Monday, May 27, 2013

Art Crushes: 2013 Edition

 
Back in 2011 I did two posts on my art crushes at the time.  2011 seems like ages ago, right?!  Are you like me and have been looking for love in all the wrong places and that wrong place is called New York City?  Well if you are, I feel your pain and if you’re a lady trying to find a man then I say girrrrrl, I double feel your pain.  This city is tough in the gambit of love because we are all so busy and all so beautiful and all so creative and all so connected/disconnected that it makes you sometimes wish you stayed in whatever suburb, corn field, or wherever you came from (not really but you know what I mean).  Anyways, it’s hell out there and you have to have some gear to survive it and come out with a mate.  The best tool is the internet of course with its variety of sites, apps and all else that makes finding your one true love or your one true lets get awkward and drink too much and wake up at someone else’s apartment and be like “uhhhhhh” (not from personal experience (really)) feel easier but in reality it’s still hard to find true connection.  Even if you are feeling like romance and l-o-v-e will never come knocking at your door, have no fear.  What’s the worst that can happen? You die alone and miserable? Yes, that can happen but remember to relax, chill out and realize that you’re the shit and that someday the universe will send you someone who’s like “damn, you’re the shit.”  AND if that doesn’t happen at least you get to spend a lot of time with the shittiest person in the room. (jokes, I’m bad at them)

ANYWAYS…enough of that.  This is not what this post is for.  This post is to reenergize the love bug in me, possibly in you and realize that yes, the art world is full of the very best people who make me swoon, makes my brain go yaya and makes me wish many other things.  Below is an off the top of my head sampling of the fine gals and guys in the art world that is making my heart skip a beat in some way or another.


The Girls

Amalia Ulman - - - Wear all white together
Anne Temkin - - - Hair washed together
Arielle Falk - - - Drink diet coke and watch the boys pass by
Beth Noe - - - Build a sand fort
Bridget Finn - - - Fancy drinks
Bunny Rogers - - - Braid each other’s hair
Casey Jane Ellison - - - Cruise with the top down somewhere with palm trees
Darja Bajagic - - - Dance to trance
Deana Lawson - - - Go to a perfumery
Debora Delmar - - - Try on various shades of lipstick
Denise Kupferschmidt - - - Beers in the shape of a boot
Dora Budor - - - Drink margaritas the size of our heads
Elaine Cameron Weir - - - Throw rocks in a pond
Elizabeth Jaeger - - - Throw a giant ball back and forth
Gina Beavers - - - Nails did
Haley Wollens - - - Please dress me
Hayden Dunham - - - Hot Tub
Heather Gurtin - - - Very large ice cream sundaes
Helga Wretman  - - - Play doubles tennis
Jamie Felton - - - Bagels with various cream cheese options
Kate Steciw - - - Get a 24 pack and see what happens
Lauren Christiansen - - - Make me blonde
Lindsay Howard - - - Play Clue
Lindsay Lawson - - - Disco party
Leigha Mason - - - Drink lots and lots of red wine
Lutz Bacher - - - Eat shrimp cocktail
Lyndsy Welgos - - - Make me platinum
Mai Thu Perret - - - Wine and cheese
Marie Karlberg - - - Stare at each other for a while
Marlie Mul - - - Hit golf balls at a range
Maja Cule - - - Sing karaoke
Melissa Sachs - - - Play H-O-R-S-E with a basketball
Micaela Durand - - - Any full body arcade game
Olivia Erlanger - - - Wear matching swimsuits
Pati Hertling - - - Get palms read
Paula Cooper - - - Clip roses together
Penny Pilkington - - - Dance outside after a BBQ
Petra Cortright - - - Play one of those stuff animal claw games
Rachel DeJoode - - - You, me and a room full of clay
Rebecca Gilbert - - - Make hemp necklaces
Roberta Smith - - - Eyeglass shopping
Rosalind Krauss - - - Omelets and mimosas
Stamatina Gregory - - - Cappuccinos with those hearts in them
Tiril Hasselknippe - - - Make an igloo
Wendy Olsoff - - - Shopping spree
Wu Tsang - - - I wanna go clubbing with you
Xavier Cha - - - Get massages
Zoe Latta - - - Actually, please dress me (forever)


