Archive for the Contemorary Art Category

Work, of the Type I Dislike

Posted in Art, Art Student Handbook, Artists, Contemorary Art, Criticism, Leisure, Literature, Pop-culture, Social Science, Technique on 7 November, 2010 by endlessslug

The slug found himself a job.  It’s one of those jobs that kills all creativity and time, yet kind of pays the bills.  My new workmates like to remind me (constantly) that “it’s money, right?”

Wrong.

Yes, I get paid, but so what?  My interests are broader and I was getting along while also building two different companies.  I was producing, I was beginning a successful climb towards my own agenda of success and quality workmanship.  But now I must toil at a graveyard-shift shit-pile of a job and make way less than the average employee (as I’m considered a “temp”), and get absolutely no new work accomplished.  I know its difficult for a non-artist/writer to understand sometimes, but artists no matter what the type require time, above all, to complete projects.  In fact, we need time just to think and design a project.  We cannot simply sit down for 30 minutes at a time between meals or social events or work and be expected to pump out masterpieces – or anything at all.  The mundane world sees this as “correct” – that now artists and writers must make themselves a “decent” or “honorable” living because the general public believes very little in what we do for them.  And of course, there are artists and writers out there that have really made a terrible image for the rest of us working little and pissing out terrible work for a high profit return (cf Andy Warhol).  I would encourage the public to see artists as carpenters or other construction laborers, and no different, as much as popular artists, or the “artist you know” would like you to think otherwise.  Artists are craftsmen and women like any other, but our work is often situational and based on life experience, not a directly or obviously functional device like a house or car.  This is also not to take away from the artistic elements of the work that other craftsmen do.  I saw a forklift driver the other night whom I felt was a fine artist of truck loading, for example.  The difference between us is only that I (or any other artist) focus on the artistic/aesthetic and secondly on function; just a reverse of the practical consensus.  I wish we could be paid by the hour to create our structures, our homes, our food, our art, but this cannot be.  I don’t blame the public here, I blame artists in conjunction with a cultural mentality that we must all find some sense of uniqueness to consume and compete with.  A mixture of protestant ethic and capitalism, combined with contemporary reliance on spectacle and immediate gratification.  A competition for the shock, as it were, as a means to qualify for a self-defined (yet with immense lacking of experience) sense of personal hard work in the completion of a sub-standard pile of regurgitated sameness steamers.

You can make something new and important and be paid for it.  Relax.

Advertisements

Letters to the Contemporary Age I

Posted in Art, Artists, Contemorary Art, Criticism, Pop-culture, Social Science with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on 22 July, 2010 by endlessslug

Dear Post-modernism,

Are we done yet?

Have we not underwhelmed the intellectual world and utterly confused (for no reason) the general public enough to move on?  Can we put you to rest and nail the coffin shut so that no culture in the future will ever stoop to such a low cycle in art?  Early man was not even so bold as to make art entirely for himself.  I’m tired, so tired, of walking into supposedly “high art” galleries and uttering only “what a dick” to each exhibit.  Whatever happened to paintings which somebody wanted to buy because they were aesthetically pleasing to the individual and pleasant to display in public?  What’s so wrong with semi-nude nymphs feeding fountains in my front yard?  Post-modernism, is it still necessary to demonstrate the modern artists’ complete lack of knowledge of anything other than art trend and con-artistry?  When did artists become professional assassins of knowledge and thieves of culture?  When will we return to the days where a painter could talk to his or her ancestors or descendants about everyday things?  I recall a time when I could paint a pear and have it mean nothing else but “pear”; although that pear always said much more than that in complex understanding.  It meant more exhaustively: a pear which is there – a pear which is tangible, edible, tasty, delightful; a pear I want and will always want.  A pear my descendants will want and will say, “what a great pear, I understand that my ancestors enjoyed pears as much as I do.  I enjoy this painting.”  The funny thing is, Post-modernism, is that I hate pears.  But I can paint what it must be like to enjoy such a thing.  I see others eat them all the time.  About 50% of the lunch table in my old high school had pears for lunch every day.  But I explore what I hate about pears that others enjoy – and I paint pears for them.

And when did you shift from being about French Socialistic ideas about power relationships and into this self-righteous, selfish disaster all about yourself entirely?  “I, I, I, I, I, Me, Me, Me, Me, Me” – Shut up already, Post-modernism!  We ought to want our descendants to understand something about our times, sure, but in general, not specifically about “my time” as a human in this age.  We are part of a great lineage, a chain of kinship like everyone else.  All artists ought to spend time among non-western villagers.  Make things with them.  Learn how to make art for people, but not community art – this is for idiots (i.e., muralists).   Community art is lifeless and limited, like a tourist photograph, and is among the worst kind of you, Post-modernism.

