Here is one of the more recent pieces I've been promising to show. This was a commissioned portrait done with red/green color blindness in mind.
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Recent Commissioned work
Here is one of the more recent pieces I've been promising to show. This was a commissioned portrait done with red/green color blindness in mind.
Wednesday, February 2, 2011
RE-BOOT
I took the month of January to reflect and take inventory of where I want to go in life. I will be uploading pics of recent paintings very soon and really ramping up my activity on here and other online venues. Thank you all for being patient. Here is a quote I came across recently that I just love: " Simplicity is complexity resolved." - Constantin Broncusi
Thursday, September 30, 2010
Recent Gay Suicides
I don't know how many of you out there who read my blog even realized what a tragedy the past couple of weeks have been for the Gay/Lesbian community of the U.S. There have been 5 reported suicides of teen-aged gay boys. http://www.washingtonblade.com/2010/10/01/national-lgbt-community-reeling-from-4th-teen-suicide-in-a-month/
This article doesn't include the fifth that made national news today of a Rutger's student who was pulled out of the river after jumping to his death from the George Washington bridge. He was 18.
Closer to home, a 13 year old whose name was Asher Brown shot himself in the head after relentless bullying at a school in the Cy-Fair Independent School District. This school was located in Cypress, TX- a crappy, mostly white, middle-upper middle class, evangelical protestant suburb of Houston, TX. The very same day this story was reported, it was reported that another student in the same school district was beaten with a metal pipe by a group of students. The victim was told ahead of time that a group was planning to beat him so he told the principal. He did nothing. He got on the bus and told the bus driver. He did nothing. After getting off the bus, at some point the boy was chased and beaten outside a neighbors front door. The beating only stopped after the neighbor came out wielding a gun. This is in my back yard and that REALLY pisses me off. Cypress is a 20 minute drive away.
The unfortunate part is that these kids didn't/don't know that there are resources available to them in the city of Houston. What does this kind of behavior say about us as a society? How do we move past parents who allow their children to literally bully or in some cases beat another child to death? Why didn't/doesn't the school administrators even attempt to help these kids? This is infuriating and the school(s), school district, the bullies, and the parents of the bullies need to be held accountable. It is bullshit like this that makes me embarrassed to be an American citizen. I have decided that since I am past my prime in being an advocate for my generation, I am going to be an advocate for our up and coming gay youth who have to suffer living in horrible places like Cypress, TX, or central Louisiana where I grew up. I too had to deal with incessant bullying for several years during middle school. My bullying was focused more on my class(as I grew up relatively poor) and less on my sexual orientation, which I was very good at keeping secret. Thankfully, I was born with an already strong sense of self and had the benefit of having fantastic parents who supported me and instilled in me that it was they, and not myself who was crazy. I held onto the knowledge that those years wouldn't last forever and neither would my residency in that area.
This is all of our problem and there is no excuse for it. No one can hide behind the bible and if you do, you're a hypocrite and know absolutely nothing of what Jesus taught. This is an indication of societal sickness caused by the mixing of religion(evangelical protestantism) and politics. Check out some of the spew put forth in the press from Anne Coulter. She isn't the only one. Check out 'focus on the family'- they actively fight anything involving gay rights issues. Some of these kids who commit suicide may come from families who listen to and believe what these wretched, evil people are speaking. Who can blame a child for rationalizing such a decision when he or she is told that they are worth nothing or are bound to hell simply for being who they are? Enough is enough.
This article doesn't include the fifth that made national news today of a Rutger's student who was pulled out of the river after jumping to his death from the George Washington bridge. He was 18.
Closer to home, a 13 year old whose name was Asher Brown shot himself in the head after relentless bullying at a school in the Cy-Fair Independent School District. This school was located in Cypress, TX- a crappy, mostly white, middle-upper middle class, evangelical protestant suburb of Houston, TX. The very same day this story was reported, it was reported that another student in the same school district was beaten with a metal pipe by a group of students. The victim was told ahead of time that a group was planning to beat him so he told the principal. He did nothing. He got on the bus and told the bus driver. He did nothing. After getting off the bus, at some point the boy was chased and beaten outside a neighbors front door. The beating only stopped after the neighbor came out wielding a gun. This is in my back yard and that REALLY pisses me off. Cypress is a 20 minute drive away.
