Guantanamo Art History

The buffoons in government who continue indefinite detentions without charge at the lawless US gulag in Guantanamo, Cuba have now added an additional layer of humiliation and subjugation – the confiscation of artwork made by inmates there with threats to destroy it. According to an article in The Guardian,,  authorities have begun to confiscate artwork by detainees after the success of an ongoing exhibition ‘Ode to the Sea’ at John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York which runs through January 26, 2018. The authorities now claim all artwork produced by detainees belongs to them and are confiscating and preventing their transfer outside the prison. Originally they announced plans to ‘incinerate’ the artwork but the Miami Herald reported that it may just be ‘archived’ in unknown fashion, leading to charges of censorship, further dehumanization, and violation of human rights. Detainee attorney Wells Dixon declared “Let’s see who can destroy works of art and culture faster, ISIS or @DeptofDefense”, while the National Coalition Against Censorship stated “This baseless policy change uses art as a political football in an effort to prevent these works — and a deeper understanding of those who created them — from informing public discussion of the policies the U.S. government makes in its citizens’ names”. The art program was the prison’s most popular and until this exhibition presented no significant controversy over process or content. All the artwork on exhibit was inspected and put through a rigorous vetting and approval procedure. It is a sad comment on the drift of our democracy that Guantanamo still exists, much less that artwork produced there is now being confiscated with threats of destruction by the fascists in charge.

Income Inequality in Art

I was intrigued by a recent Artnet article that analyzed artist by auction sales: The conclusion the pair of reporters came to was that only twenty five artists account for nearly fifty percent of all postwar and contemporary art auction sales. Of these artists more than half are American, two are women (Agnes Martin & Yayoi Kusama), one is black (Basquiat), and only nine are living. Other conclusions drawn by the article is that the auction art market is ‘winner takes all’,  practically unchanged in its makeup over the last decade, and subject to supply and demand – or how prolific an artist is and how often their work comes up for auction. Although an interesting read, I don’t believe it is a good measure of artistic success to look only at auction sales where profits are driven exclusively by collectors and capitalism. I am hoping they conduct another analysis of Contemporary art that only includes living artists and takes into account gallery and direct studio sales if possible. That would provide a more accurate picture of the actual market for living artists selling art and provide encouragement to a lot more people struggling with creativity in the present.

NEWSFLASH! NYC galleries do not represent US artist’s diversity!

While skimming through the Hyperallergic site I found this gem of a link… It seems CUNY Guttman College professor James Case-Leal conducted a study with his class to determine racial and gender representation in the top 45 New York galleries and found 80.5% are white and 70% are male. Guerilla Girls have been bringing attention to such gross disparity since 1985 with apparently not much changing in the art scene in 30 plus years. The same study found that when including only American artists, white dominance climbs to 88.1%, while only 1.2% of Latinos are represented – even though Latinos as a national minority group number about 16% and surpassed African Americans years ago as the largest minority in the US. Just so you get an idea of the gulf in disparity, Latinos represent more than 27% of NYC’s population. BTW African-Americans were at 8.8% representation in these top galleries. I suppose Trump sympathizers will immediately scream about faults in methodology, micro statistics, and political correctness but the study is nevertheless troubling in how it demonstrates the insistence of white male privilege within the art world and among collectors. Museums rarely hold shows on women artists or contemporary minority artists. Are there really that many more talented white male artists in America or does this only expose the blatant bias of curators and museum directors? Maybe we need a companion study on the racial makeup of these groups plus gallery owners and their corresponding preference for certain artists.

The Buffoons in charge

Due to the ineptitude and ignorance of our current president who is ready to cut practically all federal arts funding in favor of MORE military, former buffoon-in-chief George W Bush is getting a mandate-makeover and publishing a best-selling book of his artwork. Next, pigs will fly. This is the man who established the USA as a leader in: extraordinary rendition (otherwise known as kidnapping), ‘preemptive’ war (otherwise known as  invasion), indefinite detention without charges, torture and dark sites, extrajudicial drone assassinations, mass surveillance and other high crimes. Art and political criticism have sunk to a new low in our times when such “artists” merit books and media recognition instead of jail time. I am convinced we have Dubya’s rogue administration to thank for the existence of our present orange buffoon and the public’s general acceptance of his many illegal and inhumane policy proposals. But why are legitimate media and art sites now sympathetic to our former monster of a politician? Here is a link to a Guardian article calling George W Bush a “…talented painter with an affecting vision…”: . Paddy Johnson of ArtFCity writes “…at least the one image from the series is really compelling.” These are dangerous times indeed for art and politics when praise and success are so misguided that Donald Trump is elected to destroy American culture and Dubya Bush is hailed as a serious artist.

