projectgx2articles-blog

[projectgx2articles-blog]

NEW MEDIA ART

Art has always questioned the nature of reality, human perception, and emotive response elicited by both. New media is a reference towards experimental art that pushes the boundaries of this exploration.It is a category that defies static identification; the practice is rapidly expanding as new media technologies are invented or explored by forward-thinking visionaries.

Artists embrace the immersive experience, and contemporary technologies allow immersion in unprecedented ways for creators as well as viewers, participants, or consumers. The use of digital technologies easily leads to multimedia efforts combining different types of media in one art piece. Enabling viewers to interact with the artwork directly through a variety of media forms, including virtual reality, social media, artificial intelligence (AI), and video games, are artworks which directly engage digital culture. Ultimately, new media questions this culture, how we interact online, and the impact on individuals and society.

Cyber-tools for art-making including virtual reality, augmented reality, the metaverse, or even NFTs, are the new frontier in contemporary art.

HUMANOID AI

Humanoid AI, a multimedia artwork conceived and orchestrated by Merve Gursel, incorporates the visions of numerous talents to examine the nature of the human condition as seen through technology. The intersection of art, technology, philosophy, neuroscience, and ultimately, human emotion, defines the scope of this project.

We perceive contemporary technology to be a cold construct, to be by definition, dehumanizing. Yet isn’t all technology created to better the human condition? To improve our functionality in one way or another? Our society is saturated with foreboding parables on the hubris of scientific meddling and losing control of our inventions, from Mary Shelly to David Gibson, to popular entertainment; “Skynet has become self-aware,” to paraphrase the frightening post-apocalyptic film, Terminator.

Yet, we persevere through all adversity to push the boundaries of what’s possible. Utopian aspirations or anthropic principles hold sway, and ideas like mathematician Frank Tipler’s “Omega Point” hypothesis in his book The Physics of Immortality suggest the inevitable human/machine co-evolution with a merged, omnipotent endpoint.

Art knows no limits either. From the first proto-human expression on cave walls, artists have developed tools and techniques to communicate visual information with their broader communities. From several hundred to over 7 billion, that broader community has exploded, and the ability to receive or interact with artistic endeavors multiplied accordingly.

The digital realm allows interactions unimagined in generations past, and the deepening of the metaverse as well as the evolution of AI will engage us further still, prompting profound questions: What is reality? What is the nature of existence? What are emotions? What are memories? Are there genetic memories? Learned memories? Does life continue after physical death? Is there a soul?

And ultimately, whatever reality or emotions actually are, even if we’re hard-wired to react in certain ways to specific stimuli beyond our control, or that it’s all just chemical/electric data interactions in a neural network, doesn’t it still feel real to us? And aren’t we driven by what we feel despite our intelligent rationality?

Artists and philosophers have been grappling with these thoughts for millennia.

Humanoid AI invites you to consider these thoughts as well.

[projectgx2articles-blog]

EXPO CHICAGO, 2015

Chicago has been hosting art fairs for many decades, and despite location/owner/management changes at some of these Fairs, the city has remained a well-respected and must-visit arts destination. Expo Chicago, in its fourth year, is demonstrating that this new incarnation has learned well, and continues to build on solid foundations.

Guy-Vincent and I collaborating on our Arts Advocacy video project, decided we should have a chat with Tony Karman, founder of Expo Chicago. Choosing not to wait till the fair was in full swing (many times chaos reigns and other priorities hold sway), we took a trip to the city of great American architecture.

Tony is clearly a great spokesperson for Expo Chicago and exudes an articulate passion for its mission. It’s also his personal mission to promote art. In this we can directly relate. His staff is unpretentious, and the office environment in the heart of the city has an open, youthful energy.

Of interest within his background is an understanding of himself as a creative contributor; he realized somewhere along his personal journey that fate chose him not to be an artist, but to serve the cause of art as a facilitator, a communicator.

This is important from both a philosophical as well as a practical administrative standpoint; having direct experience in an activity sensitizes one to others engaged in that activity. Tony is cognizant of artist’s role in society, their challenges and struggles, their failures and victories. He is aware of the interconnected yet protean fabric of culture, the venues and institutions that occupy niches but are dependent on each other for existence.

Like biological organisms that evolve a co-dependency, it’s impossible to tease out and separate the spheres of The Art Institute of Chicago, School of the Art Institute of Chicago, Museum of Contemporary Art, Chicago, the several other art-based museums, related cultural institutions, many university programs and galleries, non-profit spaces, commercial galleries, and of course the artists themselves. We tend to focus on the creators and creations, the artist and their cultural contributions, the way art redefines itself generation after generation, with the best resonating through centuries. But art and artists need exposure, venues, opportunities to be recognized, and people to communicate their relevance and language to an interested audience.

We tend to sometimes dismiss this in today’s world of saturated promotion, as a crass, commercial negative. And most times it is. But art is a medium of communication and artists need others to do much of that communicating. They need galleries, curators, collectors, and physical spaces to exhibit their ideas. Public recognition of an artist can be the differentiator between long-term potential and obscurity. Expo Chicago and other quality art fairs have evolved to provide the arena for such opportunities

Art Fairs are by no means flawless opportunities. The nature of the medium can serve to attract negative attention, sometimes highlighting flashy, un-serious art, focusing on the transaction feeding-frenzy associated with auctions. And as Rhona Hoffman so eloquently brushed upon in our interview, the depth of an artists practice and exploration may be better served seeing a group of their works, instead of a solitary representation in a larger group show.

However, we prefer the positives: an opportunity to see new art created by living artists from all over the world, artists taking creative risks, galleries also taking the same kind of creative risk - both with the aesthetic choices as well as the financial commitment. The fairs’ organizers coordinating a major art-centric public event with all the stakeholders in a city to maximize cultural attention and focus it on contemporary art…

Tony Karman understands this in great detail and depth, and his organization works hard to make Expo Chicago an important event on the international art calendar. It was certainly a pleasure engaging with him.

Please see our short video interview with Tony Karman, as well as the extended version.

George Kozmon

[projectgx2articles-blog]

NEW YORK ART FAIRS

Part one

The incredible growth of art fairs is a reflection, tangentially about art, more about society; we want to be entertained, and a major art event is more entertaining than walking into a relatively empty gallery, potentially feeling intimidated, ignorant, and vulnerable. It's the same reason galleries have had opening receptions forever; it's an event where people of like minds can mingle, network, and perhaps most importantly, be seen. Everybody at any major art event may be perceived as a sophisticated appreciator of culture while simultaneously enjoy the anonymity of being a part of the “right” group. It’s also about art.

Back in the 80's my friends and I would regularly go the art fairs in what I think of as their formative teenage-to-young-adult years. Ours too. Chicago specifically was edgier, rawer, and riskier. There were no offshoot shows then, but there were events. I remember seeing a Nicolas Africano show in a cavernous warehouse space, with gigantic un-primed canvases just nailed to the unfinished walls. It was way cool.