So, are we done? Can we move on? Can we make distinctions between Modernism, Structuralism, Post-Structuralism, Post-Modernism, and Post-Post-Modernism?  Do we need a new “-ism” to describe this contemporary black hole of shock and self-centered-ness?  Can we paint beautiful things again and not gross, disgusting shock-value trash?  How is shock a power relationship? Because it affects people of all socio-economic and cultural levels? Sure, but you did not have to waste 50 years of fine art and artists on telling us this when it could have been simply written down in an article on a shelf, instead.

Sincerely,

Endless Slug

New Summer Series

Posted in Art, Contemorary Art, Pop-culture, Social Science, Studio Work, Technique with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , on 21 May, 2010 by endlessslug

I decided to do something a little different and try pissing out mass volumes of pastel drawings and try selling them at reduced rates.  It’s a big experiment, so don’t worry all you hard-core followers of the slug, I’m not selling out.  I have a hypothesis I’d like to test.  It’s mostly a color hypothesis but in order to test it adequately, I need to sell a mass of work in a short time.  Reducing prices to affordable decoration range ideally will do the trick.

Here’s the first one of the new series.

I named this one, which I rarely do.  It’s name is “Breakfast Nook” and is a contemporary surrealist approach to a still life of an apple, a pear, and a banana.  Interested parties can buy prints over at imagekind or buy the original drawing over at zatista.  I hope to put a drawing up like this one about every other week, possibly every week this summer, and then firmly stop before I have to move out of my apartment around late July.  This means, mostly a June series.

-Slug

Quit Painting Other People’s Art

Posted in Art, Artists, Contemorary Art, Criticism, Gallery Talk, Literature, Studio Work, Technique with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on 16 March, 2010 by endlessslug

Here’s an issue I see frequently in the world of art today from the lowly student, to the returning retiree, to the professional: Re-creating a work of art into the artist’s medium resulting in a lifeless copy of something once beautiful and meaningful.

Do you know what I’m referring to? Have you seen/created works like this?

I’ll contain this discussion to my fellow painters:

O BITTER MUSE!

The most common form of copy-painting folks often come across is people who paint from photographs.  Yes, yes, I know, many painters and especially illustrators use photographs frequently as reference in the construction of an image.  A reference.  Say it with me now, “R E F E R E N C E”. A painter knows how to draw the image already, the photo helps in the small details when a painter feels they need to recall more specific information.  Far too often, we see students and especially pseudo-professionals create a work entirely from a photograph.  A trained eye quickly picks up that photos have been used.  Why should we not do this? The work ends up lifeless – only a copy.  Some artists can make some aspect of these works interesting: Watercolorists can sometimes create interesting effects in color application and transparencies, drawers can create different effects in line weights and contrasts, and the painter can shift a whole mood in addition to the previous two effects.  But these changes are often pedantic and cannot detract from the image as a photo.  We can always tell the photo-painting because of the inclusion of excessive details revealed by looking at a pictoral reference, which are different from the movement details we find with live or imagined objects.  The photo is a static instance of an event and completely unsuitable for a painting.  Photo-paintings also lean towards the development of bad habits: restrictive drawing space, restrictive palette, attempts at color which result in drab local color arrangements, and lack of experience in drawing live models/scenes.  As painters, we must, at all cost, SEE (with our personal eyes) what a subject looks like – how it moves – how light plays off edges and curves, how lines appear and disappear, how color plays in the shadows, and so on.  A photo cannot reproduce this; neither does video.

A couple of simple rules:

Stop and change your idea immediately if you plan on painting any of the following:

1) Family photos

2) “Found” photos

3) Pet Photos

4) Cellphone Pix

5) Website caps

6) Cropped areas of a photo in an attempt to do something “different”

7) Paintings of famous photographs or paintings of work you did in your photo class that you got that A- on.

8 ) Anything your friends say you should paint.

Because:

A) These are all terrible ideas and have been done by every wannabe post-mod contemporary shit student artist for the last 10+ years.

B) It will result in a terrible painting that no one wants to see.

C) They are boring.

D) They are artistic Plagiarism!

