New Month - New Projects

Have I got projects in the hopper, or what?

1. Abstract Expressionism, an interview project. I will be interviewing the greats of the New York School via the magic of Photoshop and a little imagination. It will be more than a reprise of my van Gogh interview technique, though. This time, I want to produce a power point presentation out of it in case I want to "take it on the road". Look for this project during the months of May and June - I want to give myself time to make it a quality event.
2. Fifty Drawings will be my temporary substitute for my 100 paintings project, which is on hold while my laptop computer is out of reach. Subject matter will vary, but the foundational elements of my art will be on display for sick prices - basically fifty dollars. Who knows, I may even try out a Wordpress site for this one. Look for this new project around the middle of May.
3. Blogger Biennial is an idea in it's formative stages that I haven't announced yet. The origination is from the idea that I can't wait around for Venice to give the call, and so I'm going to start my own Biennial, which will be an invitational to present new art at a special virtual event. I will be announcing the jury, and starting on this one-of-a-kind event sometime this year.
4. Stations of the Cross will be my personal art project exploring spiritual focus and abstraction in my art. I will be doing the stations of the cross, in a Protestant format, and creating installations to show these works. It may be a few years in the making, but I want to get the start soon.
   

Well, that ought to be enough for a while! And don't forget, I still have an art career to attend to - with five art fairs coming up. Yikes!

Mark Harden's Artchive

Mark Harden's Artchive has a page titled Theory and Criticism, which looks to be a fine collection of writings by known critics who expound on known artists and their artwork.

I guess I have been giving this well known site (Google seems to always take me there!) short shrift because I kind of don't like the graphic layout of the art listings there. In all fairness, though, it is a great website and resource for studying and thinking about art.

Here's the link:
http://www.artchive.com/critic.htm

"A Piece of Picasso"

Le rêve 1932
Pablo Picasso

It looks like David Pryce-Jones has weighed in on Pablo. I would say that he pulls no punches.

See:
Picasso.

I guess I was being a little too kind on the old boy.

Wolf Kahn

X

No Public Domain Pictures Available for Wolf Kahn

Wolf Kahn will be having his annual opening at the Ameringer-Yohe Gallery starting at the end of this month. The event is titled Sizing Up, and runs from 26 April - 1 June, 2007 (Paintings) and continues 7 June - 27 July, 2007 (Pastels). A reception will be Thursday 26 April at the gallery in NYC.

Now, if I could just figure out where NYC is...

FASO Dot Com

Red Corner
Pastel
Casey Klahn

FASO stands for Fine Art Studio Online. With some details worked out to my satisfaction, I am now prepared to invite one and all to my fine art website. The address is fineartstudioonline.com/CaseyKlahn. I should be able to transfer my domain name of CaseyKlahn.com soon, and that will be the new name.

Of course, as I went to burn a little midnight oil yesterday evening, I couldn't get the next set of art to load due to a "satellite outage". Technology is certainly a two-edged sword, isn't it?

The site looks great, and I am proud to have it "up"! I will call this a soft opening, and when I get all of my current jpegs uploaded, and all the pages filled (I think the resume page needs my updated resume, etc.) we'll have the grand opening.

Meanwhile, don't forget to send me a note at caseyklahn@msn.com, or post a comment here, if you are an artist who wants to trade essays. Info on that project here.

News From The Studio

Yellow Sky Detail
Pastel
Casey Klahn

All of my art fair acceptances and rejections are in as of today, and like every year my itinerary gets a little bit better. Also, my acceptance ratio has grown from a a few years ago being @ 60% accepted, to now being 5:2 accept/reject. What is that? About 75% acceptance rate, I guess. Good thing I'm not a CPA.

Five fairs in the summer time isn't a very big schedule, since a number of the artists I know do twenty plus and travel south in the winter months to do the Southern California, New Mexico and Arizona circuit. I try to keep it to high quality fairs and local ones, but I am also limiting myself to the Western region. It's a daddy thing.

