Magic can be found in the shapes and experiences that can not be labeled.

In an earlier post I blogged about how a friend of mine gave me a huge compliment by wanting to use my work for tattoo she would have for life. I asked her if she would share her thoughts on why she chose my artwork and this is what she wrote me:


"I waited three years to get another tattoo, mainly because I knew I wanted a much larger, declarative tattoo and was determined to find the perfect artwork. I met Will while I was an intern at the Houston Press and was lucky enough to interview him during the Prop 8 chaos. (http://blogs.houstonpress.com/hairballs/2009/05/prop_8_houston_protest.php ) After facebook-friending him, I perused the artwork on his website and found exactly what I was looking for.

I chose his 'Pride Birds' in part because of its connection to the GLBT community, but also because of the great lines, motion and personality the birds possess. I adore them and chose them not only for their beautiful simplicity, but also for their thoughtful postures, contemplating what their next actions might be.

Thank you so much, Will, for creating something I will cherish forever."

If you would like to read about what the concept of the tattoo means to Melanie, you can check out the story here:


The result is amazing!

With the Salon des Refuses show(some rejected work from Lawndale Art Center's 'Big Show') approaching, I thought I'd take a few minutes and revisit the origin of the concept of such a show, for those of you who have not had any art history classes, and my thoughts on how it is relevant today. This is the entry for 'Salon des Refuses' on Encyclopedia.com:

"Exhibition held in Paris in 1863 to show work that had been refused by the selection committee of the official 'Salon'. In that year there were particularly strong protests from artists whose work had been rejected, so the emperor Napoleon III, 'wishing to let the public judge the legitimacy of these complaints', ordered this special exhibition. It drew huge crowd, who came mainly to mock, and Manet's 'Dejeuner sur l'herbe' was subjected to particular ridicule. Other major artists represented included Cezanne, Camille Pissarro, and Whistler. In spite of the unfavorable reaction to the works shown there, the Salon des Refuses was of great significance in undermining the prestige of the official Salon. After this, artists began to organize their own exhibitions(notably the 'Impressionists' in 1874) and art dealers became of increasing importance. The Salon des Refuses is thus regarded as a turning point in the history of art and 1863 has been described as 'the most convenient date from which to begin any history of modern painting'(Alan Bowness, Modern European Art, 1972)."

Now I'd like to share my thoughts about how this invention is relevant in our current society. The controlling structure(Salon) that was in place in 1800's France is still very much around except it's name has changed and it looks a little different. Now, instead of one central control mechanism we have a control system(galleries and 'non-profit' art centers). It's a system created by our Capitalistic society. Some people who love art, but may or may not be able to actually create any, bought into the sales pitches of our higher education system and paid tremendous amounts of money to gain a Masters degree that they believe qualifies them to dictate to the public what 'good' art is.

Unlike other art forms, such as music, visual artists have been at the mercy of those who own spaces with walls if they wished to get their art out to the public. Thankfully, this system is quickly becoming as threatened an institution as the recording industry. With new options such as youtube, facebook, and other social media outlets becoming more and more ubiquitous, artists are now able to circumvent the stranglehold of the current establishment. The more screens that appear in public(laptops, Iphones, Ipads) the more options expand for artists. Granted, I am forming my opinion based on my desire to create art that people want. Some people create art for the sole lofty purpose of creating art(a modern day luxury with no historical precedent) and that is fine if you are A. rich or B. an art professor. Lofty/heady/mental masturbation art appeals to a very small percentage of the public and it generally doesn't pay bills.

Now I would like to bring this discussion specifically back to the Lawndale Big Show and the Salon des Refuses produced by Gallery 1724. The purpose of the 'Big Show' according to Lawndale Art Center's own website is: "an annual open-call, juried exhibition. It has been an important venue through which emerging and under represented Houston area artists gain exposure since the show's conception in 1984." If this is indeed the case then why can I google the names of the accepted artist list from their page and find many artists who have either shown in galleries around town very recently or currently have gallery representation? Furthermore, why were 114 works selected from only 83 artists? Multiple pieces from the same artist take up room that could have otherwise been used to expose another's work. This can not be blamed on the institution itself, rather the juror- the LONE juror. At least the artists who submitted their work to the Salon in Paris in the 1860's had the benefit of more than one set of eyes either accepting or rejecting their pieces.

Last night I discovered a link to CultureMap's interview with the Juror of this year's Big Show, Paul Middendorf. Much of it is relatively boring(you can google it and find it if you have nothing else better to do), but the thing that grabbed my attention was a phrase he kept repeating while explaining his process for jurying the show. "A lot of it had to do with my aesthetic...." ".. some pieces that just didn't fit the aesthetic of the show.." " a lot of it was weeding out the work that didn't fit.. that didn't meet the aesthetic at all.." " I tried to get a bit of a .... not necessarily a theme, but definitely an aesthetic." These are words directly from the mouth of the juror from the interview. Now, the definition of the word: aesthetic.

Aesthetic: 1 a: of, relating to, or dealing with aesthetics or the beautiful. b: a work of aesthetic value. c: pleasing in appearance
2: appreciative of, responsive to, or zealous about the beautiful; also: responsive to or appreciative of what is pleasurable to the senses.