The Boys

Alex Zachary - - - Get ramen
Alex Mackin Dolan - - - Vandalize a McDonalds
Alexander Shulan - - - Hit a piƱata
Andrew Russeth - - - See all the art in the world
Anthony Huberman - - - Eat at Eleven Madison
Asher Penn - - - Listen to music
Babak Radboy - - - Go to Japan
Benjamin Kellogg  - - - Fast motorcycle ride, in Tokyo
Blaize Lehane - - - Make origami
Bjarne Melgaard - - - Look at lions at the zoo
Boris Groys - - - Go to a Russian bathhouse
Brian Droitcour - - - Go to salsa club
Chen Chen - - - Buy stone
Colin Self - - - Rub on tattoos
Cyril Duval - - - Make pancakes
Daniel Buchholz - - - Smoke cigarettes and drink whisky off a balcony
Daniel Keller - - - Play ping pong
Daniel Leyva - - - Go to Hello Kitty store
Darren Bader - - - Get milkshakes
Eli Ping - - - Eat ramen
Ian Chang - - - Go to World Trade Center
Jaakko Pallasvuo - - - Talk in a park with two bottles of wine
Jayson Musson - - - Eat breakfast at a diner
Jasper Spicero - - - Walk in the woods
Jimi Dams - - - Eat chocolate croissants
Jon Rafman - - - Lie on the grass head to head
Jong Oh - - - Korean feast
Josh Kline - - - Sushi and Soju
Kai Williams - - - Buy plants
Matt Moravec - - - Sit on his shoulders and walk down Broadway
Matthew Barney - - - Spear fishing
Maxwell Simmer - - - Throw balloons filled with water off a bridge
Nik Kosmos - - - Eat a salad
Oliver Laric - - - Smell different species of leaves
Parker Ito - - - Release a lot of balloons in the air
Peter Eleey - - - Pedicures and beers
Peter Schjeldahl - - - Walk on the west side piers
Prem Krishnamurthy - - - Go furniture shopping
Ryan Lucero - - - Eat a bowl of pasta and then do ab workout
Ryder Ripps - - - Make Wagyu steaks
Sam McKinniss - - - Watch the sunrise with a bottle of champagne
Simon Denny - - - See who can eat the most rolls
Tabor Robak - - - Wear matching rugby shirts and take portraits together
Timur Si-Qin - - - Play poker
Trevor Shimizu - - - Pet puppies
Zak Kitnik - - - Eat a table full of crabs


So there that is.  Another summer, another chance to fall in love with something or someone in the art world.  If you are happily commingled with another then good for you and enjoy this sexy New York summer with your partner in crime.  If you are single and want to do more then just mingle then I wish you luck, you’ll need it.  But remember, the pond is big even though it feels small.  So everyone - look hot, have fun and be 100% you, the good, the bad, and the ugly.  Art, life, and love are all so very complicated.  That’s a good thing.  It means it’s still real somehow. 



Monday, May 20, 2013

Jeff Koons, Gazing Ball / Narcissism and Video: Rosalind Krauss, Petra Cortright

 
This past week felt like five weeks in one.  I’m sure you all know how that must feel sometimes.  It’s a great feeling but it can also make you feel like you are vibrating between teleportations, all fuzzed up and having to check that all your body parts are in tact.  This is my way of excusing what is to come below which is a mash up of things seen, read and thought about.  Many of the below deserve a more thorough reflection but at this moment they are a pile of raw input that my brain is too frizzed to put into nice packages.  Until I am able to do a better job at articulating in depth on some of the below, bare with me, and I hope one or two of these things will shake your brains or eyeballs as well. 


Jeff Koons, Gazing Ball, David Zwirner New York, NY

How many times is a girl going to write about Jeff Koons?  As many as it takes.  His latest showing at David Zwirner on 19th street is amazes.  Entitled Gazing Ball, it is the first solo show of new works by Koons in a decade and it consists of white plaster sculptures and each possesses a bright metallic reflective blue ball.  Simple yes, but as always the craftsmanship and the quality control for these pieces is mind tingling.  The bulk of the works are re-casts of already existing ancient sculptures that are figurative.  Nude women with missing limbs, half man/half animal gods with giant cracks, lots of drapery and reclining.  In addition there are newly created works like a small fountain, a mailbox, and other decidedly familiar things.  These are smoother and more banal but in contrast to the re-created classicism it all seems to bounce nicely off each other. 

