Installation Views

My wife Katy helped me with the installation which took one long day. The strings are held away from the wall by 1/8th inch bar stock. At a couple of points it projects 4 feet away from the wall. The sound piece is being played continuously. Overall I feel it is a successful piece.

Gift Economy at Gallery East

It's up! The show runs through December 10th.
The artist reception will be December 4th from 6:30-8:00.

Gallery East
College of Eastern Utah
451 East 400 North
Price, UT 84501

More Works in Progress

So one of my major goals here is to create an art object that is aesthetically successful. I'd love some feedback on that. And feel free to give criticism here.

Sarah's Questions

Sarah had some good questions. She said, "Help me out with additional explanations for "topographical imagery, networked lines, textile designs, and language." I enjoy abstraction a lot more when I know more about what it means. (is that a contradiction?)
I'm also not clear on what exactly you mean by a fictional culture. I feel like I have a good grasp on what culture is but I'm not sure not how you would create one through a painting.
Hopefully I'm not bringing down the group here--don't cast your pearls before swine or anything--its just that my right brain needs developing."

I'm guessing she isn't the only one confused here. I have no pearls and know no swine, but here you go:

Topographical imagery: One of the major compositional components of each painting is a map. Sometimes it looks more like explosions when it's finished, but it starts as a map.

Networked lines: Looking closed you'll see lot's of straight lines that all come together at random points. These are symbolic of an economic system where people are exchanging goods as gifts. The lines are the exchanges, the points are the people.

Textile designs: They started out as patterns a culture might use in textile. Now they're very organic, but the stripes of wavy lines are what I'm talking about.

Language: The numbers are my culture's language.

Each of these elements is part of the "fictional culture" I referred to. It isn't terribly detailed or fleshed out. In the end, when all of the paintings, string installation, and audio piece are put together it should create a unique experience. I'm hoping that that experience feels other-worldly or slightly displaced from reality. I'm going for that state of consciousness you have when you're lost in a good book.

$60,000 Paintings for Free

Katy's comment on that last post brought up a question about titles. I think I'm going to use the titles of these paintings to critique artificial art values. It's strange when artists price their work really high even if it isn't selling. It's like they think they can create value with nothing more than "positive mental attitude". Forget supply and demand I guess. I also think it is interesting that the price tag on a work of art affects the way it is viewed. This has been discussed in earlier comments so I won't dwell on it too much, but your perception of an artwork is often influenced by its price tag.

My idea is to title my pieces with a dollar value. For example the title of the work might be $45,000. Since the title will be right there where people are used to seeing price tags they won't know the difference. Many people will look at the piece and think "Hmmm... that's an okayish piece of art. Whoa! $45,000? Are you kidding me? He must be a really good artist." Some people will immediately have more respect for the work because it is now a Jaguar instead of a Hyundai. Others will be ticked off that (they believe) some loser artist is raking in a year's salary with a single painting sale. Some will be annoyed that an obviously amateur artist is overpricing his work.

Of course this whole concept goes back to that discussion about whether art is a gift or a commodity. In my own work I like the idea of more art, less business. Any thoughts?

Works in Progress

Here's what I'm coming up with. In this triptych you'll see the topographical imagery, networked lines, textile designs, and language that represent my fictional culture. I made up a font for the numbers so that it would look like an unknown language. Hopefully they are still legible. The numbers (reading across all three panels) should read: 7825328483 82583 263 2229 3427377. The networked lines represent the system of gift giving that drives the culture. What's working here? What part do you hate?

My Prediction? Text.

I've started using numbers in my art to represent communication and language. Specifically I'm using numbers that would create words if you were to type them into your phone's text messaging app. Up until now those words haven't been terribly important, but I'm thinking about making their messages more specific. Perhaps they will make a sentence that describes some concept the piece is dealing with.

Pros: 1. Some people think codes are cool. 2. Some people will get into the 'interactivness' of the work. 3. Concepts can be overtly stated without being written in your face. 4. It's an awesome reference to contemporary culture.

Cons: 1. Most people will never know the numbers mean anything. 2. It might require too much work for the viewer. 3. People might resort to reading the text instead of coming up with their own interpretations. 4. It might be distracting.

Opinions?

Paintings Lack Vitamin C

If I ate paint I would die. I think. Art is unnecessary for the physical survival of humans. It provides no shelter, food, or utilitarian function. Because of this, art doesn’t really show up historically until a culture is advanced enough to have free time when they don’t have to run around catching rabbits or building tree houses. After the culture has some level of civilization they can afford to spend some time on useless things like art and TV watching. So the Neanderthal first invented charcoal to draw on his cave. Then he invented Oprah.