Another memory - a bit lighter, was a European gallery booth, consisting of one large painting created during the event by 3 German artists (brothers I think). They were fun because by mid afternoon they were flamboyantly drunk, walking around smoking cigarettes and pounding down beer after beer. Somewhere between high-art and comedy. Their painting was OK at best, but the performance was priceless.

Fairs don't seem to have the same energy as in the glory days of the '80's (perhaps I don't either...); they’ve matured into the complacency and comfort of middle-age…and expansion. They’ve also reproduced countless offspring.

So much for nostalgia.

Art Fairs are not for artists; they're trade shows for buyers and sellers in the art business. There are several reasons to go: For anybody interested in contemporary art, it's an excuse for an extended weekend with friends in a cool city (whatever city) immersed in art, it enables one to keep their fingers on the pulse of what's going on in the art market, it beats the hell out of looking at art magazines or sitting in front of a screen, it provides an opportunity to stay connected to specific artists or dealers, and if done right, they’re loads of fun. And for collectors too, why stop at one gallery at a time, when you can peruse 200 in one place?

For a gallery, going to an expo may be similar to corporations spending money advertising or social networking: You don't know whether you'll recover your costs, but if you don't do it, you may lose visibility, and potential contacts and clients. You may lose market share, and feel the negative aspects of non-participation. For many galleries, art fairs have become their primary revenue-generator and relationship-builder. Unfortunately, for smaller, local, or not well-capitalized galleries, the costs of a decent fair are exorbitant. They are stuck cultivating the local or regional market.

There can be other downsides; much work in the galleries or art fairs is momentarily catchy, as if made for an ADHD audience. It captures your attention, perhaps draws you in from across the room, engages you for a moment, but then doesn't have staying power.

A point of debate with my peers is what work do we come away with that resonates, that stays with us, or even from a business standpoint, that you'd want on your wall? Good art should draw you in, but then have enough substance to keep you interested later, or offer the possibility to discover elements that weren't immediately apparent. This can be technical, but equally compelling on the conceptual level. It can resonate emotionally, spiritually, intellectually, but it has to have relevance beyond eye-candy. Great art continues to enrich for generations, balancing the specific with the universal. Is there great art at art fairs?

But beyond these meanders, being here in New York on Frieze week (May 13-18) definitely evokes some of the energies of fair’s past. As with most fairs, the impression struggles to be museum-like, conveying a sense of special-ness, of cultural import and value, while at the same time showing vigorous experimentation and risk-taking. A cultural party of grand proportions.

With ubiquitous, exciting events all over New York:

Frieze Art Fair, Frieze New York, one of the world's leading contemporary art fairs.

Art Miami New York, the international contemporary and modern art fair.

Flux, A contemporary art fair in the culturally rich community of Harlem.

Select Art Fair, features 44 booths of contemporary galleries and print publishers, new media, installation, conceptual and progressive works.

NADA New York 2015, NADA New York is dedicated to showcasing new art, and to celebrating the rising talents from around the globe.

1:54 Art Fair, A European art fair dedicated to Contemporary African Art will make its New York debut.

Spectators balance navigating the city maps with navigating booth maps, correlating the latter with the maze-like quality of the set-up, or trying to ignore the layout altogether to focus on the work.

And then there is art. Where does all of this stuff come from? The staggering amount of creative output from artists working all over the world, is truly amazing. Doesn’t matter if many works are not to anybody’s particular aesthetics; an aspect of the allure is the volume of objects presented.

This is one of the ironic conundrums of art fairs: they are commercial enterprises generating the exchange of millions of dollars worth of art, while most artists represented labor in the isolation of the purist non-commercial bubble of their art practice. So fairs can be considered the pinnacle of the commercial/Capitalist contemporary art marketplace, or the champions of the most cutting edge explorations by the deepest thinkers and aesthetic groundbreakers. They are both.

So, first impressions:

FRIEZE exudes sophistication, a distant museum-like quality of edgy, contemporary art, from the blue-chip names to young, experimental emerging artists. The galleries present the works in the impressively constructed space, as if a permanent installation. Art Miami New York is equally sophisticated, while feeling a bit more accessible to a general audience, perhaps due to the higher proportion of art that could be considered “painting”.

For both fairs, there is a great spectator satisfaction in the discovery of new art or gallery, next to the well known established brand names. The audience at the Previews runs a parallel gamut, the known and the unknowns, a fashionista’s delight of edgy, high-end attire and presentation, on display for assessment and appreciation.

The vibe at art fairs is usually serious. Art, after all, is a serious matter. Frieze managed to interject another flavor with the larger-than-life presence of Jerry Saltz, art critic extraordinaire. Ever in the public limelight, Jerry brilliantly juggles thoughtful insight and analysis of the art world, with a kinetic public engagement on social media, reaching out far beyond the potentially rarefied, elitist audience. In person his manic humor shines through as a demonstration, a living testament that one can be thoughtful yet have fun.

Maybe this idea as metaphor is instructive for art fairs and life in general: Be thoughtful. Have fun.

Part II, THE TAKEAWAY, to follow...

George Kozmon

[projectgx2articles-blog]

NEW YORK ART FAIRS: THE TAKEWAY

May 2015    

After art-binging for four days, it’s possible to experience an art hangover. So what’s the take-away, the meaning, the significance of the art fair experience at this point in time from a cultural perspective?

Much has been written and critiqued about the taint of commerce, art as commodity, the twisting of purpose that art production may be subject to, with the pressure and ubiquity of art fairs. Undoubtedly there is truth to this perspective. But I’d like to consider the opposite view: That art fairs do exactly what they market themselves as doing, presenting contemporary art and the best art galleries from all over the world at world-class cultural events. For the public at large. No previous experience required to be a spectator.

This may seem obvious. But I’ve directly observed the intimidation that a visitor can experience walking into a contemporary art gallery, whether inadvertently or purposefully. Art fairs remove that intimidation, because of their context; you’re not walking into a gallery, you’re attending an event.

In the last century, art has functioned in a nebulous space, bouncing from elitist museum anointed work, to obscure personal explorations, many times leaving an audience utterly befuddled. Or prompting that audience to resort to the cliché of clichés, the emperor’s new clothes. And many times, despite heroic curatorial pontifications, it IS emperor’s new clothes. All of which reinforce the argument that art is subjective. I know what I like.

Do art fairs impact this in any way? I would argue yes. Like any experience which initially is unfamiliar, repeated exposure prompts a greater appreciation. At least for those open to broadening their horizons. The fact that art fairs exist, are cropping up in cities all over the world, showing both established and experimental art, is a testament that contemporary art has been accepted as a cultural norm.

This could be why many don’t care for this development. Remember the experience of discovering a new group of musicians that nobody had heard of, their first album of brilliance? And the feeling of diminishment when everybody else discovered them too? And saying, “oh, they’re so commercial now, they sold out…” because they achieved the success we recognized early on?