Artistic Plagiarism

Sometime in the last 30 years, some idiot decided it was “OK” to “express yourself” in any way you feel as long as you are being yourself. You, you, you, you, me, me, me, me, blah.  Once upon a time, a favorite old art professor told me, “paint from a photo and you’re committing plagiarism.”  The shitbag art students in the class with me argued with this guy for weeks about that statement.  Partly, he said it so these kids would say something and begin to argue to make them academic artists, but he was also correct.  The photo itself is already a record of an event and it’s own aesthetic creation.  It might be more historical document than art, and the ‘artist’ might decide to elevate the work to some sort of western notion of fine art, but the work is already done – why paint that?  Just frame it and put it on the wall.  When you paint it, you’ve just copied someone else’s work – maybe even your own.  To him, and to me, it’s no different than taking words from a published document and using them as if you said them yourself.  And like the trained literature/composition instructor, the trained artist can tell right away when the work is a photo-painting, thus knowing it was plagiarized.  I believe a little part of that intuition exists in all viewers of the work which somewhat universally makes the work uninteresting – except to the Sunday-painter whose mind was just blown: “Wow! I can paint my dog too! and I have the perfect picture of him in a little pink sweater I knitted”.  Thanks photo-painter for shitting up the art world one person more.

So, in conclusion:

I> Don’t paint from photos or any other copy-reference; draw from life

II> If you do paint from photos, DO SOMETHING WITH YOUR PAINTING that the photo does not or can not.  If you constantly strive to improve upon the photo and instead work more from life, one day magic will happen… you will no longer need it.

*** ADDENDUM ***

That was quick – I got bombarded with private and semi-public arguments within minutes of this post.  On one hand, it’s good to see people are reading me, on the other, I wish people would argue less, listen, and learn.

I should clarify, however: Artists of all forms know that human minds are repositories of experiences and knowledge manipulated by intuition and abstract forethought resulting in limitless creativity, thanks to Noam Chomsky and linguistic anthropologists everywhere, boo to modern philosophers and psychologists.  My argument about ‘not’ painting other people’s work is a plea for artists to construct their own work – which they can certainly do.  We all learn some painting from copying masters and other artists, this is normal behavior, but copy-learning must be tempered with real painting as well and eventually, the student moves away from the copies to become their own master.

My argument is for those artists in galleries downtown, right now, who dare put a photo-painting on a wall.  The “why” about this problem might be fleeting for most non-artists though.  The major problem with photo-paintings is that they are terrible paintings, lacking energy, lacking style, lacking composition, idea, complexity – name it, and these paintings do not have it.  The best one can achieve is small variations of technique – but who cares? The average viewer doesn’t give a shit, they want to see a nice painting, not a dentist’s office visit.  It reminds me about times when I’d go see movies with film student friends.  The movies might have totally sucked, but the film student goes on and on about the direction, lighting, and so on, amidst a flood of angry or confused movie-goers.  This is crap, and a hallmark of the postmodern world we live in where things are now created for exclusive groups, instead of larger audiences.  The longevity and usefulness of personal art is temporary, fleeting, and ultimately meaningless.  We don’t expect every painting, film, or pop-song to be amazing for centuries – of course not – but why don’t we have long-lasting works anymore?  This is the question I raise and attempt to locate data for.  We also do paint for ourselves.  I have a number of personal drawings and paintings that will never be shown.  Not because I’m ashamed, but because that the art is not for a public – there’s no need to show it.  I have a responsibility as a fine artist to show only work which I believe a public would like to see and needs.

Here is a painting exercise for folks – I’ll use my own work.  <gasp> no he didn’ – Sure, I did use photo reference in my earlier days; I too tried painting from photos.  I learned the lesson first-hand that photo paintings lack something which model-based paintings have.  I have since learned how to use a photo for a painting, not as the painting.

Which of the following paintings was created from a photo?  Which of the following paintings was painted with photo-reference?  Then criticize and analyze. I don’t have enough portraits scanned in for a good data set, apologies, so I’m selecting three portraits and two landscapes.

-The Endless Slug

Recognition!

Posted in Art, Artists, Contemorary Art, Criticism, Gallery Talk, Studio Work with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on 27 January, 2010 by endlessslug

One of my pastel drawings was the favorite work on zatista.com by guest curator Anthony Cochran!

Endless Passage (Reversed)

Check out what he said about it and read his article HERE.