The figures and objects are interesting to see but the thing that captivates is the metallic blue ball.  It’s a signature form of perfect blue that Koons seems to have invented and the perfection of a shape and of a color seems like an exercise in human capacity.  Buildings and architecture seem easy in contrast to the some of Koons’ work because of the conceptual purposes of form.  This series is not as monumental as some of his past works, but that’s also a reason I like it so much.  It posses a formulaic obviousness but the end results are not just impressive, they are alluring and magnetic. 

Around the corner, a few blocks away, is another Koons showing at Gagosian and to be frank, it’s a hall of hits that makes Koons seem like an over-priced, over-sized souvenir shop.  Go see it if you have never seen these works but if you want to get a sense of Koons in a possibly deeper and definitely more considered way stick to Zwirner, you will not be disappointed.  This is especially true for anyone who poo-poos Koons.  I’m not saying it will change your mind but it is one of the best presentations of his work and sadly, that has been lacking with his work of late and has made him a very large target for the disgruntled. 



Narcissism and Video: Rosalind Krauss, Video: The Aesthetics of Narcissism and Petra Cortright, DRK PRA

I have been thinking about video a lot and also about narcissism, two things that are bound together since video’s hand held inception.  I have been thinking about it in terms of myself in my very cursory, highly hobby use of it and luckily I have a friend smarter then me (which they all are) who sent me a link for Rosalind Krauss’ essay Video: The Aesthetics of Narcissism, 1976, in which she writes about the title’s subject and frames it in discussing video artists of that time, who were some of the first to explore the potential of this form.  The essay is brief and at points concise and it feels a bit distant, due to when it was originally written, but there are definitely some core things that are still very relevant and challenging to think about today. 

Some statements in this that I found interesting were:

Self-encapsulation -the body or psyche as its own surround- is everywhere to be found in the corpus of video art.

…One could say that if the reflexiveness of modernist art is a dedoublment or doubling back in order to locate the object (and thus the objective conditions of one’s experience), the mirror reflection of absolute feedback is a process of bracketing out the object.  This is why it seems inappropriate to speak of a physical medium in relation to video.  For the object (the electronic equipment and its capabilities) has become merely an appurtenance.  And instead, video’s real medium is a psychological situation, the very terms of which are to withdraw attention from an external object -an Other- and invest in the Self.  Therefore, it is not just any psychological condition one is speaking of.  Rather it is the condition of someone who has, in Freud’s words, “abandoned the investment of objects with libido and transformed object-libido into ego-libido.” And that is the specific condition of narcissism.


Krauss goes into further detail and refers to Jacques Lacan and various other artists and philosophical references but the core of the video being a medium and tool that enables and is actually a device of narcissism is interestingly investigated, even in it’s early usages.

The whole narcissism/video idea was again peeked when I watched a video by internet mistress Petra Cortright and her video, DRK PRA, which I saw linked on Sex Magazine’s site (this site makes me happy the internet exists).  In the video there is vertical segments of Cortright’s face and there is an absinthe fairy green filter to the image.  You only see a sliver of the face, an eye, half of a mouth.  There is disjointed music playing with a female’s voice singing and Cortright is lip-syncing to the song.  As she is doing this, the segments undulate not in frame but by Cortright’s movements.  It is all very sexy and she knows it and there is a seduction most certainly occurring.  The frankness of her knowledge of her allure mixed with the visuals that makes it feel both arty and throwaway is interesting to see and to puzzle out.  Ideas of beauty, sex, youth, and fantasy are all a part of this whole art and life thing.  How does something like Cortright’s video just reflect this impulse or is it about the potential of medium, of video, of internet?  Does it talk about narcissism and voyeurism or is it just getting to the core of animal basics?  I myself am unsure but the piece is a piece and I know I may not be the intended target but I definitely want to make out with the girl in the video, not the artist as she actually is, but this hallucination of her presented self. 

Narcissism and the Internet Age is a dissertation paper present with sparkles on it.  It’s deep but also obvious and that’s what intrigues me about the alignment of the two.  Maybe the thing is that narcissism is no longer something that is negative. Maybe this is happening because the way in which humans communicate and interact with each other has changed in ways that have deformed or evolved the way this occurs and the necessities behind it.  Maybe echoing back onto yourself and mirroring yourself is not about isolated delusion but a source of comfort.  That’s probably all silly to propose but all I know is that self-reference, self-review, and self-obsession is something that many people do including myself.  Being honest about the why and the how may not change if it matters but keeping it real by admitting it, is the only way we can (possibly) prevent self-immolation in our evolution.  