Art fairs are doing this to contemporary art. Those of us who “discovered” contemporary art early, need to be OK with others making the same discovery. We need to be OK with contemporary art leaving the rarefied confines of the right galleries or museums, to be exposed to the larger society. And also being OK with artworks leaving the sanctuary of the pure untainted studio space.

So what if money changes hands? Should art NOT be sold? So what if there are private VIP aspects of the fairs? 40,000 (Frieze) people were in attendance, clearly not all VIP’s; isn’t there space for a variety of people from various social segments? So what if there is a high admission fee? How much should it cost to see the top galleries and artists working currently? So what if artists aspire to be represented? Haven’t they always?

Considering art of any age, and bypassing the question of all-encompassing definitions, art is arguably a medium of communication. Artists find a material mix with which their ideas and explorations find form; galleries present a cross-section of artworks and artists, also curated to express the gallery’s vision of art. Art fairs continue the communication by curating a mix of galleries, to broaden the variety of those visions. The communication finds it’s own form, and also finds it’s own audience.

Art fairs act as facilitators, delivery systems, a conduit of communication, bringing international curated venues together in one location, for several days of art immersion for all.  

How awesome!

George Kozmon

[projectgx2articles-blog]

ART: CLEVELAND

Cleveland Ohio has become a hub of activity for visual artists. It’s a hotbed of creativity. How did we get here?

■ Is Cleveland a model for similar scale cities?

■ Are there specific strategies that act as catalysts?

■ Is it bottom up or top down?

Allow me to speculate. First, contextual history is important. Cleveland emerged as an industrial powerhouse at the height of the industrial era. The successful Capitalist giants of the time saw fit to endow the community with a tremendous museum and orchestra, and other cultural accoutrements.

They were ambitious as well as egotistical, and wanted the best. Consequently, the Cleveland Orchestra became one of the finest in the world, with the Cleveland Museum of Art (CMA) one of the top museums in the US. It didn’t take long for teaching institutions to complement the ambition: the Cleveland Institute of Art, (CIA) Cleveland Institute of Music, Case Western Reserve University, and a host of other fine educational institutions emerged.

Other aspects of the city evolved, but staying focused on visual art, Cleveland built a standard of artistic excellence. The decades have greatly impacted the city; like similar cities, demographic shifts, business climate, political climate, have prompted a migration into the suburbs, hollowing out the core.

The downside is vacant warehouses. The upside is vacant warehouses. Artists are always interested in large, cheap space. Cleveland has that in abundance, though with demand continuing to rise, get your space now…It took way too long for the city to change zoning laws so live/work spaces could be occupied by creatives (artists were using them to live illegally for decades), but once it did, the spaces filled with artists.

For most of the 20th century, CMA sponsored and hosted a juried exhibition called the May Show, full of the best local/regional art and artists. This demonstrated a commitment to the living creative community, and sensitized an audience to the local art scene. The show was discontinued, as museum juried shows diminished in favor among major museum institutions, which opened opportunities for galleries both commercial and not-for-profit.

Cleveland has a vibrant non-profit sector, (sometimes to the detriment of for-profit enterprises), but since overhead is low, they are able to sustain themselves. The quality of artwork is very high. Not only CIA graduates, but regional institutions also have rich art programs, both degreed and community classes, which keep the bar high.

The Museum of Contemporary Art, (MOCA Cleveland) with its sparkling new building, The Transformer Station, a new CMA branch devoted to contemporary art (mostly photo-based work), many university galleries, and the commercial galleries provide an excellent variety of exhibition venues for local, regional, national and international art. There isn’t a weekend where some major art event can’t be experienced.

What is the takeaway for other municipalities? One can’t go back a century to establish institutions, but one can create policies to enhance art opportunities. Zoning for live/work and mixed use is an obvious one. Creating a climate of excellence is another; peer pressure is a wonderful mechanism to elevate the bar, both individually and institutionally. This means strong, demanding education.

Having a generous foundation/non-profit sector is certainly an asset. So is an entrepreneurial business climate. Start-ups thrive in the same conditions that art thrives in: they are both creative risk-takers, and require the elbowroom to experiment, in an environment of less restrictive policies.

A tax policy that balances a business-friendly attitude with serving the broader community is a tricky but necessary balance. If there is no thriving business, the economy can’t generate people to buy art.

And finally a culture that values art has to be nurtured. I remember in my vigorous youth assessing cities during my travels: if they had specialized sporting-goods stores, it reflected a rich, adventurous physical life. If they had bookstores, universities, it reflected a rich intellectual life.If they had music and art venues in abundance, it reflected a rich cultural life.

These values have to be overtly encouraged. Ordinances have to be compatible with the intended outcome. It needs to be easy to start a business. Many times it’s not a matter of spending more tax $, but loosening restrictive regulations. Most governing bodies tend to want to do more, instead of assessing what they could do less of, or obstacles they could remove/modify to empower their population (like zoning laws). Cleveland hasn’t done everything right; no city has or does. And at times it felt like despite governance, we will thrive. And we do. I feel very fortunate.

As an artist, I’ve traveled regularly to the major art center cities for events, art fairs, and museum shows. Many art enthusiasts do the same. On occasion, it gives one an inferiority complex, that whatever regional city we’re from isn’t as important culturally as the big players. But that’s not true. Most of the art at these major events started somewhere else. It’s time to appreciate the work generated in the area you live in. What you find may surprise you…

George Kozmon

[projectgx2articles-blog]

ART EDUCATION: A PROVOCATION

  Recently (and repeatedly), the subject of art education comes up in discussion, and it’s usually universally agreed upon that the art education we have (in the US) is grossly inadequate. We should have more of it, more funding for it. I think of the terms "art education" as very broad and amorphous. In my mind, there are three aspects that are distinct, but of course, blend together: 1) technical knowledge specific to art creation 2) art history/appreciation/philosophy 3) creative problem-solving Which aspect is relevant to society as a whole? All three?

If I was running the universe, or more modestly, only the US, here is how I might consider the issue: First, is there a problem? Since art schools crank out far more artists than the marketplace can absorb, I'd say yes there is a problem: our education system is generating far too many artists. This addresses point #1. But one could argue that the volume of artists serves as a culling mechanism, the competition elevating the heroically persevering survivors to the upper echelons. So then it's OK to have the excessive quantity of artists in a society, with the understanding that most are utterly irrelevant, wont function as even moderately successful artists, other than to serve as an upward pressure for the quality of art production.

Either way, the implication is that we have enough art education for the purpose of generating artists. So point #1 is fine as is. The next question becomes what benefits does society derive from point #2? In isolation, nothing. Because removed from historical contexts, art history/appreciation is meaningless. However, as a crucial element of broader history, literature, music, philosophy, etc. to ignore art history would be choosing to remain ignorant, and to instill ignorance in future generations. Art is a foundationally human activity that defines culture and civilization, predating all of the other liberal arts. To not have a clue about this aspect of being human is truly not having a clue. So #2 needs to be expanded and integrated more fully into history/philosophy/anthropology-based classes and liberal arts in general, at every level. #3 is not tied to visual art. But the process of creating art is critical problem-solving at its core.