The unfortunate part is that these kids didn't/don't know that there are resources available to them in the city of Houston. What does this kind of behavior say about us as a society? How do we move past parents who allow their children to literally bully or in some cases beat another child to death? Why didn't/doesn't the school administrators even attempt to help these kids? This is infuriating and the school(s), school district, the bullies, and the parents of the bullies need to be held accountable. It is bullshit like this that makes me embarrassed to be an American citizen. I have decided that since I am past my prime in being an advocate for my generation, I am going to be an advocate for our up and coming gay youth who have to suffer living in horrible places like Cypress, TX, or central Louisiana where I grew up. I too had to deal with incessant bullying for several years during middle school. My bullying was focused more on my class(as I grew up relatively poor) and less on my sexual orientation, which I was very good at keeping secret. Thankfully, I was born with an already strong sense of self and had the benefit of having fantastic parents who supported me and instilled in me that it was they, and not myself who was crazy. I held onto the knowledge that those years wouldn't last forever and neither would my residency in that area.
This is all of our problem and there is no excuse for it. No one can hide behind the bible and if you do, you're a hypocrite and know absolutely nothing of what Jesus taught. This is an indication of societal sickness caused by the mixing of religion(evangelical protestantism) and politics. Check out some of the spew put forth in the press from Anne Coulter. She isn't the only one. Check out 'focus on the family'- they actively fight anything involving gay rights issues. Some of these kids who commit suicide may come from families who listen to and believe what these wretched, evil people are speaking. Who can blame a child for rationalizing such a decision when he or she is told that they are worth nothing or are bound to hell simply for being who they are? Enough is enough.
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Second adventure to San Francisco
Last Thursday Chip and I flew out to San Francisco for the first time since our 10th anniversary three years ago this November. This time we traveled there with the purpose of experiencing the notorious Folsom Street Fair. For those of you who do not know, it's a fair-now in it's 26th year- celebrating all sorts of sexual fetishes with an emphasis on the leather scene.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Folsom_Street_Fair
It was kinda nice being back in San Francisco. It was a great being in a nicely compact and densely populated city with excellent public transit. However, what I didn't know was that September is San Francisco's warmest month, and yes, it was hot. The downsides, I must confess outweighed the good in this trip. The heat apparently activated the city's many hundreds of homeless and they were exceptionally aggressive, the city smelled awful, and the crowds were so tightly packed at many of the bar and street events that they couldn't be enjoyed. I tend to get highly claustrophobic in tight crowds in cramped spaces(which is every gay bar in San Francisco, so I wasn't engaged very much. I did had some alternative plans and made my own fun on a couple of nights though.
My general thoughts on the event are: 1. There were way too many unattractive people wearing too little clothing while the attractive people were wearing too much. 2. I didn't see all the public sex I was expecting to see- and that I had read and been told would happen. I found nothing about it shocking, but maybe it's because I lead a 'more exciting' life than most people? Lastly, there were several booths that went a little over-board with the whips and chains and paddles and such. I'm of the opinion that a little of that can go a long way, and that people who are good at sex don't need so many 'accessories' to have an awesome experience.
Bottom line: It was sexual, but not sexy.
It was kinda nice being back in San Francisco. It was a great being in a nicely compact and densely populated city with excellent public transit. However, what I didn't know was that September is San Francisco's warmest month, and yes, it was hot. The downsides, I must confess outweighed the good in this trip. The heat apparently activated the city's many hundreds of homeless and they were exceptionally aggressive, the city smelled awful, and the crowds were so tightly packed at many of the bar and street events that they couldn't be enjoyed. I tend to get highly claustrophobic in tight crowds in cramped spaces(which is every gay bar in San Francisco, so I wasn't engaged very much. I did had some alternative plans and made my own fun on a couple of nights though.