Monday, May 13, 2013

Andy Warhol at The Brant Foundation Art Study Center, Greenwich CT

 
About a year ago I went to The Brant Foundation for the first time to view the Karen Kilimnik show (briefly written about on this blog a year ago).  Then, I was in rich people (like actual one-percenters) shock at the grandeur and obscenity of what money can do.  Also, the show was underwhelming so that probably colored the whole vibe of the day.  Well, I received a golden ticket this year and it was for a show on Andy Warhol.  This I had to see because Warhol is a measure to me in so many ways and oddly I was looking forward to a day in rarified country land. 

For those who don’t know much about the Brant Foundation set up, it is a converted farmhouse of sorts on a massive estate.  A racetrack and polo field is visible yet any semblance of an actual residence is not.  Peter Brant is a super rich guy who has been an art collector and connoisseur for decades.  He owns just about everything that is seen at the foundation.  During the invite only opening, lunch is served, drinks are served and gentile conviviality of art world elitism is mingled with celebrity and Greenwich’s finest.  Last year I was a bit grossed out by it all, but this year I relaxed and wore my tackiest ensemble of neon green and leopard print to stick in and stick out like a sore thumb. 

Enough of the background of the environs, lets get to the art.  The show was all about Andy and it was really very well curated and installed.  The exhibition begins on the foyer space on the first floor and here there is an assortment of drawings, chotchkies, and small paintings.  These were fantastic to see, especially the drawings.  It is well known that Warhol was an illustrative drawer of fashion and other such things prior to being the factory running art star and seeing this considered collection of some of these works was refreshing and insightful.  I especially liked the small drawing of a repeated women’s face in three quarter turn with lips in various shades of reds and pinks.  This repetition felt like a precursor to his focus on this that is seen throughout his later works.  Also, there was this fantastically tall drawing of a nude male that was so confident yet slight in gesture.  It gave a sense of personality and sensitivity to the enigmatic figure that Warhol projects at times. 

In the next room there was a more obvious relationship to the early drawings and the better-known works by Warhol.  Drawings of Campbell’s soup cans, Coca-Cola, a roll of dollar bills, were on view.  What was especially nice to see was the still life combos of soup cans on and with coke bottles.  Through this, one can almost see Warhol’s brain working and considering what these daily consumer objects can reveal in their objectness.  Then you enter the first large room and it’s all very familiar.  The boxes, some pansies, silksceens of this and that which have all become so familiar that in a way they have lost some signification, at least to me.  There was one very nice silkscreen though, which I have never seen, and it was of Merce Cunningham and a chair and as the one image gets repeated in its grid, it melds and hides the dancer and the chair into a singular gesture of a curve. 

Next there was a staircase and along this very coyly and smartly was placed a generous collection of Warhol’s Polaroids. They feature all the main characters of a certain time, Dennis Hopper, Yves Saint Laurent, Basquiat, Dolly Parton, etcetera.  What was interesting, and perhaps a tell of something, was to see amongst this gang of cultural relevancy Peter Brant himself on many occasions.  Was this to reaffirm his legitimacy in that time, as a leading man both then and now?  I would have chaulked it up as ‘no’ but the repeated reinsertion makes me think possibly otherwise.  Regardless though, it’s a fun way to see the array of freaks and inspirators that was of Warhol’s scene.

The next room on the bottom floor has the largest ceilings and here there are well-hung groupings of Mao silkscreens and Marilyns but also there are a few surprises amongst the hits.  One was the nearly messy large horizontal work that was placed near his Rorschach works that felt bizarre in its painterliness.  Then next to this was the most interesting thing to see which was a medium sized work that looked like a bona fide abstract expressionist painting.  It was a red background with a slash of black from top left to bottom right corner, like a L.  Never would I have thought that it was a Warhol placed out of this context.  This reminded me of the smaller, similar version of this that was also upstairs that was possibly an early study for this.

The final room was to me the best room of the installation.  On one wall there is giant camouflage piece, on the opposing is this incredible, never seen to myself before, huge painting/drawing of Leonardo da Vinci’s The Last Supper.  Adjacent to this was smaller silkscreens of the actual image and also a set of ultra violet Jesus portraits.  To cap it off, on opposite wall, across from the da Vinci’s silkscreens and UV Jesus, was a large red and black portrait of Warhol with his spiky hair and disembodied head.  All very pointed, and possibly a bit over the top, but visually it was fabulous to see.  Warhol as Oz or a pseudo god to this thing that is the art world and perhaps even art history. 