To define an intent, engage with materials, change the course of development due to the interaction with the materials, to adapt the flow of engagement, to understand that the anticipated outcome needs to be perpetually reconsidered due to ever-changing prevailing conditions, and to finally reach a cohesive/coherent outcome, an outcome that is more fulfilling and compelling than the sum of it's parts, is creative problem-solving at it's best. In the visual arts, #3 is informed by #1 & #2. Without #1 & #2, the chances of successfully implementing #3 is very low, or simply chance and luck.

If I had to prioritize, my sequence would be this: 1) creative problem-solving (previously 3) 2) art history/appreciation/philosophy (previously 2) 3) technical knowledge specific to art creation (previously 1) The first is applicable to pretty much anything. The second gives one a cultural/contextual overview. The third is for specializing. But here is where the real problem of all of the above comes in: how is it taught, how is it assessed? Most art teachers in K-12 education have a rudimentary understanding of the above. They may know the art education establishment's metrics on how to teach some of it, but may or may not really understand how it all works.

I've had the opportunity to be a judge for the Scholastic Art & Writing Awards (a nationally respected US competition) several times, and have been witness to much of the mediocrity that is generated in 7-12 grade art programs, and these are the schools that take art more seriously, because many don't submit works for the competition at all. M

y co-jurors and I have discussed that much of the judging is less the judging of students, but more an assessment of the teachers. Two or three of my close friends teach high school, and their student's work leaps across the rooms to take prizes year after year. Not because the teachers have learned to submit flashier works to seduce judges (bad teachers play that game), but because they are eliciting serious work out of engaged students. They are excellent teachers and the qualitative difference is huge. Conversely, you feel bad for the potential of students who are in less then adequate art programs with teachers of limited competence. This commentary could be a applied to ANY field. That being the case, then the problem needs to be re-assessed to not be a problem of art education, but a problem of the education system as a whole. Content is one side of the issue; facilitators on the other side.

(Because lets face it, we could get rid of 90% of the paperwork and administrators/bureaucrats, without an adverse impact on education). My view is that there are always individuals that become artists, no matter what kind of incentives/disincentives they experience in their lives. They are hard-wired to be artists, and so become artists. Same is true for those on the receiving end; some seek out art experiences because they feel enriched as a consequence. I think good art education can greatly broaden both categories of people. There are also people who are inherently creative problem-solvers. They may or may not gravitate towards the arts; they may become scientists, engineers, corporate leaders, entrepreneurs, or an endless variety of endeavors.

Good (general) education can increase this volume as well. But for all things there is an opportunity cost; people engaged in one activity may not become engaged in another. What would the theoretical goal be of increasing/expanding art education? Should art NOT be elitist? Would Education through art, art education, increasing the funding priority of art education, enrich our culture? Make the world a better place to live in?

What is the actual problem we're talking about trying to fix? It seems to me there are more artists today than ever before in history, more opportunities for artists to create in an infinite proliferation of mediums and media, than ever before in history, more consumers of art (in any medium) than ever before in history. Can an argument be made that art is drowning in mediocrity due to too many people going into the arts?

On the receiving side as well? Are there too many consumers of bad art? I'm here to raise everybody's blood pressure by playing Devil's advocate... have at it...!

George Kozmon

[projectgx2articles-blog]

THE DIGITAL FRONTIER: The Work of Guy-Vincent

Artists are generally early adopters of new technologies. Experimentation is a natural part of the creative process, and like science, questions like “what if…?” are drivers of establishing undiscovered territories. The digital realm is one such frontier, with artists playing around like smart, curious children on a playground.

Those that have dipped into this pool range form tentative splashing at the shallow end, to the reckless spirits leaping into the fray off the high dive. Without delving into the various technical opportunities that the past 30 or so years have offered artists, I’d like to focus in on two prevailing aspects: the printing of works and the dissemination of works.

The aspect of printing and disseminating images of existing works (like paintings) is not a part of this essay, as that has to do with marketing, whereas I’d like to explore art-making, the actual creation of creative content. To that end, I ask you to consider the practice of Guy-Vincent.

                                                       ■

Mark-making has always been at the core of Guy-Vincent’s work, whether graphite, paint, or photo-based, gold-leaf or symbols, or in recent years, digital patterns. . This is in conjunction with representational images; such as nature, art historical references, or symbols of humanity. His concepts raise questions about the meaning of visual communication, images and language

The digital medium was an obvious new tool to dissect and explore, with a fair amount of early works having used photo-based elements, taking those further within the digital realm itself was almost inevitable. The mix of real VS virtual is blurred with the process of scanning, re-photographing, manipulating, and re-printing of actual works, the end result being an object of mixed evolution or definition. A paint splatter on a photograph that occurred in reality, then scanned, manipulated and printed as a new large scale photograph, with added splatters of paint defies both traditional definitions of painting, as well as conventional definitions of digital art.

The online world opened different sorts of opportunities; most artists use the World Wide Web as a marketing tool to carpet-bomb the world with their images, with the suspended disbelief of being discovered and valued. G-V had different ideas. Instead of sharing images of his work, he used the new evolving tools to actually create works. Initially he gravitated towards Twitter, where the Unicode symbols could be reinterpreted, sliced and diced, disassembled and rebuilt into new shapes and patterns, while still conveying the logical construction of writing.

Deconstructed letters, diacritical marks, and symbols from a variety of cultures, serve as paint and canvas from which to construct a new visual language. Created using a laptop or mobile device on Twitter and shared freely, Guy-Vincent became a pioneer in what is referred to as Symbol Art.

About this process G-V has stated: “Soon, I was discovering ways to open up the Twitter stream with large unexpected negative spaces, creating graphic glitches, and fusing different languages into each post. As a way to describe what I was doing, I decided to create a Symbol Art hashtag. I felt that this term most accurately depicted these evolving explorations…”

But this wasn’t enough of course, as exploration never stops. The kinetic quality of creating works online prompted additional explorations into film and video. The platform of Vine became a perfect vehicle as a platform allowing the instant sharing of short 6 second looping videos. This new media platform provided a superb opportunity to create and share kinetic filled bursts of audio and visual sequences.

Worlds merge. The need to actually physically make visceral marks on a tactile surface material, combined with the virtual mark-making, the intangible and ephemeral with the visceral, sensual and physical. Inspired by the digital realm of producing work, he had become increasingly focused on integrating the physicality of painting with the inherent nature of the digital realm.

This is where printing comes in, the tool of how to make the intangible, tangible. ”…As the Symbol Art progressed, I became more and more interested in combining their ephemeral nature into my two-dimensional artwork.”