My general thoughts on the event are: 1. There were way too many unattractive people wearing too little clothing while the attractive people were wearing too much. 2. I didn't see all the public sex I was expecting to see- and that I had read and been told would happen. I found nothing about it shocking, but maybe it's because I lead a 'more exciting' life than most people? Lastly, there were several booths that went a little over-board with the whips and chains and paddles and such. I'm of the opinion that a little of that can go a long way, and that people who are good at sex don't need so many 'accessories' to have an awesome experience.
Bottom line: It was sexual, but not sexy.
Wednesday, September 1, 2010
Wednesday, July 14, 2010
My friend, Melanie Espinosa Pang's tattoo
In an earlier post I blogged about how a friend of mine gave me a huge compliment by wanting to use my work for tattoo she would have for life. I asked her if she would share her thoughts on why she chose my artwork and this is what she wrote me:
"I waited three years to get another tattoo, mainly because I knew I wanted a much larger, declarative tattoo and was determined to find the perfect artwork. I met Will while I was an intern at the Houston Press and was lucky enough to interview him during the Prop 8 chaos. (http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/2009/05/prop_8_houston_protest.php ) After facebook-friending him, I perused the artwork on his website and found exactly what I was looking for.
I chose his 'Pride Birds' in part because of its connection to the GLBT community, but also because of the great lines, motion and personality the birds possess. I adore them and chose them not only for their beautiful simplicity, but also for their thoughtful postures, contemplating what their next actions might be.
Thank you so much, Will, for creating something I will cherish forever."
If you would like to read about what the concept of the tattoo means to Melanie, you can check out the story here:
The result is amazing!
Wednesday, July 7, 2010
Salon des Refuses
With the Salon des Refuses show(some rejected work from Lawndale Art Center's 'Big Show') approaching, I thought I'd take a few minutes and revisit the origin of the concept of such a show, for those of you who have not had any art history classes, and my thoughts on how it is relevant today. This is the entry for 'Salon des Refuses' on Encyclopedia.com:
"Exhibition held in Paris in 1863 to show work that had been refused by the selection committee of the official 'Salon'. In that year there were particularly strong protests from artists whose work had been rejected, so the emperor Napoleon III, 'wishing to let the public judge the legitimacy of these complaints', ordered this special exhibition. It drew huge crowd, who came mainly to mock, and Manet's 'Dejeuner sur l'herbe' was subjected to particular ridicule. Other major artists represented included Cezanne, Camille Pissarro, and Whistler. In spite of the unfavorable reaction to the works shown there, the Salon des Refuses was of great significance in undermining the prestige of the official Salon. After this, artists began to organize their own exhibitions(notably the 'Impressionists' in 1874) and art dealers became of increasing importance. The Salon des Refuses is thus regarded as a turning point in the history of art and 1863 has been described as 'the most convenient date from which to begin any history of modern painting'(Alan Bowness, Modern European Art, 1972)."
Now I'd like to share my thoughts about how this invention is relevant in our current society. The controlling structure(Salon) that was in place in 1800's France is still very much around except it's name has changed and it looks a little different. Now, instead of one central control mechanism we have a control system(galleries and 'non-profit' art centers). It's a system created by our Capitalistic society. Some people who love art, but may or may not be able to actually create any, bought into the sales pitches of our higher education system and paid tremendous amounts of money to gain a Masters degree that they believe qualifies them to dictate to the public what 'good' art is.
Unlike other art forms, such as music, visual artists have been at the mercy of those who own spaces with walls if they wished to get their art out to the public. Thankfully, this system is quickly becoming as threatened an institution as the recording industry. With new options such as youtube, facebook, and other social media outlets becoming more and more ubiquitous, artists are now able to circumvent the stranglehold of the current establishment. The more screens that appear in public(laptops, Iphones, Ipads) the more options expand for artists. Granted, I am forming my opinion based on my desire to create art that people want. Some people create art for the sole lofty purpose of creating art(a modern day luxury with no historical precedent) and that is fine if you are A. rich or B. an art professor. Lofty/heady/mental masturbation art appeals to a very small percentage of the public and it generally doesn't pay bills.
