Featured Articles
- ‹ previous
- 1491 of 1867
- next ›
Weekly Art #26 - Anna Betbeze @ Kate Werble Gallery
The first time I saw one Anna Betbeze's works was last summer at Mike Egan's "Green Honey" at Ramiken Crucible (curated by Andrea Cashman and Borden Capalino). A rug on the wall, dyed and painted, bright and colorful. Slow and (yuck) visceral. Molasses through dog fur. I loved it. What a good idea! "What ELSE does this artist do?" I thought. How many more of these paintings are there? What do the other ones look like? Why hadn't I thought of putting paint on wool rugs? I don't think I ever would've thought to put paint on rugs, ha!
Anyway, there's a whole show of them up at Kate Werble to check out and so I did. Here're some photos:
(installation shot)
Anna Betbeze, Second Ocean, 2011
Wool, acid dyes, watercolor
96 x 52 inches
Anna Betbeze, Froggery, 2011
Wool, acid dyes, watercolor
92 x 55 inches
Anna Betbeze, Nightshade, 2011
Wool, acid dyes, watercolor
94 x 60 inches
My feelings are mixed and here's a list of them:
1. These look awesome.
1a. Am I being tricked?
2. Do these look as cool as I think they look and does that lead me towards something deeper (whatever "something deeper" may be) or does it begin and end at how cool these things look?
2a. Is how cool these things look enough for me if there's nothing deeper?
2b. If there's something deeper what is it?
3. Why're there so many big holes in them?
3a. I think I like them better when there are less holes.
4. What would it look like if a canvas was painted/colored/dyed this way?
5. These aren't as nasty as the one at Ramiken was. Why's that?
6. Do I like one rug painting at a time maybe? Like the monolith in 2001?
7. If I really do like that people engage in creative acts regardless of my taste, interests, and preferences why when I see work do I have intense critical responses?
7a. Why can't I meet a work on its own terms (whatever they may be) and accept it as it is and just hangout with it? It almost feels like a personal affront. "You're putting THIS into the world? REALLY?! Why do you think we need this?" Is it because I make work and I want all work made in within the scope of how I think work should be made? This stuff got really close to that and then put a bunch of holes in it (literally) that I don't understand/don't easily relate to. What's the resistance?
8. I want to see what else Anna Betbeze makes.
8a. If she doesn't make anything other than rug paintings can I be cool with that? What's the value of focusing on one idea and one format for the entirety of one's career (Morandi)? Why do I resist that kind of art practice?
I have an answer to the last question. I want to focus on lots of things 'cuz I've only got this life once. That's the one thing (this life) and I'm not willing to make my absolute (ish) "one thing" a servant to only one other thing. Does that make sense?
These paintings are totally worth checking out. They're weird and grody. They lead you to thinking about color and surface and density and trash and your body and how it feels to digest food and how awesome sugar can be.
interACTS
Categories
- Activism and Politics (360)
- Arts and Media (455)
- Buddhism (1011)
- Community News (98)
- Events (49)
- Meditation Practice (671)
- Nutrition & Body Wellness (179)
- Religion & Spirituality (238)
- Science & Technology (55)
Author Information
Get Involved
Comments
Re: Psychedelic Roadkill
OK, you two brainiacs, shouldn't you be doing some kind of work now? Just kidding. I wonder if these pieces could exist anywhere else other than a gallery wall. Their rag-tag and foul-ness seem special in an art show context but I feel like they'd lose a lot of relevance without the weight of a curator behind them.
Thats not bad... just wondering
-Seth
Confusion
Hey Seth - I never understand this line of questioning. What other context would this Art be in? In the context of the inside of an engine block it'd totally fail. In the context of ... ? It's displayed as Art so talking outside of the Art dialogue seems goofy. Maybe I'm missing your point? Where else would it exist? Are you saying that if the painting-rug was hung up in someone's home it would no longer make sense? If that's the case I don't think it's true. It's still Art and wouldn't be seen as anything else (its artness is reinforced by it hanging on a wall without a book case in front of it or something).
Please clarify.
Re: Psychedelic Roadkill
I didnt mean it wouldnt be art if it wasn't in a gallery but just that a lot of its notability is tied to being in a gallery. A certain amount of it's merit is conferred onto it by the curator and making it into a gallery. Wonder what we'd think of it (respect it or even consider it) if it wasn't.
-Seth
What if ...?
Wonder what we'd think of it if it wasn't [in a gallery]?
What is another context/locaction for this work if not in a gallery or on a person's wall at home or in another "artwork" sort of situation? Where can you imagine it being? On a cruiseship? In a Home Depot (for sale even!)? In a landfill? I'm really curious about this. When anyone asks what we'd think of art if it wasn't in a gallery there's rarely so clear an opportunity for the asker to suggest other places this work might be and then we can specifically consider the hypothetical meaning/like-dislike of the work in that context. Maybe make a list of places this work could be located and then we could think about that.
I think these paintings (any
I think these paintings (any paintings?) would look and feel different in a Soho loft, an opium den, a yoga studio, a bank lobby, a gallery wall.
