Field Museum

At the Field Museum's [permanent] Africa Exhibit today, I noticed for the first time a plaque noting examples of African-American genius. Among the many worthy list items (medical discoveries, inventions of great worth, famous artists and actors) were listed "The High Five" and "Charismatic Preaching".

Really?

Aside from the obvious racial blunder, this is another of many examples of the Field Museum's lack of upkeep and updating. The anthropological/ethnographical sections are sadly ethnocentric and, while well-intended I'm sure, often culturally patronizing. In the 'Nature Walk' exhibit of taxidermy animals there are many removed display items, and many of the animals show wear. This is not to mention the telephones that connect you to imaginary computerized park rangers, mounted below signs that say 'listen to this cup'. The phones don't work anyway.

Update

Busy these days.

Have been staying up past bedtime, reacquainting myself with the darkroom. I'm not printing any serious work right now, just wanting to reinforce technical skills before getting involved in more meaningful projects. Nevertheless, I've been lucky enough to spend a few hours after work each day this week. Also making progress in the painting studio. One panel nearing completion, four in early stages, and one that's maybe halfway finished. After the holiday craziness is over, I need to devote a bit of energy into researching mediums and brushes, because I'm still unhappy with the surface of most of my paintings. Working on a panel base eliminates a lot of the texture, but I still find it distracting. It's not about the paint, after all. I've been wanting to work with spray paint for a long time, and maybe it's time to involve some high-quality acrylics. I'm not sure.

Somewhat Troubling

In Newcity Art's blog, I found an small article about a peculiar fund raising technique happening at the Art Institute of Chicago. Individual 'dots' in Seurat's La Grande Jatte are being 'adopted' for $10 each. I suppose this is something like having a star named after you; you retain some unseen tie to the star, but can't actually hold it or have it or really even be sure someone else hasn't also named it after themselves. I have to wonder, is there a time-limit on this adoption? If the museum ever decides to sell the painting (highly unlikely, but let's consider it), what happens to the dots? This brings to mind, albeit tenuously, Rindy Sam's kissing of a Cy Twombly painting, then attempting to claim it a collaboration. It's startling how little control over a work of art an artist retains once it's hung on someone else's wall.

Obviously, the Seurat example is one of creative fund raising and little to worry about. Perhaps I am so struck by it because I am in the middle of reading I Sold Andy Warhol (Too Soon) and have a head full of talk of monetary and ownership considerations in the art world. This is not to say that I'm not a bit disgusted by the book; Richard Polsky's protestations that he's merely going with the flow- that the art world is leaving good dealers *cough*middlemen*cough* like him behind and what can he do but sell paintings like oil futures- are a bit too much. He expresses lament over the state of his beloved art world and it's pursuit of monetary over cultural gain, all the while a little too careful to compare his lowly hotel rooms with those of his clients. And as a side note, the digs at his gold-digging ex-wives are as unnecessary as they are ugly. Who cares, anyway? This book, ostensibly about the art world, is at it's core a book meant to alleviate Polsky's guilt over joining the race to break records at auction-houses.

California Dreaming

It's a rainy day outside, and I'm trying to keep myself lucid by listening to WNYC's Radiolab, drinking coffee, and using the internet for things other than Facebook.

I've just returned from a five-day stay in San Francisco, looking into grad programs and generally deciding if I want to live there. (I do.) Beautiful city, even more beautiful local environment, lively local culture, and an emphasis on 'green' lifestyles and local/organic food makes it pretty much heaven for a person like me. And the San Francisco Art Institute turned out to be very impressive, even more so than the California College of Art. It's a bit of a turnaround for me, as I expected the reverse to be true. This opinion came more from their websites, as it was the only real exposure I had to either of them from out here in Chicago. SFAI won me over with it's emphasis on theory and cross-disciplinary work, and it didn't hurt that every person I spoke to was eager to be helpful and informative. I was even able to meet Mark Van Proyen, one of the graduate painting professors, just by stumbling around with a confused look on my face.

That said, I look forward to spending the next several months in work mode. It helps me to have a goal, and this is certainly one. I'll be taking on more work at my job, which is a good thing both for experience and income, and I'll be working with a renewed focus and direction on both paintings and photography. I've got a few pieces now that are finished that I haven't been able to satisfactorily photograph, so hopefully I'll figure out my lighting situation before too long. SFAI wants a carousel of slides, and I'm looking forward to remembering how to accomplish that. I also hope to make a few proposal sketches for installations I've not been able to see through, and continue making drawings as well. I don't want to create an entire new body of work for my portfolio, but it may turn out that way. In a way, it's a good thing that I have three or so months of hiding indoors coming my way because I'll be a lot less distracted by petty things like fresh air and seeing friends who live more than two blocks away. Thanks, Chicago!