Now I would like to bring this discussion specifically back to the Lawndale Big Show and the Salon des Refuses produced by Gallery 1724. The purpose of the 'Big Show' according to Lawndale Art Center's own website is: "an annual open-call, juried exhibition. It has been an important venue through which emerging and under represented Houston area artists gain exposure since the show's conception in 1984." If this is indeed the case then why can I google the names of the accepted artist list from their page and find many artists who have either shown in galleries around town very recently or currently have gallery representation? Furthermore, why were 114 works selected from only 83 artists? Multiple pieces from the same artist take up room that could have otherwise been used to expose another's work. This can not be blamed on the institution itself, rather the juror- the LONE juror. At least the artists who submitted their work to the Salon in Paris in the 1860's had the benefit of more than one set of eyes either accepting or rejecting their pieces.
Last night I discovered a link to CultureMap's interview with the Juror of this year's Big Show, Paul Middendorf. Much of it is relatively boring(you can google it and find it if you have nothing else better to do), but the thing that grabbed my attention was a phrase he kept repeating while explaining his process for jurying the show. "A lot of it had to do with my aesthetic...." ".. some pieces that just didn't fit the aesthetic of the show.." " a lot of it was weeding out the work that didn't fit.. that didn't meet the aesthetic at all.." " I tried to get a bit of a .... not necessarily a theme, but definitely an aesthetic." These are words directly from the mouth of the juror from the interview. Now, the definition of the word: aesthetic.
Aesthetic: 1 a: of, relating to, or dealing with aesthetics or the beautiful. b: a work of aesthetic value. c: pleasing in appearance
2: appreciative of, responsive to, or zealous about the beautiful; also: responsive to or appreciative of what is pleasurable to the senses.
In other words, he chose art work that he 'liked' regardless of the talent, skill, or technical abilities of the artist. Who should care about this guy's opinion? His credentials aren't necessarily awe- inspiring and neither is his work in my opinion. EVERYONE chooses art that they LIKE. For this reason, I am grateful to Emily Sloan and Gallery 1724 for giving us rejected artists an opportunity to show in a physical space. The public can decide for itself. I think this very old idea is coming back in the new forms of ever evolving technology. It just takes some courage and ingenuity(both things I am struggling with learning along the way) to get around this archaic art system that so many of us are/have fallen victim to. I encourage all artists to investigate ways of becoming their own agents. For juried shows, why be subjugated by another's opinion which is just as valid as your own or put up with typical 50/50 gallery sale splits that will leave you financially in the red or broken even at best?
The ONLY value art possesses is the ability to connect emotionally to the viewer, listener, etc. Why do artists clamor to get into a show that doesn't even serve it's original function? I deem these types of shows obsolete in their own time. Times are changing and the system is crumbling. It is time for the independent artist to rise again. Did Leonardo Da Vinci have gallery representation or an art agent? Did Michelangelo? I think it's time to release great art into the world.
"Exhibition held in Paris in 1863 to show work that had been refused by the selection committee of the official 'Salon'. In that year there were particularly strong protests from artists whose work had been rejected, so the emperor Napoleon III, 'wishing to let the public judge the legitimacy of these complaints', ordered this special exhibition. It drew huge crowd, who came mainly to mock, and Manet's 'Dejeuner sur l'herbe' was subjected to particular ridicule. Other major artists represented included Cezanne, Camille Pissarro, and Whistler. In spite of the unfavorable reaction to the works shown there, the Salon des Refuses was of great significance in undermining the prestige of the official Salon. After this, artists began to organize their own exhibitions(notably the 'Impressionists' in 1874) and art dealers became of increasing importance. The Salon des Refuses is thus regarded as a turning point in the history of art and 1863 has been described as 'the most convenient date from which to begin any history of modern painting'(Alan Bowness, Modern European Art, 1972)."