A work may borrow importance? legitimacy? attitude? climate? ethos? from its setting/context.
I don't think it's as simple as distinguishing between an "art setting" and an imaginary setting where it would not be considered art. The gallery has its own ju-ju.
Specific cuts
I've also gone into galleries I really respect and seen total garbage art. It's all pretty not-ultimate (relative).
I wonder if the question "what is this art like somewhere outside of this gallery" means anything b/c it's all speculative - totally speculative. It isn't outside of the gallery and we can't observe it as such. Or maybe it is outside of the gallery in an alternate universe and the Seth of that would could describe the characteristics of the rug-painting in that realm?
I meant to mention that
I'm not specifically referring to the prestige of any particular gallery, but the idea of THE GALLERY in general.
in fact, I'm responding to this from an alternate reality!
I don't think it's totally speculative. Art does make it out of the gallery - we hope - and onto other walls. I can see where you're coming from, though - right now, these paintings exist in a gallery and we can (should?) relate to them "as they are."
Howevs, we're talking about them on the internet and so the conversation is already abstracted by at least one degree. And I don't think it's irrelevant discussion -
for instance, when you're making or conceiving of something in the studio ...
1) it's not assumed that you're making it for viewing in that particular context alone
2) it's probably status quo that any given art-maker is sometimes imagining their work as shown in a gallery/home/shrine/spaceship?
The role of the gallery as it pertains to the reception of a work is more integral to some pieces than others. There's nothing inherently "wrong" with that, of course, but I think it's worthy of discussion and contemplation.
1) it's not assumed that
1) it's not assumed that you're making it for viewing in that particular context alone
I make things because I want to see them and be with them. I make them to go on the wall (paintings/2d works), or stand on the floor (the stand up works), or to hold in your hands (the books). The context is always meant to be on a wall, a floor, or in your hands. This can take place in a number of different places but the context of a gallery or museum is my favorite place when presenting a new body of work in the same way I'd guess NY Fashion Week is a clothing designer's favorite place to present a new line. Simplest viewing possibilities in the clearest context.
The role of the gallery as it pertains to the reception of a work is more integral to some pieces than others. There's nothing inherently "wrong" with that, of course, but I think it's worthy of discussion and contemplation.
Sure.I don't know that the role of the gallery has anything to do with this Betbeze's work. Well, not that it has nothing to do with it, but that it doesn't have as much to do with it as say someone like Gedi Sebony, William Powhida, Lawrence Weiner, Sherrie Levine, and other artists my morning brain can't think of whose work has more to do with gallery critique/context/etc.
I bet Betbeze thought "I read this foucault thing and I'm making these rugs with dye all over them and there's a connection and I want to show them to people because they're cool," and more complex and specific versions of that. I also bet "what kind of place do I show these" was never thought of b/c she has a dealer in NY that wanted to do another solo show with her so these works went into that show as it's the default setting.
Speculation.
Yes-there's a spectrum of galleryness when it comes to intention
On the same token - if the gallery show was a given, there's a pretty good chance that it influenced what kind of work she put together, consciously or otherwise.
I suppose I was using the artist's freedom to contemplate (imagine) what role the gallery might play in the reception of her work to permit the observer to have the freedom to contemplate that same role from the other side, regardless of the artist's intention.
Isn't the role of the gallery
Isn't the role of the gallery similar to the role of the publisher (for writers) in the sense that the exhibition is the book - a format for displaying one's ideas? I've chosen to not be an artist that overtly critiques or ponders the role of the gallery within my practice beyind "it's where I show my work to a larger audience than those who see it in my studio" because putting my energy into that critique/thought is far too great and distracting from the concerns I'm much more excited about and actually drive my practice (physics, sci-fi, magic, the occult, psychology, iconography, etc.).
Am I way off your/the point? Help a brother out.
Yes,
I think the role of the gallery is similar to that. And though I think venue is a little more straightforward when it comes to the written word, even the publishing world is not without its own contextual controversies. Think of all the discussions about accountability in newspapers vs. blogs, beauty in books vs. e-readers, revolution in magazines vs. 'zines, etc, etc, etc
I think all of those things you are excited about are thoroughly interesting, and I think about them too. We should totally talk about those things, also! But - in my own practice - I also think a LOT about the realities and fantasies of subjectivity and objectivity as they pertain to magic, science, iconography, anything and! yes! - the act of making and perceiving works of art.
I don't think one has to think about such things in order to make good art, but I do find it to be interesting and worth discussion. My interest in such things (via painting) is what led me back to Buddhism in the first place, for example.
Oh I'm not saying we
Oh I'm not saying we shouldn't be talking about this - it's totally interesting. I'm tossing out my POV is all. I have a few friends who think about where they can display their work outside of the gallery context all the time - a big part of their practice. I see the gallery system as a door openner.
You see the gallery as a door
You see the gallery as a door opener, but somebody else sees it as something else.
Does it matter how/if we view the gallery as something collectively? I don't know.
Is it possible for a work of art to be "self-sufficient" - self-sufficiently good, self-sufficiently communicative? I.E. Apart from a gallery? I think we'd all agree: yes.
