Rooster Plate

I painted the image on this ceramic plate to be auctioned at a fundraiser for a local arts service. It's a place where people who are interested in art can take informal (in the sense that there are no, as far as I know, grades or great pressure to perform at a certain level) classes in painting, ceramics, drawing, and other subjects.

I have many friends who work and participate at this facility, so I was happy to make a small contribution in the form of this plate. The auction event is called the "Blue Plate Special". Get it?

Anyway, I entered into this project with some trepidation, since I'm not at all familiar with the materials and glazes used to make images on ceramics. I didn't take ceramics in college and have had no interest in it, or really any 3-dimensional medium. But I gave it a try and this is how it turned out. Not knowing how glazes translate after firing in a kiln I decided to keep the color flat with a simple outline. I know it's possible to achieve very sophisticated color effects and gradations. But I don't know how to do that and it would take considerable practice and trial and error, just as it did while I was learning to paint, to reach a level I felt comfortable with, outside of this simple approach. The background started out sort of abstract then evolved into an organic pattern. Through research I was able to figure out how the colors I was working with would appear after the plate's firing.

While I was happy to support the efforts of this and other worthy causes, the practice of artists giving their work to auctions is a little controversial. Some artists feel exploited, as they are often assigned subject matter or, as in this case, media outside of their usual materials. Their work is taken and auctioned at prices that may or may not reflect their proven value in the marketplace. And often they are unable to attend the events where their work is used to raise money, due to high ticket prices they are unable or unwilling, since they have contributed to the potential success of the event, to pay.

My first understanding of this particular event was that the artists could only attend if they paid full price for tickets. Then apparently this policy changed, since my wife and I were offered tickets gratis to attend. We were intending to attend the event, as I'm always interested in seeing how my work performs in such an environment, for the not insignificant reason of determining if the auction prices hold up to the retail prices I ask for my work in the marketplace. The reason for my concern isn't that I think so highly of myself, as much as it is out of fairness to those people who are generous enough to buy my work for its retail asking price. There could be some resentment if the work is sold at a lower price than I ask in the market. So while supporting good causes is a good thing that is not the only consideration. I have, I must add, had good luck usually in having my work bring a price at auction equal to its retail price. Since my piece wasn't to be included in the actual auction we decided to not attend, letting the tickets go back into the hopper so they could be sold for full price.

What makes these situations frustrating, other than a low selling auction price, is when the work donated is not used in the way that it was said it would be used. This plate, I'm told, won't be on the auction block, but will instead be given as a sort of prize to those people who paid a premium ticket price to the event. Another word for this might be "party favor", but let's not take that snarkiness any further. If there are a limited number of pieces to be auctioned, then the number of pieces solicited should, in my opinion, be limited to that number. If more funds are required to be raised then other options should be offered. For the auction officials to create a hierarchy of work, based on whatever criteria, especially when that intention isn't made clear at the solicitation point, only feeds more resentment in the population of donating artists, which leads to less work being donated to that or other otherwise worthy causes. Such practices, however innocent and well meaning I know they are, are counterproductive for everyone involved.

Regardless, I do sincerely hope whomever ends up with the plate I donated wants and enjoys it. Maybe one day they will look me up and let me come see where they put it.

Below is how the plate looked after painting, but before firing.

Enough already.

No further comment.

The Winter of Our Discontent

This past decade has been a decidedly mixed bag, with some really great developments and some which were really bad. Whether it overall deserves the name I gave it, The 'Zeroes, may take a while to settle. But I think there's a case that can definitely be made.
But now we're on the threshold of a new decade, with some positive things going on personally and professionally. If the year needs improvement for you as well, I hope improvement happens.
I'll be back next year with more rants, pictures and observations. Thanks for following this blog. Have happy holidays, whatever form they take.

"Show me your papers"

We have to control our borders and control immigration. But that doesn't mean we throw the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments into the garbage bin at the same time. The Arizona law which permits police officers to, having stopped anyone because of some infraction, require the person to show proof of citizenship is heaving those amendments into the wastebasket.
The only people who are going to be asked for their "papers" are those who "look" like they may be in the country illegally. What constitutes such a "look"? Good question. Since I'm caucasian I could rob a bank in Arizona and, after being caught, it's very very unlikely I would be asked for my citizenship papers (I don't know what I would show anyway...my birth certificate? I don't carry that with me). Someone with that "look" could be stopped for a broken taillight and find him/herself being under suspicion based on looks alone. So, it doesn't matter if the person is a citizen, in fact could be a multigenerational citizen of the U.S., that person is presumed guilty until proven innocent.
That's the point of this drawing. The officer is demanding the "papers" of a petroglyph which has been in this region for the past 1000 years, before there was a U.S. to be a citizen of.

Hmmmm...again.

I read today that "Iron Man" and "Iron Man 2" director Jon Favreau is directing a movie set for a summer 2011 release titled, annoyingly enough, "Cowboys and Aliens", apparently based on a graphic novel of the same name. It has nothing to do with me and of course the title is a coincidence, but I do want to get this out to the universe now. I thought of the phrase first.
Not that such wordplay is all that difficult, and seems like an obvious match when you think of it, but still. Since I work in relative obscurity, when more famous entities coincidentally come up with the same phrase, name, style, image, whatever, it appears that I'm stealing from them. I hate when this happens.

Here's the image, nevertheless, this version painted in 2008.

I used the same idea on these "Circus Punk" dolls created for the 2005 "Circus Punks Rule New York" exhibition at The Showroom in, yes, New York.

Things that make you go "hmmm"...

More than once I've been...accused is too strong a word, I guess, but it has been suggested, of taking stylistic liberties with someone else's ideas, borrowing, appropriating, stealing, call it whatever. I've never consciously done such a thing, but since there are no new ideas under the sun coincidences do happen. So I try to be understanding when I see elements I have introduced in my own work turning up in someone else's work. The problem is when the artist coincidently introducing those same elements has a higher profile than I do (which wouldn't take much). Then, when my work including those elements gets whatever recognition it has, it appears I have ripped off that artist, whose work is seen before and more often and publicly than mine.
So it is, with an element I introduced into my paintings about ten years ago.
Here's an example of the element:



It's a simple circle, achieved by loosely applying a circular surface with paint onto the surface of the piece. Here's the first example of my having used it in an abstract painting, in about 1999:




Here's an example of its application in a fairly recent landscape painting from a couple of years ago:



And here's the more recent application, from my current "Rooster Series":



Okay. I'm not accusing anyone of stealing a minor design element from me. The artist in question is one I've been personally acquainted with in the past, although I haven't seen her in several years. Her work is featured in the new issue of a prominent regional art magazine. The loose circular element is used as a design device throughout the article and is seen in one of the featured paintings. I first noticed this similarity in one of her paintings on view at a Santa Fe gallery I was visiting last year. Now it's a major element in a magazine profile of her work. So whatever exposure my paintings utilizing this element may receive in the future will appear to the uninformed to be taking an element she originated. This kind of thing happens, and is more often than not innocent, and I'm going to assume it is in this case. I'm not happy about, but pointing this out is all I can do about it, and I think it's an important thing to do.
So there.