Art in 2017

There now seems to be an art world consensus that Donald Trump’s reign as POTUS will not bode well for art. Evidence the ‘general art-strike’ petition circulating online calling for all artists, art professionals and art spaces to stop work on inauguration day, “Towards an anti-fascist cultural front”. Here is the link… . This begs the question of where art activism has been for the past few decades while the art world transformed into a global industry dominated by appropriation frauds and art factory CEO’s supplying shiny commodities and mindless entertainment to the 1% looking only for appreciation of their investment. There is an interesting article on summarizing the passivity by artists and six questions they should be asking themselves: . BTW it was announced today that a large part of their editorial staff was dismissed by parent company Phaidon – another global capitalist corporate tactic adopted without regard for human cost now assimilated by art institutions and generally referred to as ‘downsizing’ in servitude to almighty profits. There has been a gradual and widening disconnect of the art world from communicating with the general public and limiting art audiences to the elite few. This trend has been perpetuated by the elitist attitude of the art world in general and the isolation of fine art in high cost and snobby museums. Long gone is the image of the artist as a poor and insulated bohemian personally creating a limited number of unique images for a few knowledgeable collectors. Today this standard is replaced by an immaculate corporate artist in a tailored suit, well-connected and wildly successful at managing popular icons, media, and his peon hordes.  Getting from the present to an ideal of fine art that communicates with the masses and is shared by the general public seems like a long upward climb. For starters, artists would need to quickly pursue more common, political, and socially responsible images to confront any ‘fascist cultural front’ before it gets established. That is the artist as messenger of a higher cultural ideal. And you thought you could quietly produce in isolation with less stress? Happy New Year!

Exposing Politicians

Speaking Truth to Power is always intoxicating and these days it’s a trend to show politicians without clothes and ridicule them through art. Over the summer Australian artist Lushsux was forced to ‘censor’ his mural of Hillary Clinton in a bikini by over-painting a burqa to avoid being penalized by the city council… Then we had nude statues of both Donald Trump (titled ‘The Emperor has no balls’ LOL) and Hillary Clinton appear in NYC’s Union Square… Both sculptures were promptly removed by the police,  and the Trump statue subsequently sold for $22K at auction. Today we have news that a nude painting of the Uruguay ex-president and his Senate wife titled ‘Uruguay’s Genesis’ by Julio de Sosa was forcibly removed from a PRIVATE gallery… Seriously the censorship in our supposed ‘democracies’ is going too far and the politician’s sensibilities are getting too delicate. Soon we will become like Cuba or Turkey, where president Tayyip Erdogan continues to purge from active society anyone who even looks at him the wrong way, with the same intolerance that saw him try to sue a German public broadcaster over the airing of a satiric song then a German poet over a lewd poem. Obviously the powerful don’t like it when you are candid and creative in rendering raw their political ambitions. In more repressive society you can spend 10 months in jail for just painting your country’s leaders names on pigs, like artist El Sexto did in Cuba last year… or even receive a DEATH SENTENCE (commuted to eight years and 800 lashes) like the Palestinian poet Ashraf Fayadh in Saudi Arabia… (see my post from 11/15). Hopefully artists will always continue to show courage and dissent by revealing the faults of the ruling class through freedom of expression and freedom of speech – and help exile all forms of unwarranted institutional censorship by pushing the boundaries of modern progressive society.

Another Bad Artist Appropriates

According to Hyperallergic  there are protests at the St. Louis Museum from an exhibit of a white southern-born artist appropriating images of African-Americans and then defacing them with toothpaste and chocolate – which he then labels as ‘fine contemporary art’ and the museum honors with a solo show. Museum director Lisa Melandri is SHOCKED, JUST SHOCKED the black community would find Kelley Walker’s art offensive – probably because she is brain dead. What could possibly be wrong with a white southern appropriation artist defacing racially charged black imagery to sell tickets to rich white museum goers? It could only be worse if Walker had decided to use images of lynchings. Didn’t anybody on the museum staff even consider how this show might convey a message of white privilege and arrogance? Worse, at an ‘Artist Talk’ at the museum, the artist apparently could not, or would not, explain his use of black images and of racial injustice, preferring to concentrate on ‘technical aspects’ of his work. COWARD! If you’re going to steal images from others, at least know WHY YOU CHOOSE THEM! Many local artists are offended by the show and the artist’s ‘rude and defensive manner’ and are calling for a boycott of the museum. It is obvious this show is insensitive to blacks and the local community but it is also insensitive to the original artists who produced the appropriated magazine covers and photographs. How long has this artist labored in the isolation of the New York Art World to become blind to people and to stealing images? There really is no justification for such callousness. It is not only just but necessary to boycott ANY appropriation artist at any museum or gallery show, especially if the theft offends the disadvantaged to benefit the powerful. Call this appropriation a ‘visual gentrification’ – and I hope a protest in the Midwest is just the start of opposition to this social opportunism.

