paintings + drawings

That's a wrap.

The good
01.  Mike Monteiro started painting again. Misery loves company.
02.  Karl Baden’s life, the secrets of aging revealed.
03.  Joseph Cornell, finally.
04.  Clyfford Still. A new look. Finally.
05.  BAM/PFA acquires Bruce Conner.
06.  Charles LaBelle continues opening doors, and documenting it.
07.  PKD of photography.
08.  Out of the studio and into the kitchen.
09.  Madeline moves on (insert song from Wizard of Oz here.)
10.  Pharmaka hosts me solo in 08.
11.  Michael Zahn buys one of my pieces. I trade another for one of his.
12.  Exhausting but fun, weekly online exhibition of drawings expires after a year.

The bad
01. Oakland Museum's permanent collection is a confusing jumble, Linhares says so too bad for you.
02. Clyfford Still.
03. SFMOMA currently has no more than four women on view in its permanent collection. Artists not subjects. More on this soon.
04. CAMP, another stupid SF idea.
05. Bay Area represented?
06. and where’s Wally.
07. I missed Caitlin Mitchell Dayton.
07. Elizabeth Murray, much too young.
08. Peter Saville is getting old and tired.
09. Devendra Banhart?
10. Does anyone remember John Altoon? Seriously.
11. Jeremy Blake, much too young.
12. James Howard Kunstler pokes his finger into peak oil. and I can't stop thinking about the apocalypse.

The ugly
01. Richard Prince.
02. CAMP, another boring SF building.
03. Blue Sky Gallery makes me gag.
04. De Young, same as it ever was. Only worse.
05. Sonic Youth, bored to tears.
06. Holzer's MOMA e-card, hacked.
07. Strauss' Philly. You wouldn't want it any other way.
08. Sign o' the times.
09. The internet makes it hard to hide from your past - Koons on the energy he finds in strip clubs.
10. Cool.
11. Police on Andy's back.

photo: "Dead Santas 2005-2007" Karl Baden

Trying really hard not to chuckle.

It was nearly impossible to not have a snide thought when I looked at the subject field on SFMOMA's recent email.

The important work they've acquired is "Parts Per Trillion," another fine Ed Rushca piece for their collection.

The thin (striped) man.

Ever wonder how Gene Davis did those fantastic long thin stripe paintings of the late-60s? Catch it in this trailer.

Website update.

Over the last few days, the in the studio section has been redesigned. Making sequential composites (with dates and descriptions included) out of the various posted photos of pieces in progress - making, hopefully, my process easier to understand.

Check it out. We're always working to make thing better around here.

Letter to the editor (John Zurier on the changing beauty of Clyfford Still).

Recently, John Zurier and I were corresponding about my post on SFMOMA’s Clyfford Still paintings. I hacked the following out of our missives because I think what John says is an important counterpoint to my view. John writes:

You know, I really do like that the paintings are changing before my eyes. No one saw Still's painting the way he did in the dusk of his barn. They look different in all different kinds of light, and they'd look different if the skylights were opened/closed or if they were put in smaller galleries. And Still couldn't control this no matter how hard he tried. Anyway, I see them near mystically, functioning on their aura and sheer will power alone. And I love that that the oil is leaching out and the colors are becoming more matte. It makes them all the more accessible and imperfect and less imposing, softer and quite simply more to my taste. Perhaps less American, shiny, can-do, and grimly optimistic. And I was serious too about their visible aging being a lesson in impermanence. And I was dead serious about Still being like Lear, a tragedy. Tragedy, I think is what he and Rothko would deem the proper subject and content for painting. Even with their changes, they hold up and look better and better and stranger to me as the years go by.

Not fade away.

With the resurgence of interest in Clyfford Still, the time seemed right to pen a piece about my relationship to SFMOMA's pieces. Here is an excerpt from the post for KQED:                         

It all began with Clyfford Still.

At least for me it did. Back in 1991, freshly arrived in San Francisco, I visited SFMOMA. To say I was blown away by the roomful of Stills would be an understatement.

I had never experienced a Still in person until that moment. The feelings that washed over me included, but were not limited to, amazement, horror, disgust, delight, and ultimately, unfettered admiration. Growing up at the beginning of our post-modern era, I was well-versed in the joys of cool detachment. But I walked away that day with the realization that art was a huge and vicious battle, a never ending quest for some sort of redemption against the darkness of forever. The Stills spewed out the idea that a hellfire fight against nothingness could also be a celebration, and no matter what the cost, the fight was worth it. At that time, long before the alleged death of irony, it seemed like a radical notion.