Most of my fairs only show original fine art and represent a great opportunity for art patrons to meet artists directly. Also, how many times a year can you visit one man shows at the downtown galleries? At the art fair, you are viewing dozens of one man shows at the same venue.

My 2007 fair schedule is as follows:

• Spokane, Washington ArtFest, June 1-3 Link
• Edmonds, Washington Arts Festival (new for me), June 15-17 Link
• Bellevue, Washington Arts Museum ArtsFair, July 27-29 Link
• Park City, Utah Kimball Arts Festival, August 4, 5 Link
• Sun Valley, Idaho SV Center Arts & Crafts Festival (new for me), August 10-12 Link

I will be painting some new works that are inspired by a plein air work that I did of a neighbor's farm. They involve the barn relating to white outbuildings, and explore (so far) red and violet color fields. I also continue to present trees that focus on blue and yellow.

I often show a body of about 40 - 50 + works in the $300 and up ranges.

Art Critic Pool

See this blog soon for a practicum on writing an art critical piece.

Art Critic Pool - Art Criticisms for Trade

Detail of Yellow Trees in a Blue Forest
Pastel on Board
Casey Klahn

What do you think of a pool where we artists can trade critical pieces written about one another's art?

This is what I mean: one artist offers to write a one sentence, one paragraph, or one page art criticism of your corpus (or a given show, or whatever) and you offer to do roughly the same thing in trade regarding their work.

There don't seem to be as many critics functioning anymore, and it can be a worthwhile tool in your portfolio to have a third party wordsmithing about your art. (I promise not to use the word "wordsmithing" in my critique).

Here's what I'll do. I will take your e-mails for opting "in" to the Art Critic Pool, and I will offer you a match-up with another artist in the pool who is after about the same length of piece. For instance, Johnny writes me and wants to offer a three paragraph short essay about another artist's work (viewable on a blog, or website or even in a mailed packet if you're that into it), and Jane writes to offer a one pager as a trade with someone and I link them up via e-mail. They can decide if it will be a peachy trade or not, and if not, get back to me and re-enter the pool.

You won't get a document as authoritative (supposedly) as that from a professional art critic, but those types are few and far between, anyway. However, a third party written essay about your art is, at face value, a working tool that many artists can use. And, a petite essay from another artist (read: arts professional) is what it is - most likely an honest testament to the quality of a given artist.

One of the byproducts of the Abstract Expressionist movement is the revision of the influence and authority of the scholarly or vocational art critic. I am not prone to say something like, "here's your chance to stick it to the man," but each artist will do with this product what he will.

I would not, for my own part, present this as anything other than an essay written by another artist. By the same token, pick up any one of the many artist's monographs in your own library and take a look at the testimonials written by regular schmoes just like yourself. Or have a look at the membership of any number of arts concerns, and feel a little self-empowerment in the fact that you work body-and-soul in the field of fine art. You count.

Do this to participate:

1. Post an e-mail to me at caseyklahn@msn.com.
   
2. Important: this e-mail will be changing shortly to one at Hughesnet, so check this post for my address update before you post.
   
3. Put the words: "Art Critic Pool" in the subject line so I don't flush it as spam.
4. Offer to write a one sentence, or a one, two, or three paragraph review or even a petite essay, if you are really good at writing.
5. Have a written one or two sentence description of yourself as the potential author of this piece. Such as: "Casey Klahn, full time artist and self-published art essayist." Well, I'll have to work on that one ;=}
6. Send no money at this time. I always wanted to say that. Actually, this whole thing is free gratis on my part, and barter system (or filthy lucre, if you must) among essay traders. Of course, I get to chose the best writer I see to trade with me.
7. Of course, I can't guarantee any match-ups or products.
   
8. If I get swamped by e-mails, I will be looking for volunteers to split the effort with me.

Writing an Essay Links:

English Works! on Essays.
http://custom-writing.org/blog/writing-tips/112.html
http://essayinfo.com/essays/critical_essay.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_critic
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_criticism
How to say nothing in five hundred words.

