Bad ideas in art

I saw an extraordinary call for entries last week, for an exhibit entitled "Demographically Speaking." According to the call, the exhibit "will reflect the vibrance of its community through the inclusion of works that speak to a diverse audience."  It goes on to say the show "will also address the inequities found within gallery and museum exhibitions posing the question, 'whose stories are being told in the art world?'"

(I gather that's artspeak for no straight WASPs need apply, especially men.)

I certainly agree with the concept of expanding the pool of artists beyond the usual suspects, with the idea that many groups have not "had their stories told" in contemporary art, and that shows with different demographic groups of artists may appeal to a broader swath of the potential viewing public.  But I was take aback by what came after the artspeak.

Each artist entering the show has to complete a questionnaire that asks "How do you identify yourself or the subjects in the work you are submitting?"  In a series of multiple choice questions, it asks you to describe your age, gender identity, sexual orientation, race/ethnicity, religious affiliation, education level, and disabilities.

I guess I've led a sheltered life, because I was surprised to find five possible choices for both gender identity and sexual orientation (although in each case, one choice was "Other:_____).  I confess, I don't know the difference between pansexual and polysexual (but that's OK, they're part of the same choice).  Nor do I appreciate the subtle differences between cognitive disabilities ("developed after birth, from neurodegenerative diseases or acquired brain injuries for example") and developmental disabilities ("such as, but not limited to, Down Syndrome, Cerebral Palsy, Intellectual disabilities, or Fragile X Syndrome").  If you're blind or deaf, is that a "physical" disability or a "sensory" disability?
Then, if you haven't already revealed enough about yourself, it says "Any other important identifiers you feel represents you or your work that should be considered not already listed above (social, physical, economic, etc.)?  Please share:__________"

Questionable grammar aside, I am horrified by these questions.  In most walks of life it's illegal to ask people about their disabilities, let alone their religion and sexual preferences.  The prospectus is coy about this; after stating on page one that the questionnaire is required, it later says "Completion of this survey is voluntary" and then asks if they can please put your demographic details on the art labels; if you say no, they won't.

I'm all for more diversity in museums, but can't that be accomplished without such heavy-handed interrogation?  Can't a curator or juror detect when an artwork is "telling a story" from a different perspective without the artist yelling "hey, I'm polysexual!!"  If seeking out diversity among artists is supposed to get new audiences into the museum, will demographic info be the most important part of the press releases and exhibit postcards?  "Come see our show; 12 percent of the artists are Latino, 4 percent are polysexual, 8 percent are transgender/genderqueer, 2 percent are Hindu, 5 percent have mental illness or psychiatric disorders."

Do you want to rush out and see that show?  Maybe, but I'm sure not going to rush out and enter it.

How to Draw Portraits in Charcoal Demo

One of the demos features in my new portrait drawing book available on Amazon!

"Demo at Baton Rouge 2016 2" --- Sold

My second demo is about painting metal and glass, but I really like the orange peel given an unique form.

Fake news -- the euphemism

In the field of communication, my profession, we have seen several instances of technology upsetting the apple cart.  In some ways these technological advances were GOOD because they took production out of the hands of specialists and enabled more widespread use.  In other ways they were BAD because the specialists were the ones who previously provided quality control.

So look at the invention of movable type in Europe. Gutenberg figured out how to print cheap multiple copies of books and pamphlets; if you wanted a Bible, now no need to hire an army of monk/scribes to write it out by hand.  All over Europe printers sprang up, ready to produce their own versions of the Bible or devotionals or theological commentaries.  But that meant the church no longer controlled the dissemination of scripture and theology, and the next thing you know, printing enabled the Reformation and Christianity was forever fragmented.

In my lifetime, the personal computer led to the development of what was termed desktop publishing.  Instead of sending your employee newsletter or your advertising flyers or your wedding invitations to the printer for typesetting, you bought a clunky computer, taught yourself or your secretary to use it, and cranked out your own type.  And you SAVED MONEY!  Whatever you produced and pasted down, the printer would print.  Of course, since your secretary didn't know beans about typography or readability or printing quality, many of these works looked like crap.  We saw the proliferation of ugly fonts, unreadable gray-on-black layouts, type set in curves, and other kinky practices that no self-respecting professional typesetter would ever allow clients to commit.

A few years later, the development of digital photography allowed anybody off the street to buy a camera and produce print-ready pictures, no need for expensive film or messy darkroom processing.  And you SAVED MONEY!  So instead of hiring a photographer to shoot your employee retirement banquets or fundraising galas or family Christmas portraits, you handed the camera to your secretary or propped it up on the mantel, hit the delay button and raced to get yourself back in the picture.  As a result, we got blurry photos showing too much background and too little of the subjects, plants growing out of people's heads, guests lined up grimly like watchers at Stalin's May Day parades, boring grip-and-grin shots.  Not to mention sexting and selfies.

Arguably these two latest technological revolutions have not threatened the foundations of civilization.  So what if employee newsletters and wedding invitations have that clunky, crappy do-it-yourself look?  So what if there were typographical errors?  So what if a lot of professional photographers and typesetters were put out of business?

But that leads me to another revolution that is far more disturbing if you care about civilization and democracy: the supplanting of professional journalism by social media and other content-churning internet providers.  If you see a bunch of buses parked near downtown, and you later hear that people were protesting against Trump, you do a fast google search to "discover" that no conferences were being held, so obviously the buses brought the protesters.  Then you whip out your phone and tweet same, and next thing you know, it goes viral and maybe a million people read and pass along a blatant untruth.  (The google search failed to reveal a software conference with 13,000 participants; the hapless tweeter later said "I'm also a very busy businessman and I don't have time to fact-check everything that I put out there.")

"Fake news" is the euphemism being used to describe the lies carelessly or deliberately disseminated through social media and low-end "news" purveyors these days; Obama was born in Kenya or Hillary Clinton led a ring of child molesters.  The quality control provided by professional reporters and editors is disappearing, not just from the free-for-all of Facebook "news" but from formerly good local newspapers who have fired their editors and required their reporters to practice 24/7 you-see-it-you-post-it babble without sufficient investigation.  (And they SAVED MONEY!)

Perhaps in some cases this is GOOD.  The wide availability of cellphone video has exposed lots of police brutality and fueled useful grassroots movements of many kinds.  But on balance I think it's BAD -- terribly BAD -- that a huge proportion of Americans cannot distinguish between facts and lies, that the "news" driving our public policy and voting decisions may have been manufactured by teenagers in Macedonia or manipulated by the Russian government.  And worse yet, a huge proportion of Americans, including some at the very highest levels of our incoming government, seem to believe that facts are irrelevant and lies are OK.

If there is no such thing as truth, there can be no functioning democracy.  As a former journalist and a current and passionate small-D democrat, I am in despair.

"Demo at Baton Rouge 2016 1" --- Sold

I have just finished teaching a workshop at Baton Rouge LA. I want to thank Carolyn Breaux for organizing and want to thank all the Baton Rouge artists for coming and painting with me. This is my first demo. I have had a great time at Baton Rouge. Especially I want to thank Carolyn and her husband Jack for their warm hospitality. They kindly offered their home for me to stay and treat me delicious cajun food everyday. I have enjoyed so much these a few days.