Bad is Bad

People do not want to accept it when they have made a bad , not to be confused with "bad" painting, painting nor do teachers tell students when they have made a bad painting. Making a  bad/ unsuccessful painting is ok, its part of the growth you have as an artist. You have to know what does not work so you can learn what does. There is such a thing as a unsuccessful painting or work of art in genera. There are a number of ways a work does not work, and it has nothing to do with a TV show with host of self proclaimed experts. It is different for every piece based off intention, the success of the medium, size, color, composition, texture, style, paint quality/ material quality. Within these categories there can be a number of things incorrect, or wrong which is detrimental to the piece. A piece being unsuccessful is not an opinion about the piece but is pointing out to the artist where they can improve themselves or think about alternate ways of creating. Critiquing a work is not critiquing the person.

If This Shit Gets a Show I Think I Have a Pretty Good Chance

don't you think?

The Art of Spectacle

Walking through our schools BFA show, a big exhibition for the seniors who apply and get into it, I noticed that they more often then not did one of two things. Tried to be spectacular or not really give a shit about being there. Either by installation, or the content of the work its self.

I have noticed that art students now are trying to play up the spectacle of being an artist rather then focusing on the art work. This is a big problem for me, first off usually the art work with the most spectacle around it is shit, second it shows that the artist is more focused on being and artist as a title rather then a person. Playing into the new look of, "bad  artist" or cool artist guy, aka douchbag who take themselves way to serious. With big elaborate installations, loud sound or video pieces that are sure to draw attention. "Controversial" subject mater, wall text of poetic sounding nonsense. Using materials or subjects that are hip, pop culture references and so on, that are more about the fact of trying to get attention rather then the interest in the subject.

On the flip side this were many students who seem to not care very much  that they were in a exhibition that brings in many people, and can be a jump start for your career as an artist. They wound hang work poorly, use poor materials, make a piece that they probably did the night before. This disinterest in the work and the fact that they were in a show and are given and great opportunity, proves that people come to art school for the wrong reason, or that they are dissatisfied with their education and or them selves. A problem this school should address, you should want to make art not feel that you are being forced to.

There were very few people I saw that seemed to hit it right on the head, although they are students and are still learning, the work they make should reflect potential, presence of the craft they learned, and not work that is in over its head. Trying to be something it is not, this only shows that the students here are learning to be persona of artist and not actual artist who are concerned with material and subject mater. This is a trend in art right now, not just in schools but in the art world, work is getting more and more extravagant and is rich with these "hidden metamorphose" instead of actually showing work. Its the young hip, cool kid thing to do, and they all want to be the coolest kid on the block. Unfortunately for them they will crash and burn soon enough while the people with true intentions will prevail.

More Bullshit art

This kind of work makes me think, what the fuck? Really? Is THIS what we are calling art now a days? There is a big problem in the art world for me at this time and it looks like this. Artist who are over conceptual about their ideas so much so that the work they produce is not art. The meaning of art has changed over the years as with everything, art should say something, be engaging, be stimulating in some fashion. Although there are many who question what art can be, I say those people are just trying too hard to look cool and just want to make shit and label it as art. 

a installation that looks like crap, is crap and for me it says " I am so conceptual you don't even know, look how conceptual I can be, I think art can be anything, even crap, even thought that diminishes the value of art." 

Morag Keil

A poll on the ground? Really? Really? When artist take everyday objects and incorporate them into work, it is find, as long as you are saying something in that act, and you are transforming the object into art and not just leaving it as is. Because by leaving it as is it says that this object, inside a gallery is art, out side it is not. Placing importance on the artist as some magical being, and the gallery as a magical force that transforms things just because you put it in the white cube.

More art that looks like all the other artist out their, many painters now are basing their work off of other work, a comment about art as it were. But by doing this you create a cycle of work that looks all the same, says the same thing and has no originality. 

says nothing

Sloppy art like this is ridiculous and insults the years I have spend fine tuning my craft. There is a big difference between work that is less technical and more emotive, and someone acting like a child with a paint brush. In context work that began to move away from realism was making a statement out something else and by doing so needed to be less formal. Now it does not have the same influence or reason. Colors straight from the tube and messy brush strokes tell me this person is too lazy to create work that says what they want in a more sophisticated way so they just scribble on a canvas.

again, bad painting, not "bad painting" which is on purpose, but just bad.