Seeing the show made me re-appreciate Warhol and not just in his legacy of pop and art star but him as an artist.  You can see and feel through his earlier works, his drawings and his fascinations, that he had a truly specific aesthetic interest and the trajection from works with his hand to the distillation of just reproduced image seems natural and honest.  The sense of any gimmick or easiness can be brushed aside as a point to be made or sought.  The fact that this selection of works can be viewed with such care and consideration due to one man’s acquisition is possibly not a generous gesture but one in which I am thankful can occur.  There seems to be a true love of the works that were shown and that carried through on viewing it. 

Lying on the linen blankets with plush matching pillows, I looked up at the massive sky, the clouds and the vastness of horizon that wealth affords and then I looked over at the people all decked out and knowing that the bank accounts of those in attendance equaled more then most small nation states and I thought what would Andy think?  What would he and his consort of friends, hangers-ons, and muses do at a place like this?  They would roil in it; they would make a fantastic scene and be the center of the party.  I drink some champagne and feel okay about all of it, all of art and of the inevitability of wealth and culture being bound. 

Monday, May 6, 2013

In Conversation with Zachary German on Art

 
(Italic paragraphs ZG)


Do you want me to ask you a question?

Sure

When’s the first time you think you saw art?  Like when was the first time that something registered as quote unquote art or something like art?

There was a thing in my bedroom that had drawings of circus people.  I liked that.  How about you?

(laughter) I don’t, I don’t really quite remember because I used to like draw so I think that my drawings, somehow people told me was art and so then maybe that’s how I thought art was but I guess in terms of seeing it, I think maybe like, I never went to museums when I was little, but I remember this Frida Kahlo reproduction one time when I was little and this one where she has animals next to her, she has a monkey or something near her, I was really into animals, so yeah I think weirdly I was like that’s not like seeing.  Knowing that was a fantasy in some way maybe that triggered something about art. (laughter)  Frida Kahlo (laughter).

Yeah kids draw things and that’s, they say that that’s art but then there’s another thing where it’s not about drawing. It’s about just doing something else in whatever form that kids don’t know as much, or something.

That’s definitely true but at the same time don’t you think there is like a possibility of not knowing what one is doing but it is still valid as quote unquote art in terms of a viewer?   Like maybe the intention of the maker wasn’t like a kid or whatever, or quote unquote outsider artist or just some sort of ephemeral design or a commercial design, you know or something that can be reinterpreted, perceived as…

I guess I would largely view that the same as something in nature.  Like you can appreciate it.  But art coming from like artifice and making something I don’t know that if you don’t know what you are doing at all, that I, I don’t know.  Seems different.

So impulse is not enough?  It has to have context or reflexivity? You know what I’m saying?

Yeah I’m just saying. (long pause) Yeah intention I guess, is the difference between like something in nature.  Yeah.  Anyway, next topic.           
           
Do people (pause) like your parents experience art?

That’s an interesting question. I don’t really think so.  I think that maybe my one parent does or maybe understands it as a bigger concept maybe but I don’t know if my other parent, if they do.  I think it’s just like, I think that there is definitely a weird comprehension or a desire or a curiosity and additionally a comprehension that’s kind of not necessary per se, but it is kind of necessary actually, to be kind of open to and receptive to and to even let one seek or discover that they are looking at or experiencing art, you know?  I think that if you don’t have that, if you have no openness or curiosity for it, even if it’s something you don’t know about or have never seen before, or you have no reference to.  Just the openness is necessary for experiencing art at all, in a way. Does that make sense?

Sure.  Openness.  Yeah.

Do you think your parents do?

I don’t… its hard for me to grasp what anyone gets out of anything.

(laughter)

I was just talking more, not specifically of about either of our parents, (laughter) but about the broad thing of people that aren’t people that view art as like a thing in their life.

For sure, I definitely, I understand that as the question.

Um, it’s different though, it seems like a thing, I don’t know… like why do people eat like shit in this country.  Why do people not realize how simple it is to cook.  It is somehow something that they never where taught or experienced or don’t care to learn about.  You know what I’m saying?  How does one continue to eat like shit when they don’t need to?  It seems like a weird system of choices and desire. To live an alternative, or that there is possibility outside of just what is prescriptive, then just what’s around them.