In other words, he chose art work that he 'liked' regardless of the talent, skill, or technical abilities of the artist. Who should care about this guy's opinion? His credentials aren't necessarily awe- inspiring and neither is his work in my opinion. EVERYONE chooses art that they LIKE. For this reason, I am grateful to Emily Sloan and Gallery 1724 for giving us rejected artists an opportunity to show in a physical space. The public can decide for itself. I think this very old idea is coming back in the new forms of ever evolving technology. It just takes some courage and ingenuity(both things I am struggling with learning along the way) to get around this archaic art system that so many of us are/have fallen victim to. I encourage all artists to investigate ways of becoming their own agents. For juried shows, why be subjugated by another's opinion which is just as valid as your own or put up with typical 50/50 gallery sale splits that will leave you financially in the red or broken even at best?

The ONLY value art possesses is the ability to connect emotionally to the viewer, listener, etc. Why do artists clamor to get into a show that doesn't even serve it's original function? I deem these types of shows obsolete in their own time. Times are changing and the system is crumbling. It is time for the independent artist to rise again. Did Leonardo Da Vinci have gallery representation or an art agent? Did Michelangelo? I think it's time to release great art into the world.

Yes, I was again rejected from the juried Big Show competition for a second straight year. Like any juried competition, I question the inner-workings of the process. For example, when you submit in person, a person asks you if you are a member of the non-profit. If you are not, which I am not, a certain box is checked on their form(which they keep as a juror card). This only leads me to speculate that if you do not give them money that you are either A. Not considered at all in the competition or B. Prioritized in such a way that drastically lowers your chances of getting in. Nevertheless, I paid my $30 entry fee which I can not recover. It will be the last time I do so. However, all is not lost. I have a good chance of showing at Gallery 1724's 'Salon des Refuses' which opens the very same night and time as the Big Show. If I can't get in there due to size issues(my painting is 2'x4') or whatever, then it will just have to be shown at the same time I show other new work. I really do wish the piece gets seen though. It is fantastic and I count it among some of my best work. For whatever reason I didn't get into the Big Show- screw it! I will do it on my own and I will be successful. I plan on producing my own shows in the future. I of course will have details posted here about when/where the party is going to be. It's time to do it my way.

I want to share with everyone my latest painting and preview of stylistic changes to come. Stylistically, my goal was to create a striking portrait with cinematic qualities. The title is based on the brief interaction I had with the subject. It's really another way of saying: " You can't judge a book by it's cover." I also thought the title sounded a bit like a scene description in a film. This is also my one and only entry to Lawndale's annual 'Big Show' juried competition this year. I should be notified by Sunday if my work is accepted. If not, I will try to get into the Salon de Refuses show at Gallery 1724 on Bissonet where I have exhibited before. Fingers crossed everyone!

I recently discovered the winner of the Hunting Prize for 2010 while reading the Chronicle online. To say I was disappointed would be an understatement. Sometimes I get so tired of the 'art establishment' and their attempt to control what is and what isn't acceptable art. Who are they to determine this? What are their qualifications? Who knows better than you what you like? Is visual art any different from music? Could any amount of B.S. discussion convince you to like a particular kind of music that sounds like two cats fighting to your ears? It wouldn't work on me. I am generally a very pleasant, and optimistic individual, but lately the quality of art that is being pushed onto the public as 'the best' is really quite pathetic. I have to keep the art world at a certain distance from myself to maintain my own sanity. It's much like art school. You have to be guarded enough so that your own vision and aesthetics remain intact or you take the risk of allowing your individuality to melt away into the pool of bland boring sameness that the establishment keeps promoting. To be unique in our culture is difficult. It takes courage and it takes bravery. To be a unique artist with a unique voice is even more difficult. You are fighting a battle on two fronts: You are trying to get seen and appreciated by the public, while having to battle the very intricate and political world of the art establishment. I have seen far too much work lately that is just flat bad. I'm not sure if these folks just didn't have proper education, or if they are just so lazy that they'd rather try to pawn off a poorly thought out and executed 'concept' to a gullible crowd. This is what I refer to as 'mental masturbation'. Everyone has the option to either dazzle someone with brilliance or baffle them with bullshit. Baffling people is easier. I can only speak my truth through my life experiences. I consider art to be VISUAL COMMUNICATION. When you fail to communicate, you fail as an artist. My concept may be simple, but it's compelling. Not only is it compelling, but it's authentic. It's not trying to wedge it's way onto the boring art bandwagon. My art, like myself, is real, bright, and straightforward. Expect nothing less from me.

Last Saturday I met with my friend Melanie Pang to discuss a request she had of me. Melanie asked me to develop a tattoo design based on my bird works. I can't think of many higher compliments than when someone appreciates your art at such a level that she wants to wear it on her body forever. I am truly humbled. Be looking out for the design(s) for it. I'll post pics here.

In other news I was invited at the eleventh hour to participate in an art show fundraising event held at Meteor Lounge for The Osito Foundation last Monday night here in Houston. I donated three pieces, but none sold. All the money raised, however, went to a great cause.