In some early works, images had been printed on steel, vinyl, PVC, wood panels, Lucite, and of course, paper. A new series needed to be identified and defined as a single concept. Which has led to NEO-POST FACTUM. G-V: “NeoPostFactum, my current series combines two primal elements of human visual communication: symbols and identity… In order to represent this identity, I’ve chosen to use family photographs from my Grandmother’s collection as the foundation and starting point of each piece. The focus is not on the personal connections to the imagery, but on how we interpret the images, both as depiction and as metaphors…”

The discovery of old albums, distressed photographs representing the trajectory of generations and the roots of ancestry, compelling images which in and of themselves are symbols, inspired the interaction between time-periods. Intimate 2”x 3” sepia toned photos needed to become monumentally iconic.

Artists are really good at finding materials and resources; to that end Guy-Vincent met up with Dameon Guess, an avid art supporter, collector, and partner in a highly successful and innovative printing company, Jakprints. The company provides a vast array of printing, design, and creative services for numerous companies both nationally and internationally. With the ability to print large-scale archival ink-jet prints they’ve expanded their expertise towards the fine art realm. This was the genesis from which a project partnership was born.

Not to go into the depths of how much research and experimentation needed to happen, the interactions of two creative minds, how many meetings were held, how many late night drinks were consumed, how many experimental test-runs were done, because all that matters is the outcome. The culmination is an impressive series of works; 12 images 84” x 60” on Somerset archival paper, another 12 similarly sized canvases, and a sub-series of 20” x 20” archival color photographs.

Other than the 20” x 20” photographs, all of the works are mixed-media based incorporating, Unicode symbols of various scales, digital manipulations, the calligraphic gestures of splattered paint, graphite marks, and the gloss of gold or silver-leaf. The final artworks are highly nuanced, obscuring our perception of digital VS reality, up close to the works, it’s difficult to distinguish between what is painted, part of the original photo, printed, or hand-drawn. The patterns become a mysterious language, indecipherable, as are the images of ancestors out of time. They all become symbols. Neo-Post Factum translates to New-After the Fact, the title itself blurring the distinction of time periods and the nature of communication.

Many artists are exploring the possibilities of the digital realm; few explore it with the creative vigor and drive demonstrated by Guy-Vincent’s work. Philosophically, shouldn’t the material an artist works with reflect the content of the work? Why work digitally if the ideas being explored have nothing to do with the digital tools themselves?

I invite you to explore G-V’s work, and enjoy NOE-POST FACTUM:

http://guyvincent.net/home

George Kozmon

[projectgx2articles-blog]

DIGITAL ART AND ITS MANIFESTATION

I differentiate between the various print forms and the original source material. I understand too that my views may represent an elitist fringe perspective, but somebody's got to do it...

Several hundred years ago art was difficult to disseminate broadly (though images were printed on textiles and other materials in a limited fashion before paper). Herr Gutenberg graciously provided the solution and the “modern” hand-pulled print was born. As the medium evolved, it became an art form in and of itself, and artists no longer used it as a mechanism to disseminate pictures of existing images, but created works designed for the medium, unrelated to existing canvases.

This is the case today with contemporary artists using an infinite variation on hand-pulled printing techniques, from the most intimate to using an industrial Steamroller. The core of the issue is that the conceptual aspect of the work is directly related to the medium of expression. This is why I have no trouble with digital printing based on digital source material - material designed to be printed - because there is no other reasonable alternative with which to physically express the idea. This is an exploding medium in contemporary art, as well as it should be. Artists have always explored new possibilities presented by new technologies.

Prints of existing work - of whatever quality - don't have the requisite requirements to be called art. They are pictures of pictures.

As to prints of old masters, every museum in the world carries them. The print quality, color-correction, Ph balanced quality paper (or not), were all a part of the aesthetic decision-making in their production; none of those elements turn those posters into art. That’s why they're 15-20 dollars (unframed). Why anybody would want to pay anything more than that, even for a Giclee of an old masterwork is beyond me. They too are not art, but pictures of art. If my view feels extreme, consider the logical conclusions of the opposing position; If a giclee of a painting is art, than so is a post card of a painting, so is a coffee mug with an image of the painting, so is a picture of the painting in a magazine article, so is a T-shirt...

The creation of a painting is art. It can be judged good or bad, but it's still a work of art. Photographing/scanning that painting and creating digital prints of it is not art. It's marketing. The ONLY reason to do it is marketing. What aesthetic/artistic/creative/conceptual reason is there to do it?

I'm not judging or denigrating this, or questioning the legitimacy of it. It's just not art, it's promotional material referencing the art, a reminder of the art, a copy of the art, a teaser... It can be an important tool in the artist's toolbox, broadening the base of those who may become purchasers of original works later.

Creating work digitally is a different animal altogether, and is growing by leaps and bounds. Some years ago in NYC I saw the Materializing the Post-Digital show at The Museum of Arts and Design. It had amazing 3-D digitally printed sculptures. We're on the cusp of staggering possibilities in this realm, in an endless variety of fields. Virtual reality, augmented reality, are scratching the surface, not to mention the infancy of AI.

Whether the source material is photo-based, completely digital, manipulated in whatever way, digital explorations of image making is pushing the technical and conceptual boundaries of what is possible in art-making.

It may be a nice reminder to consider the position of Sol Lewitt, or Marcel Duchamp. Nearly 100 years ago Duchamp displayed a urinal in a gallery venue and declared it art. Thus was initiated the power of "concept" in art, to push beyond the merely aesthetic considerations. A half a century later, good old Sol expounded further to state that the ART IS the CONCEPT. That's why others were hired to execute his work.

So those that dismiss digital media as non-art are a century or two behind. As I stated earlier, some of the most important contemporary art today is digitally based. Much of it is brilliant. Having said that however, I think the resistance to digital works by the more traditional-minded is prompted by the saturation of "digital artists” that have found a convenient medium to crank out mediocre (or worse) artworks. This is less an exploration of an evolving potential-leaden medium and more an opportunistic laziness.

True, mediocrity doesn't restrict itself by medium. I just think that the digital realm presents everything with a sheen of professional polish that for those of less discriminating judgment serves to obscure the lacking foundation. Bad work can still "look" good.

What it always comes down to is the work, in whatever medium. It either transcends the sum of its parts, or it does not.

Can the digitally produced object generate the same emotional connection with a viewer as an object that reflects more direct human action? The hand of the artist, the mark, the tactile, the visceral...? Much of contemporary art has an intellectual tinge - some of it true, some of it veneer - but a certain coldness permeates many shows. I'm feeling dinosaur-ish in my gut reaction, yet I think the more complex and layered the tools between artist and object, the greater the emotional distance? Is it like the difference between riding a horse and driving a car? Yes I'm in question mark mode, because I'm not sure my reactions are true, and even if they are, so what? Contemporary classical music is also less emotionally based, why shouldn't the visual realm also demand more from an audience beyond a more primitive emotional response?