Do you think people are born with a desire to understand art and to see art and to experience art or do you think that it is something that is learned?

I think, we are born with a desire to be a part of, to feel closeness, and...( for sure)  To be apart of something and I think that society can either make that seem like art be an important part of that closeness or just make it not matter at all in how the society accepts things. And so I think in art, in a mainstream thing, the latter is happening but. (pause) Yeah.

Do you think that something like pop music is art because it does in some ways do this, like activates closeness?

I think the intention of the viewer can make pop music be art or not, in a way.   Which is contradictory to what I said earlier about the intention of the creator.  I think that pop music on the shelf is art but I think that people don’t experience it that way.

Yeah, is it all about the participant, like not the maker then?

I think, I guess both are important…So I mean outsider art looked at by someone who doesn’t care about art is like double bad (laughter) while like Jay Z looked at by someone who cares about art is, and then there’s in betweens, yeah.

Yeah yeah yeah.  Is there like pure art, like is there like PURE art.

I think that would probably… I don’t you know what you mean by that but the experience that the artist has with their own work probably.

So that is the only form of pure art, is the maker with.,.

I would never use the term pure art. But if I had to imagine what that could mean  I guess that is what I would come up with but I don’t like to use words like pure or something like that…

I know, I know I know, its like we are limited by language so just like the concept of something that is consistently certain.  A certain way or resonates a certain way, or is itself in a certain way.

How bout you? You seem to want to say what pure art is.

Nah, no I don’t, I’m just curious about your opinion cause it seems like yeah, like you know its not ambiguous but, the way that you described what you were first saying and then what you just said.

I view the purpose for me to make art or to look at it…experience it, is to feel like connection.  Is that what you view as the purpose for it?

Yeah, I think that life, the whole everything, existence and all that stuff, is all just about connection and forms of love and connection and art is definitely a thing that I participate in because it lets me have connections with people directly.  Physically and verbally and you know interactively but also just the way people think and express themselves and it helps me and inspires me and makes me feel a closeness to them if it resonates and it does something, like it hits something in me that is like a similar idea or thought or feeling or something like that.  I think art is definitely a primary thing that I use to connect to people and I think it’s also kind of like ideas.  Art lets you and reveals ways that one, another person, another human being, thinks and it allows you to… it’s an invitation into conversing with them in a way. And then that conversation, how does that effect you and how does that change you and can you even form actual relationships based on that?  And I think that’s really very essential or powerful or I don’t know, it’s really… that’s like the point of it all.

Do you think that movement towards connection is the driving force of art makers in general or do you think there are different purposes?

I think that there is this weird thing that’s happening where there are people, I think that…whatever art… I like can’t judge cause I’m an idiot, but like um, I think there are definitely people who make art because it’s this way, it’s a tool for them to communicate plus connect, communicate thus connect. I do think there are other people that just like to make stuff or possibly be a participant in the culture of the quote unquote art world and they are good at quote unquote making stuff and thinking of things that are clever or passable or I don’t know, can be termed as art.  I guess that it is a desire for connection because it’s a desire for them to be a part of a world or validated within a world in which there are people that they think they want to have some sort of peer group with or respect or recognition or anything like that, but I don’t know, there’s something about the impulse or the intention of that, that I don’t know why but really bothers me. 

I guess its not different in terms of language, in terms of what you are saying about connectedness but it feels very different to me when I interact with people that are kind of navigating it in different ways. And I’m just arrogantly judging them (laughter) in my own scales (sure) and it’s not probably real but when I interact, when I see a certain person doing a certain type of thing and I’m like holy shit that is like a-mazing that is like so, oh my god, it’s real, it’s like it.  And then other people that I’m like oh my god how the hell does this person have a career and like how does anybody buy this, not buy it even with money like that but also like buy it even in terms of an idea, or like a form.  How does this person keep getting opportunities and validation to keep doing whatever it is they are doing which I feel like is kind of shitty? You know?

Sure.

Yeah, like it seems like that is very transferable, like you can transfer that to any industry of art making though, you know? In some ways.

Anything else you want to talk about there?

Um. I guess we should ask one final question because that felt like a hanging question.

Sure.

So…(long pause) This is a dumb thing but… If art could be a color or object or a word that is not the word art, like if there was a sculptural or representative stand in for the way that you are feeling about art at this moment what would that be?

A nice, a nice looking women.

(laughter)

All right cool.