Angst:

"I don't know anything about art, but I know what I like."
Gelett Burgess (1866-1951).
"Then we went to Matisse's studio. He's one of the neo, neo Impressionists, quite interesting and lots of talent but very queer. He does things very much like Pamela's [Fry's 7-year-old daughter]."
Roger Fry (1866-1934), British art critic. Letter to his wife, 1909.
"I am now completely Matissiste . . . after studying all of his paintings I am quite convinced of his genius."
Roger Fry. Letter to Simon Bussy, 1911.
"What distinguishes modern art from the art of other ages is criticism."
Octavio Paz (1914-), Mexican poet.
"Art criticism everywhere is now at a low ebb, intellectually corrupt, swamped in meaningless jargon, distorted by political correctitudes, anxiously addressed only to other critics and their ilk."
Brian Sewell (contemporary), British writer, Evening Standard, November 10, 1994.
Thanks ArtLex.

Extreme Navel Gazing:

Clement Greenberg.

Turkey Camp

For the next several days I will be hosting Turkey Camp.

"Gobble!Gobble!Gobble!"

Maybe a review of the wild turkey breast dinner would be in order, if my luck intersects with a little skill again this year.

Current Art Market, Criticisms

Lisa Hunter, over at The Intrepid Art Collector, a while back had this post called Star Power:

... who determines whether art is good. Today, the market itself tends to make stars, giving top dealers and collectors (like Charles Saatchi) the role once reserved for curators and critics.

A museum director confided to me that the market has "pushed museums to the side as arbiters of taste." Nowadays, the public already has an opinion about which new artists are "important" before a museum exhibit can be organized. Only a few museums, like the Whitney, even dare try. It's a fool's errand: If they show artists who aren't the annointed stars, people think the curators are out of touch. If they show the reigning favorites, everyone snipes that the curators are in the pocket of the dealers.

A generation ago, high-brow critics like Meyer Schapiro and Clement Greenberg wrote intelligent criticism that anyone could understand with a bit of effort. They provided a framework for asking questions, so a viewer could learn to evaluate art for himself. Today's scholarly criticism is often obtuse, theoretical, and unhelpful. (I was looking at an art history graduate program recently, and the Art History Department could have changed its name to the Michel Foucault Department without having to alter a single course description.) Newspaper critics may be excellent --especially Jerry Saltz and Tyler Green -- but reviews are case-by-case and don't provide an overall framework, so insecure collectors rely on a thumbs up/thumbs down for each individual show.

Or they rely on dealers, which takes us back to the market creating the stars.

Is there a better way? How should novices learn about contemporary art? Do we leave them, sink-or-swim, to figure it all out for themselves? Or is the art world failing them and, ultimately, itself?
Our previous discussion raised interesting questions about who determines whether art is good. Today, the market itself tends to make stars, giving top dealers and collectors (like Charles Saatchi) the role once reserved for curators and critics.

A museum director confided to me that the market has "pushed museums to the side as arbiters of taste." Nowadays, the public already has an opinion about which new artists are "important" before a museum exhibit can be organized. Only a few museums, like the Whitney, even dare try. It's a fool's errand: If they show artists who aren't the annointed stars, people think the curators are out of touch. If they show the reigning favorites, everyone snipes that the curators are in the pocket of the dealers.

A generation ago, high-brow critics like Meyer Schapiro and Clement Greenberg wrote intelligent criticism that anyone could understand with a bit of effort. They provided a framework for asking questions, so a viewer could learn to evaluate art for himself. Today's scholarly criticism is often obtuse, theoretical, and unhelpful.
(I was looking at an art history graduate program recently, and the Art History Department could have changed its name to the Michel Foucault Department without having to alter a single course description.) Newspaper critics may be excellent --especially Jerry Saltz and Tyler Green -- but reviews are case-by-case and don't provide an overall framework, so insecure collectors rely on a thumbs up/thumbs down for each individual show.

Or they rely on dealers, which takes us back to the market creating the stars.

Is there a better way? How should novices learn about contemporary art? Do we leave them, sink-or-swim, to figure it all out for themselves? Or is the art world failing them and, ultimately, itself?