Technological development always changes the greater culture; there are early-adopters, slow-adopters, and even Luddites. I have my Luddite tendencies and a strong sense of tradition, but am equally aware that those tendencies can lead to mind-numbing stagnation. An artist’s role is to recognize traditions and build upon them, challenge them since they exist in a different context from which the traditions were born. That’s how culture and art evolve.

George Kozmon

[projectgx2articles-blog]

THE DESTRUCTION OF CULTURE

Or part 2 of THE OFFENSE OF CREATIVE CONTENT

Recent articles and videos have shocked and appalled the civilized world; words and images that document the destruction of art and artifacts form ancient civilizations. These human achievements are not the intellectual artistic legacy of merely one country, culture or region; they are the artifacts that reflect humanity’s evolution. They belong to all of us.

Throughout history, whenever a new power emerged in a region, the early acts of the new power usually involve the destruction or negation of the previous power. It's a fairly primitive, ego-based urge.

A more civilized expression is carried out with more subtlety, in merely discrediting past powers. Look at any election process in the developed world; a good proportion of the rhetoric is the "destruction or negation", the discrediting of the previous administration. “It’s time for change…”

Some of this broad tendency is just human ego asserting its own identity in contrast to the previous power, pretty much benign. For example, in the US the act of re-decorating the oval office with a new president's choices is a fairly harmless endeavor. By the same token, even in such a simple act, symbology can have meaning; for example President Obama's returning of the Winston Churchill bust to England.

Regimes that reject the past, or distort and cherry-pick segments that suit their interests, are ignorant at best, and rely on ignorance to thrive. This is true of people as well. Experience is an accumulative process, both for individuals and for countries. That is what history is, an accumulation.

The destruction of the past is not unique to ancient history. If we consider the communist regimes in the 20th century, they aggressively destroyed or suppressed any knowledge or information of their countries' histories in an attempt to abolish nationalistic notions and a sense of identity, contrary to the interests of ruling power.

In cases, this was far more than cleansing/revising textbooks. For example, in Romania, Ceausescu bulldozed villages and cemeteries, forcibly relocating whole populations in an attempt to abolish or completely redefine the past. Once a power destroys history, they can re-present it however they want.

This is what’s happening now in the Middle East. What compounds the issue in the case of Islamists, is the rejection of imagery altogether. This is beyond the desire for a new regime. It's the abolishment of ANY imagery as idolatry. This perverse rationalization absolves them from respecting any traditions from the past, considering them misguided blasphemy. Even traditions within the Muslim faith itself are dis-honored, a rejection of when Islam didn’t have the destructive hostility towards the idea of imagery.

 This is utter Nihilism. It’s different then the violence inflicted on individuals responsible for the creation of cartoons. Though horrific, those sorts of responses are a child-like lashing-out at something they don’t like. In a conceptual sense, this is worse; it’s an overt, conscious strategy to destroy any and all culture that doesn’t fit the twisted ideology of ISIS.

 What ISIS is doing (or the Taliban did in Bamiyan), is cultural genocide. It is a crime against humanity, to systematically destroy humanity’s achievements.

                                                      ■

A favorite saying goes "If we see far, it is because we stand on the shoulders of giants". It's an acknowledgement of the accumulated experience and knowledge contributed by those before us. It doesn’t matter what culture, nationality or faith tradition contributed to that rich stream; they all made contributions that are our foundations. To deny that is to deny humanity itself. And to actively destroy that history, that sense of human commonality, is damnable beyond words.

George Kozmon

[projectgx2articles-blog]

THE OFFENSE OF CREATIVE CONTENT

Part one:

In recent days and weeks two events have become worldwide news: the cyber attack on Sony, and the horrific barbarity of the Charlie Hebdo massacre. Both incidents were inspired by creative content that certain parties found offensive. These are not the first such incidents, and are certainly not going to be the last.

For those of us that grew up in relatively free societies that value freedom of expression, these actions seem irrational. We don’t understand how others could feel so extremely outraged by artistic expression. Don’t they understand our humanistic principles?

In the US, broadly speaking - with caveats - we have freedom of speech / expression as a Constitutional Right. But every time I dissect such an issue, to find the edges, the parameters, I end up with this conclusion: Freedom of expression ends when it infringes on the rights of others. Not when it offends others. This conclusion is not unique; many developed countries have reached the same (or very similar) conclusion.

There is a huge difference. People can be offended by all kinds of things. What offends me, may not offend you, and vice-versa. So to curb expression based on the potential to offend would effectively shut down a tremendous variety of communication. That’s a wholly unreasonable standard.

Having said that, at what point does expression for the sole purpose of provocation become an accessory to violence? There are clear legal statutes (in the US) that expression for the purpose of inciting violence is not a protected form of free expression. This is a legal standard that most of society accepts and is comfortable with.

So we have some questions to ask:

- Did Sony incite violence? No. Is it being provocative? Yes, potentially, but not primarily (it’s primary goal was to entertain thereby generating revenue). Should it be free to be provocative? Yes. Would a reasonable person expect serious consequences? Not really. It’s not a serious film; it’s a comedy, a satire. Did the cyber attack teach Sony (or freedom of expression supporters) a lesson? Sure. It’s profitable and fantastic advertising to parody a dictatorial regime.

- Did Charlie Hebdo incite violence? No. Is it provocative? Yes, purposefully so. Should it be free to be provocative? Yes. Would a reasonable person expect serious consequences? Not really. Charlie Hedbo is an equal opportunity offender; no power structure is exempt from their satire. Any rational person would understand that they (or their views) are not being singled out. Did the attack teach Charlie Hedbo (or freedom of expression supporters) a lesson? Sure. Provocations highlighted the irrational power diktats of a motivated homicidal worldview, that they really are anti-freedom, and are enthusiastic about killing people whose views don’t conform to their own. The lesson may sway fence-sitters one way or another, in their opinions regarding expressive liberty.

Not all societies have pluralism, and the above ideas are not incorporated into their cultural fabric. From some cultures’ perspective, that's a value system they reject. There are many democratic principles not universally accepted. Maybe given lip service, but not adopted by all societies, or all segments of society. Which begs the question: would Charlie Hebdo survive as a publication in the bastion of free speech, the Universities of the US…? Ponder that one…

                                                        ■

This subject is of import to those that create content and distribute that content. Artists fall deeply into this category. It’s also of great import to those of us who prefer a society not censor, control, or dictate content.

Regarding the art-world and artistic freedom at its core, we (artists of any kind) in the US are free to make any kind of art we want. No topic or subject is really taboo. As a matter of fact, in many circumstances, the more taboo, the better…

Sony creates content to entertain. Their agenda is to generate money with their creative content. They support the idea of freedom of expression, because they want to be free to express.

Charlie Hebdo also creates content to entertain and make money with. But they have another agenda too, that goes back centuries: to provoke and mock power. Their content isn’t only the specific cartoons they express. Their more important content is the affirmation of the right to express it.