It’s nice to finally get a little recognition for something I’ve done.  The only problem is that over the winter, I realized that many of the images I posted on my portfolio sites were reversed due to the scans of the slides I used.  I re-packaged the original works to protect them a bit more, and realized that the slides were backwards.  I switched all of them out – except for the ones on Zatista.  Doh!  So, apologies to Mr. Cochran, but if you flip that image, I hope it isn’t any less your favorite!  Also a note to would-be buyers out there, take a look at the image in reverse and see if you still want it – hope you do!

-Endless Slug, endlessly slugging.

Endless Passage (Correct)

*** UPDATE ***

The very active folks over at Zatista gave a read to my blog today and noted the image flub.  They’ve kindly switched my image on their marketing materials to show the corrected image.  Who feels like an idiot? Slug do.  Anyway, thanks to Zatista for being so tenacious with their aid and interest in my work as well as all the other artists over at their site.

Bejart Vs. Tori Amos: War of Postmodernisms

Posted in Contemorary Art, Criticism, Dance, Modernists, Pop-culture, Social Science, Technique, Theatre with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , on 12 December, 2009 by endlessslug

Did you like what I did there?  I’m using a postmodern style of titling to set up a discourse on postmodernism in the contemporary arts.  I even used the word “discourse” in the previous sentence – very postmodern.  In fact, this manner of writing, whereby I talk directly to you, the reader, is exactly one of the many problems with the postmodern movement: a lack of consistency and structure, and a shift in attachment to works from a universal general detachment to a directly personal, seemingly identity-building attachment between artist and reader with the work forming only a momentary adhesive.  Some readers, you perhaps, will find the way I am writing right now to be invasive, irritating, and downright insulting.  Other readers, you perhaps (which you?), will find the way I am writing right now to be caring, direct, connecting, and unpretentious – a place where you too can speak with me, not against or under me.  Writers, painters, choreographers, dancers, actors, sculptors, and so on, work in this direct style now for a number of reasons, one of which we’ll highlight here:  Fear in a consumerist production society.

Tori Amos performed a live Facebook concert Friday afternoon.  It was amazing.  I am only going to discuss the postmodernisms within her work though, not the concert itself.  I was alerted to the finite differences between Tori’s older music, newer music, and newest music by a colleague of mine who is a much bigger fan of Tori’s ensemble than I.  But I agree – Tori’s music has always been exactly what postmodernism is supposed to be: a break from tradition (such as modernism), with a firm base of tradition (structure), with an attempt to create new things for a mass audience but at a personal level for individual audience members (postmodernism).  Postmodernism, then, is not simply a movement, but a dialogue still continuing from what the modernists were doing.  The postmodernist ought to struggle to discover new ways of doing old things in a way which is meaningful and not simply done to do it, or not in an anti-meaning sort of way (cf Beatniks).  In a contemporary, globalizing, mass-media, consumerist sort of world, we strive to find things which have lasting meaning to us, but we ought to find those things which could have meaning to others as well.  My grandmother’s freezer has been working fantastically since the 1940s.  It’s not really an antique, but people today would classify it as old or antique anyway.  Instead of taking the freezer one day, most of my family will probably just want to throw it out and get a new one or sell it.  This is unfortunate as the freezer is huge and works like a charm.  There’s no need to replace the thing and lots of people in my family have memories attached to it.  In fact, I would claim that if any family had a freezer like this (a huge trunk-type freezer you could fit a small cow in whole), you would also have memories and meaning instantly created.  This need to replace with the new is a salient cultural feature of suburban Americans, but where does this behavior lead?  An inability to ascribe meaning to things due to the fleeting feelings attached to purchased consumer goods.  Essentially, if the thing does not strike a personal chord with me, there’s no point in the thing’s existence.  We’ve reversed meaning!  We are our own Emperors and Empresses needing our decrees to be followed by the rest; self-made monarchies of absolutism.  It’s no wonder personal prosperity theologies are so dangerously dominant here…