I like her overall thesis, about the failure of art criticism. If this is true-that the critical career is lacking in potency, then there is a vacuum for advice about art based on a theoretical structure. This set of values, or art critical theory, has been a service to art patronage who look for some sort of rational basis for which art should be considered good, and which should not.

I think, though, that one would have to effectively indict "the market" in order to fully prove this thesis. The free (art) market does respond to the forces of shared "taste". What is wrong with that? Doesn't the art critic serve a master, too? The university, or some periodical or news media, together with it's readership and advertisers, are the constituents of the professional art critic. You'll notice that I didn't say: "artists" there. Where do they fit in? I would say that the artist's interaction with his buying market should be valued as a viable critique of art. There are filters there, too.

What do you think?

Pick on Picasso Picture.

Guernica, Picasso

Picasso is probably the greatest (by reputation) artist of the twentieth century. His mural Guernica appeared at the Paris World's Fair in 1937. If it was a statement against war, it failed utterly in purpose.

I do, however, respect the formal artistic qualities of his art. He really did move the institution of art forward, as a founding Cubist, which is a direct influence on my own art. I especially like his drawings.

Pablo Picasso. (Spanish, 1881-1973). La belle qui passe. (1904). Ink on paper, 11 1/2 x 15 3/4"
MoMa

Have a look at Picasso's exceedingly strange and eventful personal life, beliefs and politics. I rarely concern myself with these things, even letting my artist heroes "get away" with murder, because I want to focus on their art. But, if contemporary times are concerned with social aspects of art, I offer Pablo as the poster child of strange (may I say "goofy"? - he was very extreme) artist lifestyles.

In this vein, I wonder about his life and times. I see, in Wikipedia, that he was an "Anarcho-Communist". That finally makes sense to me of his remaining in Paris under the Nazis. A communist would've been at the throat of the Nazis, but his brand of anarchist was allergic to conflict. His Cubist buddy, Braque, considered him a coward. You be the judge.

I'm sorry to get into politics, which is outside of my art blog direction, but the social subjects of contemporary art criticism and art history are hand in glove with politics. I think Picasso's funny beliefs and behaviors are illustrative of why I avoid these things in my own art direction. The more "out-there" an artist's politics, the less I feel they offer the advancement of art. I call my position: "art as art". Of course, he was a great artist, so I guess someone could argue the other direction.

Picasso website.

Caravaggio Fight

The Card Sharps,
Caravaggio

Love Conquers All,
Caravaggio

Here I go, again, following the direction of some comments coming in. I think it's a nice opportunity to open up a can of: Art Criticism on the old Baroque master Caravaggio.

If you see the comments from my last post, Philip and Robyn and I have each our own opinions on this artist, and we are taking the risk of sharing these opinions in the public square. As my teacher, Diane Townsend once said about a Kandinsky that I was trying to not drop rain upon in class, "We have permission to not like his art."

What do you think about all of this?

Types of Subject

I had another post written for today, but I liked the conversation going on in the comments area for the previous easter posts. They bring up some global art issues that dovetail well with our art crit. conversation. I wrote the following:

Yes, those Renaissance (and Baroque) painters had a good handle on figurative, narrative and spiritual subjects.
When I see the three that I curated for the easter holiday, I wonder if there is anywhere else to go with realistic and figurative art in the present and in the future. Their works were nearly perfect in accomplishing their goals.

I think about Harvey Dinnerstein, who is a stunningly good contemporary figure painter. He uses the self-portrait, and urban scenes with contemporary figures as subjects. They match the quality of the Renaissance greats, although I'm not aware of any works he has done that are as complex as these multi-figured compositions.

What place does spiritual work have in art's present and future? Is it more important, less important or roughly equal to the place of socially and ethnically aware contemporary art?

My bias: I am more likely to either relegate to a lesser status, or just disregard any current art that is social, or political. The reasons are that I value more the formal qualities of art, including subjects that are self-interested (such as color or abstraction).