Since art didn’t feed them they didn’t trade it for things like deer meat or roof-thatch. Instead they gave it away. It wasn’t governed by the rules of capitalism, it was governed by the Laws of the Gift. Maybe. Or maybe there was a Neanderthal Picasso who was given 40,000 ears of corn for his cubist cave paintings of deer-hunting stick figures.

It might be true that deep down we believe art should be a gift. How many art centers and libraries are provided for free public use? What about groups like MoTab that work to bring free music to the world? Art, literature, and music are often freely shared. This breaks down when the artist, musician, and writers realize that they have to survive. Art then becomes a commodity. Sometimes the price of the artwork even affects our perception of it. Is that okay? Are we losing something here? Should art be a gift or a commodity?

Gift Consumption

Let’s expand the concepts from two previous posts. There is an idea present in many cultures that says a gift should be consumed. This is literally true with some gifts and metaphorically true for others. If someone gives you a pie you should eat it. You should not sell it in the local county fair. Similarly, if someone gives you corn you should eat it. You should not “invest” it by planting it for next year’s harvest. Sometimes consuming a gift isn’t so literal, like when someone plays a song for you on the piano. The gift of music is experienced and then it’s gone. Sarah brought up an excellent example when she talked about the woman who anointed Christ’s feet with oils. That was a consumed gift and no one benefited monetarily.

More specifically though, a gift is consumed in the giving: it is no longer something the giver has. After it has been given the gift does not directly benefit the giver. This is why a gift shouldn’t carry an implied obligation to reciprocate. This is what separates giving something and selling something. So what do you think- should the gift be consumed, or can it be invested by the receiver (as in the case with planting corn)? Should the receiver be obligated to “return the favor” or is he off the hook because of the nature of The Gift?

My Birthday Cake: For Sale

It might be true that a gift should never become a commodity. When this rule gets broken, people get annoyed. Peter Everett told me about someone he knew who donated a bunch of famous old paintings to the Springville Museum of Art. It was a gift and everyone was happy- until the owner of the museum turned around and sold the paintings off. Of course he has his reasons but that family was ticked. I guess I would be too. My mother in law enlisted many helpers and invested many hours in creating a beautiful quilt to give my wife and me on our wedding day. I got fifty bucks last week when I sold it on ebay… not really but boy would I have made some people angry if I did, right? So tell me what you think. Is it improper to turn a gift into a commodity? Do you have examples in support or opposition to this idea?

What is it?

“That kinda looks like scribbles,” my nephew said. He was right, it did look like scribbles. Some of you might get turned off from my work because it doesn’t “look realistic.” Here’s the briefest explanation I can give for my style: First, I think colors, textures, and shapes can be beautiful similar to the way classical music without words can be beautiful. Second, I need my work to communicate an open-ended concept. If I were to paint a photographic image of a horse then the painting would probably have one simple meaning: horse. But if I make a painting that incorporates predictive text, topographical images, textile designs, and the word “corporate” then the interpretations of meaning will be as varied as the people viewing the work. Those interpretations will be much more valuable than "horse."

Would you sell your neighbor a cup of sugar?

There are some things in our culture that are usually given rather than sold. One of these is basic knowledge. Knowledge is freely given. If I ask my father-in-law how to plant corn then he’ll tell me. I don’t have to pay him for that information and I would be very surprised if he asked for money. If I’m looking for the Alhambra Theatre and I ask a random Joe on the street, he’ll give me the location and he’ll probably do it happily. Does the free-sharing of knowledge have limits? What are the other things in our culture that are usually given instead of sold?

Obligated to Gift?

Think about how gifts are exchanged in our culture. Sometimes gifts are a surprise given on a random day without provocation. More often gifts are expected. I give you a present for Christmas and you feel obligated to reciprocate. You absolutely do not give me the same gift back because I might get offended. So instead you try to find something I’ll like. You might even hope that the gifts we exchange are similar in monetary value. There is an exchange of goods going on. The big difference between this and the exchange of goods that occurs when you buy something at the store is that there is no requirement to repay. So what do you think? Is there a social obligation for the receiver to return the favor? Is that the way it is supposed to be, or have we gone wrong somewhere?

Walmart

This installation is going to be a satire about our culture, but specifically about our form of commerce. I want to contrast gifting with capitalism. The first thing that came to your mind was Walmart right? Me too. So I’ve downloaded a copy of Walmart’s stock graph from the day I was born up until the present. How should I include this subject in my work? Do I just paint the graph on top of something? Do I take the values of all of the peaks from the graph and list them with their dates in columns? Or do I have a recording of someone reading Walmart’s daily closing stock value? Maybe I take the difference between Walmart’s stock value and some numerical value pulled from the United Way. I need more ideas, please help.