Art Factories revisited

Besides appropriation art, there is no topic that enrages me more than modern art factories. Isn’t it disgusting what capitalist artists will do for profit? I guess it’s to be expected that American Corporate art CEOs will protect their bottom line. I worked for a CEO who pretended to admire Cesar Chavez while busting any attempts to unionize – the same hypocrisy that apparently drives Jeff Koons in this post from ArtFcity… .  Long past seem to be the days of Picasso Communism and famous artists championing social justice. In my view, authentic artists just want solitude to concentrate and produce personal pieces but capitalist artists count on slave low wage labor to create and produce theirs. I hope the demise of art factories (and capitalist artist’s dependence on them) is as certain as gentrification following artist colonies. BTW let’s put to rest the myth that these factories have always existed in the art world. Artist “workshops” were originally used to train and educate artists by copying or completing their master’s works, have been discredited since Rubens and Rembrandt, and have only served to obscure and confuse the talent and reputation of the artists who utilize them in order to serve the art market. The latest entry in art factories, thanks to desperate artists in China, is ‘My DaVinci’ check out this link: It feels like you may as well use an app to create art for all the creativity that comes from captivity… or exploitation. At least such sites are obvious in their commercialism, unlike ‘factories’ like Koons’ who use the same techniques to con the art world and its gullible collectors. Are such things as ‘My DaVinci’ a natural product of globalization? Western CEO’s exploiting Asian artists to produce and market classic kitch? Is this the new economic colonization? It’s all rather depressing to consider.

The CEOs of Art kiss for millions

So Damien Hirst is hosting a show for Jeff Koons at his narcissistic London gallery this summer. This culminates the incestuousness that comes from two appropriation sellouts promoting each other and now apparently attempting to exclude as many middle men as possible from their business of art. In other words, maximize profits and the bottom line – the 1% ‘Corporate America’ ideal that has brought this country to record inequality and near economic ruin. So appropriate from these CEOs of Art who’s talent is really only for business. Incredible move from two artists who have enough money to burn but refuse to spread the wealth. Oh sorry, I recently read that Koons “sometimes takes a helicopter to his farm” in Pennsylvania from NYC but thinks he’s not rich LOL. These guys need to actually try to draw something on their own that isn’t primitive genitalia. Hirst has his serfs paint grids of polka dots in paint store swatch colors and Koons has his peons paint internet images of digital collages. This passes for great art from these two great executives who never get their hands dirty and promulgate the Warholian idea that an artist’s hand should disappear from their art. Of course they do – their one hand can’t even trace their other haha! These CEOs show talent in stealing images from real artists, never mind that their factories also produce the objects – and on the few ocassions when they don’t appropriate, they manage to produce bad porn or prudish science projects. The great mystery is why no-talent artists who sellout by embracing consumer society and kitch have such success in the contemporary art world.

Are Art Fairs Fair?

It used to be understood that Art Fairs were quaint affairs featuring mostly pedestrian artists and craftspeople showing poorly in cramped and blow-away booths set up in the open air for a day or two.  But starting a few years ago, the ‘elite’ art establishment hijacked this provincial concept and perverted its meaning to include exclusive blockbuster affairs with major artists, publicity, and chic venues. Now there are hundreds of international art ‘fairs’ mostly serving the largest and most established galleries to regurgitate the same top artists to lazy local collectors unwilling to travel in order to increase the value of their stables. How did this come to pass and why have the ‘aristocratic’ artists elbowed their way into an art sales vehicle meant for the masses? Is this simply a natural extension of the relatively modern acceptance and appreciation of ‘Pop’ culture in Fine Art? These mega-fairs seem to only increase the ‘income gap’ among artists so that emerging and unknown artists are left behind at the expense of those who don’t need additional exposure. Indeed even dead artist estates are brought into these new exclusive events. Shouldn’t these mega art fairs instead concentrate on increasing the profiles and sales of lesser known artists and galleries? It seems cultural capitalism reflects all economic sectors by mainly serving to consolidate power to those who already hold it – and galleries are only too willing to conform. Why does it seem a sad statement on our culture that the new and relevant slogan in the art world is ‘Viva the bottom line’?