I’ve been watching OVAT lately again.  This past week and all next week they’re doing a “Battle of the Nutcrackers” fan-choice contest.  The whole idea that contests allow fans to vote is ridiculous anyway.  Fans vote on what they’re given, and what they’re given dictates what the fans will enjoy, so having a fan-choice is simply a reaffirmation for the creators of the pop-culture non-sense.  Always remember, they care nothing for you, only your money.  Anyway, the week started off well with the Bolshoi Ballet classical production of the Nutcracker.  Critically speaking, there were some small faults that I blame on postmodern dancers, but all in all it was fantastic.  Last night was the Bejart Nutcracker.  I was excited for another rendition of the ballet, so I sat patiently and waited.  I was instantly punched in the nuts.  Apparently, Bejart used the Nutcracker (or selected aspects of it) to tell his own life story consisting of an estranged pseudo-sexual relationship with his mother, his own sex and gender identity problems, and his genius-ness of dance choreography.  Directly, this is utter bullshit.  This is what we tend to find as postmodernism today: entirely self-interested diarrhea of word and art, self-aggrandizing – making our personal monarchy public.  Bejart himself even appears in the ballet on a giant black and white monitor over the stage, narrating his life as the dancers dance parts of the Nutcracker.  Bejart has taken a classical work – which works quite well still, see the Bolshoi – and turned it into a tool and medium to talk about himself in a grandiose way.  What an asshole!  My criticism: Had this nutjob simply used some of his contemporary symbolism to add a modern depth or alteration to the ballet, it could be tolerated, possibly enjoyed.  Less is more!  Who was the audience for this? I can only guess 1,500 community college students believing that this is somehow fine art.  Did we forget what that “fine” part of fine art is for?  Refinement!  After a few millennia of dance, you would think this wouldn’t be a problem, but there it is.  When did we, as a world-wide culture, begin to care one bit about one person’s struggle of life?  That statement might make me sound heartless, but as an artist, I can say nothing else.  Mr. Bejart, art isn’t about you, no one cares.  You need to produce art that is about my experience, his experience, her experience – something which folks can relate to.  Having dance-sex with your mother, supported by two drag-queen Faustian angel-fairies on a public stage is art only as a criticism attacking other post-modern art which tries to do the same thing but less well.  If the point of Bejart’s work is to criticize postmodernism, then it is brilliant although needs to be more clear that this is the intent.  Thus, I believe the guy is serious and therefore fails.  I was ashamed for the dancers while watching this mess.  I can’t blame the dancers, they need jobs, but I’d like to know how many went home later and cried.

Due to my crap training in writing, I can’t help but to write also in a rant-style postmodern method.  Although I do know it when I see it.  Luckily, this blog was never designed as a completely professional publication so I can break my structure a bit and rant.  At least I know when I can and can not.  Tori, do a Nutcracker.

Painting Review: Jackie Tileston

Posted in Artists, Contemorary Art, Criticism, Technique with tags , , , , , , , , , , , , , on 7 December, 2009 by endlessslug

Finally, I made it to the gallery district for a night of professional reviews!  Unfortunately, my companion and I made it only as far as two galleries before the night ended.  We will have to wait for Spring to hit a good round of exhibitions.

Initial reactions:  Zg gallery has once again successfully endeavored to demonstrate to the public that any kid who doodles in the margins of their notebooks claiming that no one understands their artistic inner-self is somehow entitled to a gallery show after they’ve completed some sort of inane grad school.  To quote from Graham Norton, “It’s a bit shit, isn’t it.”  The polished turd is still a turd.

Harsh? Not really.  As a former student of the academic arts, I rarely can handle art such as this.  Jackie Tileston is the artist; here are a few examples of her work – apologies on the quality of the images as they are from my cellphone camera:

Jackie Tileston, "Great Highest..."

Jackie Tileston, "Great Highest Cavern Mystery Numinous Treasure Subtle Scripture (On Extinguishing and Conveying the Five Refinements and Reviving the Corpse"

There are also photographs, but for this review (and my own sanity) I will restrict myself to the paintings and works on paper.

Seeing exhibits like this makes me wonder if people ever partake in peer reviews anymore, and secondly, if those peer reviews are actually criticisms or simply undergrad ego-fluffers and popularity contests.  Because what we have here is someone who has fallen through – or rather – kicked, punched, and whined their way through to the gallery world without either listening to anyone’s advice, without caring about art and its history, or from some sort of private art world of the elite where no criticism was allowed.   This whole postmodern “freedom of expression” movement is utter crap and Tileston’s paintings are an excellent index of the problem:

I walked into the gallery and thoroughly did not care.