Easter

The Incredulity of Saint Thomas
1601-02
Oil on canvas, 107 x 146 cm
CARAVAGGIO
(b. 1571, Caravaggio, d. 1610, Porto Ercole)

Lament

The Lamentation over the Dead Christ, (c. 1490)
Tempera on canvas, 68 x 81 cm
Andea Mantegna (Early Renaissance Italian painter, 1431-1506)

Crucifixion

The Crucifixion of Saint Peter
1600
Caravaggio
Oil on canvas, 230 x 175 cm
Cerasi Chapel, Santa Maria del Popolo, Rome

The work of Christ on the cross was complete for the expiation of man's sin, but that didn't mean that the work of existence was through. Witness what happened to Peter, according to early tradition of his death in Rome. Peter is supposed to have opted for an inverted version of Christ's death on the cross. Is there a better tale of humility available anywhere?

On the subject of Caravaggio, please take the time to read the short biography at the link. Not your poster child for Christian behavior, that's for sure. Regarding his art, he was a great Italian artist of the Baroque movement. I regard his art to be a great example of figurative work, and when I take that up again, he will be the "go to" guy.

Interesting reference about The Crucifixion of Saint Peter painting here.

Holiday Greetings

While I remember Good Friday, I wish you a great holiday and weekend. I may be posting a pre-written article, or a special greeting if time permits.

Of course, as a workaholic artist, I'll be trying to get something done on my website that is under construction. I am having tech. problems with the "Works" or "Portfolio" pages, and am waiting for tech. support to write me back. Meanwhile, I am shopping other template sites. Did you know Google has a free pagemaker?

God bless!

Art Criticism, an April Project

Abstract on it's Side
Pastel
Casey Klahn

Those of us who write Art Blogs, and are working artists ourselves, are wearing more than one hat (or beret?). We are writers, art professionals (that's a broad pool), editors (some might say inveterate cut-and-pasters), and every time we comment on either our own art, or that of another artist, we are wearing the hat of the art critic.

What is that swaying I feel? Could it be the limb that I have crawled out on?

Of course, I know that the office of the Art Critic is different from that of the fine artist. You have no argument with me, there. The critic's reason for being is, in the standard definition, to provide an evaluation of art to the public. They aren't necessarily the arbiters of taste, but there is a need for their product. Heaven knows, artists don't often make themselves understood either in written or in verbal form.

One extreme of opinion among artists has it that "art should speak for itself!" Shoulda, woulda, coulda, I say. We do live in a world where it behooves the artist to define his own artistic direction and statement before someone else does it for him. Will there ever be a professional art critic 's attention to your work? Statistically thin chances, there. Maybe a review by an arts writer in the local newspaper. One of our local arts writers also covers the R.V. beat.

The Abstract Expressionists ( USA, 1940s - 1950s) were armed with a layered array of self-promotion tools. A few of them (the painters themselves) were essayists and critics, and also a few were curators of exhibitions. They commiserated among one another about their artistic directions. External support came in the form of gallerists as allies, and of course, writers whose profession was art criticism.

Detractors may say that the funny-looking abstractionists' paintings relied upon written descriptions and promotion. I don't agree, as the test of posterity has proven, these breakthrough works have an audience. Look at the crowds at the MoMA on a given weekday-regular people with common tastes. Note: next month I will be hob-nobbing (fantasy interviews) with the larger-than-life Abstract Expressionists in NYC. Take a trip with me back in time and see what "made them tick".

Does an artist need to be apt as a critic? No. But self-criticism is a requirement for artistic growth. Indeed, the ability to "see" and absorb the visual aspects, and the subvisual aspects of art, is needed if the artist is to depart on his own journey. I feel that when I do this task, much of the time none of it is reaching my brain in the form of words. How would I describe what I am doing in a written form? What words would I use to describe my art? What words would I use to describe the process?

Throughout the month of April, we will be looking at art criticism, writing in general, and, by extension, the artist's statement. I have a special and free project for the artists who read this blog. We will be doing a trade of reviews. More on that, later.