From Da Vinci to Daumier, artists have been engaged in this activity for centuries. Today we have a field separated from “fine art” whose practitioners are called editorial cartoonists. Their mandate is to provoke and mock power. Developed societies pay artists and writers to do this as a legitimate job, stimulating and entertaining millions of people. And many times, provoking outrage.

For some, the idea that a society should tolerate this sort of mockery is unfathomable. For many others it’s OK, as long as their personal favorites or institutions they support are not abused.

For others still, the creative class, the art-makers, they are generally supporters of the third option: active encouragement of provocation. It’s not the provocation itself that’s important. It’s the affirmation of the right to freely express.

George Kozmon

[projectgx2articles-blog]

The Visual Art Resale Royalty - Boon Or Bane For The Art World?

   Throughout history, humankind has shown an appreciation for the visual arts by purchasing the works artists produce. Initially patronage by wealthy families dominated the art market, but as standards of living rose and wealth spread over the last few centuries, art became more broadly affordable, spawning art galleries and art shows for the culturally engaged as well as the affluent. Eventually a resale market developed for art produced in earlier times. Today, we can characterize the art world as having many channels to represent and distribute the art produced by artists, historical or contemporary, through many purchase venues offline and online, for new as well as resale art.

In addition to galleries, specialized auction houses that deal in specific types of art in a broad price range and top-shelf auction houses with a global reach that resell art at a premium price, round out the resale art market. The effect of this ongoing development has been to democratize art, making it available to every interested buyer, for every artist throughout the world, evolving into the sophisticated art market we have today.

Today’s art market is a blessing for visual artists. It has vastly expanded artists’:

* Reach and access to buyers anywhere in the world,

* Capacity to produce artwork by insulating the artist from the intricacies and investment needed to distribute art, and realize sales revenue,

* Ability to compete with other artists for buyers and their scarce purchase dollars.

Though I’m a full-time artist with work represented, collected and exhibited internationally, (private, corporate, museums), my various experiences on the other side of art-making have broadened my perspective. I’ve curated many exhibitions, am the director of Cain Park Arts Festival (a prestigious Nationally (US) recognized art festival), have taught and lectured (Cleveland Institute of Art, Case Western Reserve University), and most pertinent to the subject, owned a spacious contemporary art gallery.

As an artist on the “sell” side of the art market, and wishing to maximize my studio time, I have built a network of:

* Agents who represent me,

* Designers/advisors/consultants who place my work,

* Small, focused contemporary art galleries that consign, show, and sell my work locally

* Broader scope contemporary art galleries that consign, show, and sell my work globally

On the “buy” side of the art market, my gallery/curating, art festival experience, I very well know the challenges of selecting contemporary art, pricing it, presenting it, marketing it, and selling it.

I chose not to resell art in my gallery. Why? Because reselling art comes with additional costs, such as appraisal cost, more comprehensive insurance, and investment in expertise.

Although artists (including me) and galleries (including me) think a work of art is worth a specific amount, in reality it’s worth only what a buyer is willing to pay for it. Until then, it’s only a storehouse of potential value, having incurred the cost of conception, production, and distribution in addition to continuing storage costs over time. Art is a matter of personal taste and desire. No two works of art are exactly alike, and, we all see each work of art subjectively. Since the art purchase decision is very dependent on circumstances unique to each buyer at the time of a considered purchase, each transaction is at a unique price. In general, this means that pricing in the art market is discretionary.

Having deep knowledge of both the “sell” and “buy” sides of the art market, what do I think of the proposed Resale Royalty? I think it’s a bad idea.

Here’re my top three reasons why.

The Resale Royalty increases selling expenses on the “buy” side of the market. With many more artists trying to go to market through much fewer-in-number high-end distributors, marketing power is in the sales channels. So, sellers will inevitably pass on the added royalty-related costs to buyers and/or artists, maybe only to the artist whose work they resell, or more easily, across-the-board to all artists. This could come in many forms, including less promotion for artists, a higher commission on consigned works, or cost-sharing such as charging the artist for a showing, or marketing expenses.

The Resale Royalty imparts more complexity and new costs to the art market. Despite artist and galleries generally establishing a clear retail/artist net price, each buy/sell transaction is at its own price. This means that complete and accurate sales records must follow each work of art throughout its life to establish its cost basis for each transaction.

The devil is in the details of how such a system will be implemented throughout the art world. For example, what happens when a gallery closes (and many do all the time)? What happens when a charitable organization auctions off a painting? Who has the sales records? How are records verified? Who will do the verifying? What is the impact of the different forms of taxation on the participants doing a transaction? A possible answer would be a national registry of all art works produced and sold. However, someone will have to oversee this database. Would artists willingly register their art works and pricing? Would the artist or the seller be the party responsible for updating the database with each transaction’s price and cost information? When there are taxable income discrepancies, which party is the record-keeper keeper-of-record? Will the implementation of the Resale Royalty be consistent across the 50 states as well as the federal government? What about internationally? For this type of system to work, all art market participants including artists must adhere to the new set of complex rules. And, administering such a system will be cost prohibitive to struggling artists and small galleries, driving them out of creating art and selling it.

The resale royalty would contaminate the art world with outside interests. Introducing into the art market unrelated third-parties such as lobbyists and politicians will create a broader set of interests than “sell” and “buy” side art market participants. Only the most powerful and wealthy art market participants will be in a position to influence forthcoming policies. It’s likely that any policy will be to the benefit of the most influential art market participants, to the detriment of most visual artists.

In theory, the visual arts Resale Royalty would apply only to galleries and auction houses that resell art produced (roughly) within the past 75 years or so, including contemporary art. With any public policy initiative, it’s the camel’s nose under the tent. When will the first change to this policy come? How will the next change and the inevitable future changes affect “sell” and “buy” side participants of the art market?

Public policy, such as regulatory and tax, always creates an incentive that changes behavior. Unfortunately, with the proposed visual arts Resale Royalty, the incentive is in the wrong place. It favors well-established artists whose work sell for considerable amounts, over young, new artists trying to establish themselves. It favors large, profitable galleries and auction houses over small galleries where new artists are most likely to showcase their work. It favors the most influential art market participants over participants who don’t have the same access to policy makers.

Rather than creating an incentive for artists - especially young and new artists who don’t have an established body of work - to improve continually their art, produce more of it, and establish their own way to market, it puts a roadblock in their way.

The proposed visual arts Resale Royalty will be a bane for the art market, opening it up to distorting influences from the outside. Do visual artists really want to go through with this change and future unknown changes? I know I don’t. It’s hard enough to create and sell art as it is. The Resale Royalty won’t make it any better or easier for me, or other artists.

George Kozmon

[projectgx2articles-blog]

Graffiti And Property Rights

Much art is a rejection of the art or societal values that preceded it. However Graffiti/Street Art does something different. The terminology can be vague, so let me define what I mean by the all-encompassing term “graffiti”: Unauthorized writing/drawing/painting on a public or private surface. It doesn't matter what medium is used. I'm using the word 'graffiti" to include all forms and aspects of unsanctioned work. The key word to me in this definition, is Unauthorized. It falls into the realm of mostly illegal.