Jackie Tileston, "Floating World #4"

It might be because I do not follow “this sort of art”, it might be that I am missing some sort of diachronic narrative of which these paintings are an important piece, or it might be that I “really need to know the artist” to understand or care about the work.  But once again I fall back on 5000 years of art history and retort with: I shouldn’t have to.  The philosophical approach: I ought to be able to enter a gallery and immediately get a feeling for the point of the work.  Paintings are a means to convey a communication about an experience the artist understands that we may have shared and the artist cannot convey this complex dialog in any other way.  Speaking, singing, poetry, literary discourse, music, dance, etc. are all means to convey a complex idea where no other way was able – each has its own limitations, which is why its best to learn about a number of them, if you are an artist.  The contemporary world of fine art has refined art to such a degree, that art has become so personal that it can no longer link people from a shared experience as it once did.  People believe, falsely, that they are somehow so unique from one another that one cannot possibly know what another is “going through”.  Painters, writers, composers, and choreographers used to be masters of observation.  These people used to be able to take thousands of empirical data points from their experiences and realize that their experiences are not actually that unique at all, and that communicating these experiences in the arts created a certain form of catharsis for not only the artist, but for all viewers as well.  As we age, we move through taste.  Taste, meaning, our understanding of a subject matter and how it not only reacts to our own aesthetic needs and desires, but how such subject matters affect others – the feeling of closeness to other humans in a shared, esoteric manner.  I can stand next to a Monet haystack and when another person stands there with me, we both share an experience that the two of us have had and Monet has had – although the specifics are certainly very different, it’s the feeling of the experience and what it leaves us with that matters.  So here is my little thesis: your tastes are not necessarily your own and as an artist, our job is to collect taste data and construct a conversation about life as a human in a matter by which not only our generation and culture understands, but also humans over time.  Paint not for now, but for someone 500 years from now.  It is possible, any museum can demonstrate this gift.

Jackie Tileston, "The Transcendent to Superintends Reality..."

With Tileston’s paintings, few positive things can be said.  I do enjoy her materials – linen canvas, with what appears to be a size used, but no clear evidence of a chalk ground.  She has a nice eye for color contrasts and general composition, but she really should push it more.  I get the feeling that although part of the painting is very busy with line and color, that Tileston has not explored complete canvas coverage.  The paintings seem very mannerist – they are all basically the same thing, the same process, and this process is boring. The line work is of course full of energy, but it’s a fleeting energy, one I feel is lost as soon as I look away.  There seems to be no pre-thought into the forms that will appear; simply paint of different types and some cut-outs thrown on to an otherwise nicely stretched linen canvas, hoping for a happy accident.  Her titles too, also happy accidents.  The painting I was going to focus on most of all is entitled: “Great Highest Cavern Mystery Numinous Treasure Subtle Scripture (On Extinguishing and Conveying the Five Refinements and Reviving the Corpse”.  Seriously?  I remember art students trying to pass off titles like this in painting courses back in college.  It’s fun to randomly select meaningless words for a painting right?  My only hope is that the titles are supposed to explain to the viewer that the artist is well aware of her confusing disasters on the canvas by reflecting the confusion and randomness in the title.  But I believe it was intended as serious.

Jackie Tileston, "Paradise Unfound"

Here are the Endless Slug’s suggestions for Jackie Tileston:

1. The big-small, random images and lines are dated and done to death.  Walk into any college art class and you’ll see at least 8% of the students are doing exactly what you’re doing.  I do have to say that your paintings are far more sophisticated, finished, and professional, however.  But this is the whole problem – the idea was old when you started and you’ve just simply learned how to make crap look professional. I’d find a different subject matter for the paintings.

2. Finish a ground once in a while.  The raw linen look works in some cases, but to have 30% or more of every canvas just demonstrates that you do not know how to paint.  These paintings I would consider ‘drawings on canvas with paint.’  Throw a chalk ground down and paint it linen colored if you like the color, but my instinct tells me that you prefer the linen-look since you probably found it accidentally and realized that the public is easily fooled.

3.  Randomizing titles is just immature for a painter.  Again, there may be a point to it but that point ought to be clearer to the viewer.  As I see it, these paintings look unfinished and half-assed.  When I then look at the title – which I need to for some sort of clue as to why this is on the wall – the title simple reinforces my instinct that these are all very half-assed and attempting to act the part of decorative contemporary art so that some upper-middle class homeowner/businessman or woman, untrained in the arts will purchase it and put it somewhere in their foyer in their new house in the cookie-cutter subdivision far west of [city].

In conclusion and as always, I urge people reading this review to physically get off your butt and head over to the Zg gallery to see the work.  Why would I send you to a gallery which I believe is housing such horrible work?  Because you should take what I have said and go apply it to the work.  You might not agree and could teach me something, but mostly, you will be seeing art as it should be seen – on a wall, hoping to speak with you some day.