I hope that those who usually think "Yick!" when they think about writing and visual art will follow this interactive thread this month for some user-friendly content on writing about art. We'll have some fun writing for one another and sharing ideas and opinions, as well.

For the more in-depth out there, we'll take apart the high and lofty world of art criticism. We will be looking at some notables in the field. As always, I want to avoid descending into the black pit of "Artspeak", and keep it lively and informative.

In the (Hypothetical) Case of The Artist Jane Doe Versus The Guardian U.K., et al., the Jury Finds...

Speaking of art criticism, at Art News Blog Dion Archibald recently posted this:

Interpreting Art - Artist or Critic?

Ana Finel Honigman has asked an interesting question over at the Guardian blog. She asks, Is an artist's idea of what their work means more important than the viewer's interpretation, or are they both valid?

I like the idea of a work of art doing its own talking. If it needs an explanation by the artist, he/she has probably made the work too complicated. An artist and an art critic should be two very different people. One creates art and the other talks about art.

I would still rather listen to an artist talk about art, rather than a critic talking about art though.

Here's what Ana Finel Honigman says..
"..many academics or critics exploit art's "messages" for self-interested methodological or political ends. But many excellent artists leave themselves defenseless against such hijacking because they cannot articulate persuasively why they do what they do. And further complicating these relationships is that many artists who can explain their work are more articulate verbally than visually, which is why much of bad art is not really art but is rather merely illustrations of ideas.." Guardian Blog

At first, many things about these threads had me in disagreement with them. I do prefer the truth of the artist's intention in a work, over an interpretation by an observer.

The battle royale in such a case would be the conflict between the interpretation of an artwork by the originating artist and that of a professional art critic. The artwork is the artist's intellectual property, after all. In a hypothetical court case about the meaning of an artwork, I would hope that the artist's words would prevail over the third party writer, no matter how "professional" they may be.

I read the threads a little closer, then, and I see that the writers are coming down on my side of the fence, too. Dion asks which character has the best interpretation of a given artwork, but he prefers the artist's words as at least being more interesting than a third party observer. The UK Guardian's Honigman indicts the motives of some critics' interpretations as self-serving, but then adjures the artist to get on the stick and try to provide their own interpretations before someone else does.

I guess I flew off the handle a bit quickly. It was the calling into question of the unity of meaning and intent that rubbed me wrong, I guess.

If you are an artist, did it ever occur to you that there is a very large and broad profession of individuals who make their livings in art, but who are not producing any art themselves? I don't condemn this, by the way. It just lets us know that we ought to be able to find our share of the pie, given that we are, er...artists, after all. The blue collar members of the art business, if you will. The hands on guys.

I get a chuckle from Honigman's statement:"... much of bad art is not really art but is rather merely illustrations of ideas.." It's another thread, but it's good to put a little thought into qualifying art.

In defense of the critic, their job is important to the artist and to the public at large. They should be trying to position a given work or body of art, or a given artist or collection of artists in a stream of context. Either a movement, a school of thought or a style. Or maybe the lack thereof - maybe this work of art is a watershed work, a breakthrough, as it were. My point is these are contexts bigger than the artist and his artwork, and it doesn't harm the artist when an art critic helps to identify or describe that.

I know there is a place for "radical" art criticism, and I will address that in a future post.

Is the art viewer's interpretation valid? Certainly. But a thing cannot, in truth, be both Thing "A" and Thing "B" at the same time. The observer can respond authentically any way they choose, but the artist had "A" in mind, and I value the discovery of that thing that has been called the artist's "oeuvre".

I know, I know - some artists will create "participative" works. Great, more power to them. There is always a comedian in the bunch. (Light-hearted joking, here.)

Comments, please...

Italian Life Post

Italian Life

4.5" x 4.75"
Original Pastel
Casey Klahn
$100
Plus Tax & Shipping

Over at 100 Paintings -Colorist Italian Landscapes I am trying out still life as a subject. Don't think I'll change the name of the project, though.

What would Italy be without food?