The work could be broken down into two very broad categories with porous borders: artists who are part of group, maybe gang, where the marks and images on the walls have a territorial meaning. This is less about art, more about self-assertion as identity. The other consists of mostly individuals driven to create.  They both follow patterns that have specific street credibility. Street cred almost requires the act to be illegal. Graffiti artists are attuned to each other far more than societal standards.

On the plus side of the Graffiti art medium, it engages people directly, unfiltered, unedited, pure. It puts art front and center, directly into the public realm. On the negative, it defaces private or public property. It's a fundamental rejection of a societal value that has nothing to do with art: property rights. It elevates individual freedom of expression above other rights.

 As an artist, I respect the "screw you, I do whatever I want" independent attitude; on the other hand is the urge to backhand such disrespectful, juvenile, petulant behavior...

Some incredible work has been produced. Work I’d like to see much more of, by artists lacking broad recognition. But underlying it all is a tendency towards a desired anarchy. The whole genre is predicated on a dismissal of foundational aspects of civilization and society, aspects like permanence, tradition, institutions, laws, private property rights...

The medium also occupies an ever-shifting curve. It’s partly the nose of the camel; tolerating a little bit of Graffiti opens the door ever wider, till there is push-back. Conversely, having draconian zero-tolerance policies may encourage tagging as protest.

The irony, of course, is when society adopts (co-opts? castrates? nullifies?) the attitude and puts it on a museum or collector's wall.

                                                            ■

The US (and I imagine most developed countries) tries to balance private property rights with community rights. That's why we have zoning laws. You can't build an industrial plant next to grandma's house. (Generally). As a society, we've accepted billboards as a commercial form of protected speech, though I'm not sure any of us could find a passionate argument for their aesthetic appeal.  Most communities have strict zoning laws that dictate parameters fairly tightly regarding billboards, signage or murals. But it would be hard to argue against an individual right to put up a sign on your own property that said "Bob's Art Gallery!”. And if your corner watering-hole neighbor with the larger building likes the Friday night traffic you're generating, you may work out a lease arrangement with a sign on the bar building that you both benefit from. Or vice versa. All OK within the framework of local ordinances.  

In the US we are fairly confused about freedom of speech and freedom of expression. To my knowledge, no courts have suspended in any meaningfully permanent way, property rights laws in favor of free expression. Interestingly, this exploration becomes very political. Consider the suspension of property rights during the height of the Occupy movement. That also was freedom of expression. So when does the free expression rights of one group or individual, trump the rights of collective society?

Freedom of expression is one of the USA's founding principles. But it also has limitations, like yelling 'fire' in the theater. Freedom of expression stops where infringement on the rights of others begin.        

Without societal agreed upon parameters, unfettered free expression becomes instant anarchy. So what we're really trying to find are that boundaries between property rights, community impact, and freedom of expression. Artists are free to be as outrageous in both art and behavior as they wish. There is a quantifiable difference however, between outrageousness and illegality. The question is, at what point do we indulge the art or the artist too far into the realm of behavior illegal for everybody else? How far does a society loosen or modify it's laws to accommodate a select group?                                                

I'd suggest, to a great degree, this is relative. What may be more or less acceptable in an urban setting may be outrageous in small town America. Each community has to find it's own boundary.

                                                            ■

A further consideration is the disconnect between the art community and the general public. The art community - especially the contemporary art community - exists in a bubble-world of it's own creation. Elite insularity. Despite support from the broader populace through public funding, the contemporary realm remains an exclusive club. Yes it reaches out to the great unwashed masses, but so much content is esoteric, even to those of us deeply immersed in it, that the general public has no clue.  It’s left out of the conversation. This breeds both Graffiti, as well as rejection of Graffiti:

-It breeds Graffiti, because so many artists either ‘real’ or wanna-bes, reject the art-world establishment and hierarchy. They hate the authoritative powers that would judge, edit, package, commercialize, or act as filter between their art and their audience.

-It breeds rejection of Graffiti because for most non-artists, it’s pure vandalism. Basquiat and Haring may be household names in the contemporary art community, acknowledged and respected Graffiti artists represented in museums, but much of main-street America is still getting used to Impressionism.

Ironically, it may be Graffiti artists that are changing this. By engaging the public directly, by saying "screw you" to authority, they are resonating with youth all over the world. Kids, who may not know a Michelangelo from a Monet, are familiar with Banksy.

                                                            ■                                                                  

As I argue for property rights, the artist in me occasionally cringes when considering some cool work created by street artists. What is the compromise that would allow creativity to flourish yet respect societal legal values? How can anarchy and law find a Detente-like co-existence? Or is the fundamental strength of street art it's illegal anarchy, and fundamentally subversive nature? I'm expressing a frustration and fundamental conflict between accepting the art and rejecting the crime.

Maybe this is only in my own limited perception, but it seems to me "legitimate" street art has to be "illegitimate". That means for street cred, it has to be illegally made. Rebellion isn't rebellion if it's approved. So if street art is done in a legal/authorized/approved/allowed framework, do the words "Street Art" simply replace the word "mural"? Or "public art"? It would seem so.

Speculatively, Graffiti has served its purpose: it’s highlighted artists in the broader community whose urge to make their mark supersedes societal constructs.

Productive engagement seems the win-win both artists and communities are slowly benefiting  from. As a historical revolution in the art-world going back to the 70’s, it’s time for the medium to grow up, to evolve.

Many communities internationally have embraced artists and created opportunities for them to create. Each community is free to design their own policy; the immediate individuals’ in that community are the best to involve themselves in the needs and policies of that community. Many of our cities would greatly benefit from some aesthetic contributions. Localities need to modify ordinances to accommodate commercial activity that is visually inoffensive, as well as give opportunities for the creatives to make their contributions as well. A win-win.

There is growing movement of new ideas and projects that have sponsors, willing supporters, or active community engagement or support. From curatorial/gallery-based undertakings, to grass-roots civic engagements, the opportunities are beginning to germinate and flower. They are exactly the kind of productive direction for street art to move towards, the next step in it’s evolution. Partnerships between municipalities, developers, galleries and artists may be the collaborative solution that most would find acceptable, stimulating and elevating for the community. Another aspect of acceptability may be the acknowledgment of impermanence. Something borderline offensive becomes less so if you know it will be gone next year.

The historical nature of graffiti from 35 years ago has evolved into a tremendous variety of myriad forms; I think this is good. The rebellion has been acknowledged and embraced enthusiastically by the art community, reluctantly, slowly and conditionally by the general public. I do wonder however, whether hard-core street artists may not feel their medium has been co-opted/castrated/bought-out. There is an inherent irony; provocative cutting-edge ideas that eventually gain acceptance, are no longer provocative or cutting edge.