Besides making demands of his viewers, Still, in his lifetime, made some very specific demands of institutions that acquired his pieces: that his work never be shown alongside that of anyone else. During his lifetime only 150 pieces escaped his iron grip. In his one-page will Still stated that whoever acquired his remaining estate (of 2,393 pieces) must house it all together -- apart from the rest of the art world -- in a museum solely dedicated to him. And that none of his works be sold. Ever. SFMOMA had the foresight to work with Still while he was living, promising him a gallery of his work on view at all times, rotated in from an original gift of 30 paintings.

Yep, Clyfford Still comes off as a cantankerous, self-righteous ass. But I have a special place in my heart for cranks. Cranks are often believers, sometimes the only believers. Believers in themselves and believers in something better for everyone.

Read the rest here.

photo: Untitled, 1951-1952, oil on canvas, 113 3/8 in. x 156 in. x 1 3/8 in. (287.99 cm x 396.24 cm x 3.51 cm). Collection SFMOMA. Gift of the artist. 75.30, © The Clyfford Still Estate.

Dissent is on the rise.

Finally someone in the Chronicle is saying Donald Fisher’s CAMP is a stupid idea, sorta.

Today in John King’s column Lawrence Halprin, yep that Halprin, points out the building’s design doesn’t fit in. He says “It would ruin the unique architectural character of the Presidio by introducing a generic style that is used throughout much of the world today." (Leafing through the comments on sfgate, it looks like his opinion is unanimous.)

King notes that the Park’s trust received more than 300 comments on the museum; hopefully most are saying that a contemporary art museum in the middle of nowhere is ridiculous.

Erraticness explained.

Everyone in my house is sick with the flu right now - except me. So postings have been erratic at best. My apologies.

I've got a new piece on Creative Growth up on KQED (see post below), and a piece in the pipeline on the fading of SFMOMA's Still paintings - which will prolly run the end of this week. Will let you know.

More soon.

In meantime here are three quick comics I made over at the Nietzsche Family Circus - where a simple program combines the wit and wisdom of the German philosopher with the wit and wisdom of the American cartoonist.

A resounding success.

Based on the continued local and national success of Oakland's Creative Growth, I did a brief Q&A with CG's director Tom di Maria for KQED.

Here is an excerpt, including the announcement that CG will open their own gallery space (I know where it will be, but am sworn to secrecy) outside of the Bay Area:

TB: Three years ago, when I first wrote about Creative Growth, your agenda for the art, which was up until that point mostly viewed in the context of outsider art, seemed to be to get it into the flow of the contemporary art world. And have it accepted on the same terms as the art made by non-disabled contemporary artists. I remember you explaining your goal was to get a Creative Growth piece into SFMOMA's collection.

Well, SFMOMA currently has a Judith Scott on view in the permanent collection. The Oakland Museum owns another, and they are willing to acquire more of your works. Three of your artists have shown at White Columns in as many years. Your artists also show regularly in SF galleries like Rena Bransten. You just received a lifetime achievement award from the Bay Guardian. Things seem to going along swimmingly. So what's next -- rest on your laurels or even bigger schemes?

TdM: I always have big plans for Creative Growth because our artists are so inspiring.

First, we are close to finishing the one million dollar-plus renovation of our building. This will offer our 140 artists a better, safer and more organized studio and healthier place to be. This has been a major priority for us and I am pleased that the end is within reach.

Our next big move will be to open a gallery for our artists, and other artists not from Creative Growth, in a location outside the Bay Area. This will allow us to further represent our artists directly, increase their sales income, reaching new collectors, and allowing us to partner with contemporary artists and others whose approach to art speaks to our own. We have just identified a place for the gallery, and we will announce it in a few months.

Read the rest here.

End game.

It’s that time of year again. Critics, artists and curators have begun making their Top Ten lists for 2007.

Sure, its interesting to see what others enjoyed in the last year, but unlike Top Ten music lists where you can often go out and buy the mentioned record, chances are if you missed one of this year’s favored shows or event, too bad.

What you get from art Top ten lists are ideas and artists on which to keep an eye (if you are not already). And the hope that some of the art makes it to your town or is showing at your travel destination. Jerry Saltz believes Matthew Barney’s performance was an amazing experience, but I missed it I live on the West Coast. In general, the lists seem to be about building a certain cache of cool - which is alright because I believe only the completely out-of-it would deny that much of the art world is about being in the know or at the very least being perceived as cool to others.

Recently Dave Hickey suggested a list of his favorite works to The Believer. Tyler Green saw it and offered up the challenge that lists should be made of favorite pieces. I’m not gonna bother with that – my favorites are not a particularly stable selection. I’m fickle. My politics and allegiances change a lot.

So I’ve decided to combine the two ideas into something that seems more workable. Here are ten of some of the pieces that I’ve acquired this year:

1. Dan Miller

2. Kelly Shimoda

3 + 4. Manuel Dominguez Jr., Mike Monteiro

5. Kate Pemberton

6. Kate Bingaman-Burt

7. Karl Baden

8. Corey Goering

9. Michael Zahn

10. William Scott