably don’t see a reason why homosexuals shouldn’t be allowed to get legally married– as long as some new revelation from the Bible isn’t uncovered (really?! do you think someone missed a part?) that might be read in a way by church authorities that might suggest the need (?) to prohibit gay marriage:

It is time to get your beliefs straight and speak up.  (Tim Bossenbroek, of the Christian Reformed Church of Champaign Illinois, if I decode your last comment correctly, YOU support gay marriage! Great!) Now would be the time to start SAYING, “I support gay marriage.” It is your civic duty to your fellow Americans, and your Christian duty to your church. Most importantly, it is an act of kindness to your gay friends and family members. If you are Christian and have not specifically stated “I support gay marriage,” your gay friends (actually, all of your liberal, non-Christian friends) will safely assume that you do not support it. Your gay friends feel sheepish and ashamed around you and have avoided the subject because they fear what you might say. You have the power to put them at ease! Say it now, here in the comment section, “[I'm a Christian and] I support gay marriage.” Say it in your Facebook status. Say it at church. These words that could come so easily and sound so trite are HUGE to the gay people in your life. If you want to begin the healing process after years of discrimination, this is where you begin. 

 

To gay-friendly people of all stripes:  

Keep talking and supporting and engaging everywhere you can. Your efforts are significant. 

 

To fellow gay folks:

Did you get married? How? Where? Who came to your wedding? Did you call it a “wedding” or something else? 

Anna and I got married in 2004, at my parents house in Washington state. A lesbian lawyer/therapist/family friend/minister officiated. It was a beautiful day, there were many tears of joy. It was small, just 24 people, including my parents and brother (with his wife), and Anna’s parents and sister (with her husband). Absent were Anna’s Christian brother, his wife and four daughters. 

Two days after our wedding, we drove two hours north to Vancouver B.C. and got married again, by a Canadian marriage commissioner, in her home garden. Our parents were the witnesses. 

 

P1010030

P1010041

 

P1010002

P1010002_1