Now I'd like to share my thoughts about how this invention is relevant in our current society. The controlling structure(Salon) that was in place in 1800's France is still very much around except it's name has changed and it looks a little different. Now, instead of one central control mechanism we have a control system(galleries and 'non-profit' art centers). It's a system created by our Capitalistic society. Some people who love art, but may or may not be able to actually create any, bought into the sales pitches of our higher education system and paid tremendous amounts of money to gain a Masters degree that they believe qualifies them to dictate to the public what 'good' art is.
Unlike other art forms, such as music, visual artists have been at the mercy of those who own spaces with walls if they wished to get their art out to the public. Thankfully, this system is quickly becoming as threatened an institution as the recording industry. With new options such as youtube, facebook, and other social media outlets becoming more and more ubiquitous, artists are now able to circumvent the stranglehold of the current establishment. The more screens that appear in public(laptops, Iphones, Ipads) the more options expand for artists. Granted, I am forming my opinion based on my desire to create art that people want. Some people create art for the sole lofty purpose of creating art(a modern day luxury with no historical precedent) and that is fine if you are A. rich or B. an art professor. Lofty/heady/mental masturbation art appeals to a very small percentage of the public and it generally doesn't pay bills.
Now I would like to bring this discussion specifically back to the Lawndale Big Show and the Salon des Refuses produced by Gallery 1724. The purpose of the 'Big Show' according to Lawndale Art Center's own website is: "an annual open-call, juried exhibition. It has been an important venue through which emerging and under represented Houston area artists gain exposure since the show's conception in 1984." If this is indeed the case then why can I google the names of the accepted artist list from their page and find many artists who have either shown in galleries around town very recently or currently have gallery representation? Furthermore, why were 114 works selected from only 83 artists? Multiple pieces from the same artist take up room that could have otherwise been used to expose another's work. This can not be blamed on the institution itself, rather the juror- the LONE juror. At least the artists who submitted their work to the Salon in Paris in the 1860's had the benefit of more than one set of eyes either accepting or rejecting their pieces.
Last night I discovered a link to CultureMap's interview with the Juror of this year's Big Show, Paul Middendorf. Much of it is relatively boring(you can google it and find it if you have nothing else better to do), but the thing that grabbed my attention was a phrase he kept repeating while explaining his process for jurying the show. "A lot of it had to do with my aesthetic...." ".. some pieces that just didn't fit the aesthetic of the show.." " a lot of it was weeding out the work that didn't fit.. that didn't meet the aesthetic at all.." " I tried to get a bit of a .... not necessarily a theme, but definitely an aesthetic." These are words directly from the mouth of the juror from the interview. Now, the definition of the word: aesthetic.
Aesthetic: 1 a: of, relating to, or dealing with aesthetics or the beautiful. b: a work of aesthetic value. c: pleasing in appearance
2: appreciative of, responsive to, or zealous about the beautiful; also: responsive to or appreciative of what is pleasurable to the senses.
In other words, he chose art work that he 'liked' regardless of the talent, skill, or technical abilities of the artist. Who should care about this guy's opinion? His credentials aren't necessarily awe- inspiring and neither is his work in my opinion. EVERYONE chooses art that they LIKE. For this reason, I am grateful to Emily Sloan and Gallery 1724 for giving us rejected artists an opportunity to show in a physical space. The public can decide for itself. I think this very old idea is coming back in the new forms of ever evolving technology. It just takes some courage and ingenuity(both things I am struggling with learning along the way) to get around this archaic art system that so many of us are/have fallen victim to. I encourage all artists to investigate ways of becoming their own agents. For juried shows, why be subjugated by another's opinion which is just as valid as your own or put up with typical 50/50 gallery sale splits that will leave you financially in the red or broken even at best?
The ONLY value art possesses is the ability to connect emotionally to the viewer, listener, etc. Why do artists clamor to get into a show that doesn't even serve it's original function? I deem these types of shows obsolete in their own time. Times are changing and the system is crumbling. It is time for the independent artist to rise again. Did Leonardo Da Vinci have gallery representation or an art agent? Did Michelangelo? I think it's time to release great art into the world.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)