Then there's this question of, is it more "responsible" (you referred to responsibility before when we were talking about decorative art) or more generous? to remove "gallery cred" - as much as possible - from the equation when it comes to a given work being understood? I mean, when you're thinking about making a work and thinking about carrying your concept courageously to any number of possible conclusions? One might ask herself, does it matter if this work is seen in a gallery or not? If the press release says X or not? Would my grandmother get something out of this?
Grandmothers
I think about people outside of the art world getting my work often. I want people to be able to get into it who aren't able to get into art normally and have little to no background with art. My main query here is this: where would art be if it's NOT in a gallery? In alternative spaces? In the street (most street art is total crap), in my studio unseen by the masses (frustrating to make work and not be able to share it in a broader context). The gallery system focuses the context - there's no "what is this" question (cuz if it's in a gallery it's art) whereas in other contexts the "what is this" question is there right away (in a park, on a subway platform, etc.) unless context clues are given (flyers, posters, etc.) and without an expert opinion (physics has physicists, the dental arts have dentists, the dealer gallery system has gallerists and the art world has gallerists, critics, artists, writers, poets, curators, academics, etc. all trying to clarify, investigate, and make sense of art) we'd have to start at "is this art" and hardly be able to get into anything else.
Yes, a work of art can be good without a gallery. Am I going to travel around the globe blindly looking for good art? Absolutely not. Galleries focus this and make it easier for me, someone who isn't out to look for good art but to MAKE good art, the dealer gallery system is a system I'm a bit skeptical of but not so much so that I want to make my career about battling it or so much so that I want to seek for ways outside of it to advance my project and career. Does this make sense? By accepting the dealer gallery system as THE SYSTEM and then working within it rather than questioning it, resisting it, and battling it, I'm allowing my practice to focus on the work itself.
Ultimately I'm not very interested in exploring outside of the box manners in displaying my work. I see the system and its flaws and have chosen to work within it because it's the path of least resistence to getting my work out of my studio and into people's sensory organs with the clearest understanding of context and intent. This is art. This is here for you to sensorarily consume and think about. It's art cuz it's in a gallery and now you the viewer don't have to ask "is this art" and can move onto some other thought.
The upcoming exhibtion at IDP in June is no different that the dealer gallery system (though no one will be hustling to bring collectors to IDP to sell the work and no one will be coming in hoping to advance your career and reap the benefits that advancing your career will result in hopefully). It's still a room with walls where we'll hang work. It will be very clearly art. Blah blah blah. ;)
TOTALLY
I get down with all of this.
For me, it's not about removing the gallery system or changing it. I make oil painting painting-paintings and there's no good reason to show them on anything but a good blank wall. But! as artists, we can assume some responsibility for the quality of reception our work has, and I think it might be kind of lazy to "lean" on the system too much/ at all. Know what I mean?
lazy
I do and don't know what you mean. I know what you mean in a FUCK THE SYSTEM/Rage Against the Machine sort of way. I don't think it's lazy to not think outside of the gallery system at this point in time. It's the responsiblity of the artist to make the best works of art he/she can possibly make - to be as amazing and brilliant and clear as he/she can be! This carries over to how the work is related to when displayed (that's why some of my "paintings" stand up and why I populate a room so heavily, to slow things down, to move amongst the works, to inundate the senses like an amazing toy or candy store!). This is the real responsibility. You gotta choose your battles.
This thread has gotten incredibly skinny in proportion.
yeah
Cool, I like that idea about populating the space!
I think where you're missing me a little bit in this convo is that I really am concerned and interested in working skillfully/courageously within the system - and how we could think about it - not outside of it!
missing
Oh ok. Then yes.
yeah
Cool, I like that idea about populating the space!
I think where you're missing me a little bit in this convo is that I really am concerned and interested in working skillfully/courageously within the system - and how we could think about it - not outside of it!
Context
You're right Seth. I think that these only work as "pieces of art" because they are in a gallery, with white walls and a curator. The distinction between art and not-art has always interested me, because it's entirely a cultural construct. Is it a useful one?
distinction
Still weird. Do kitchen utensils make much sense in the bathtub? Why do you require art to make sense outside of its context?
context
I'm more interested in how "art" and artshows become a context for observation. Why do some things become "art" and somethings become furniture? Is there anything that we couldn't put in an art gallery and call it art? If that's the case, what role is the gallery serving?
I'm interested in this too -
I'm interested in this too - and maybe I'm just belaboring a moot point - but I think there's a paradox here IF art has "absolute"-type ambition but its reception/perception is hinged on one particular context.
Galleries
The gallery is a showroom and a place for nurturing artists and things associated with art. But it's mostly a show room, right?
It replaces the old monarchy/church/patronage system. Hey Goya we need a tapestry of the king and queen and a greyhound. Ok, says Goya. Hey Rembrandt paint a portrait of Socrates for my library. Ok, says Rembrandt. Hey Michaelangelo paint the ceiling of the sistine chapel with the story of genesis and other bible stuff. Cowabunga, says Michaelangelo.
It's the system by which artists get to display and fund their studio practices. Yes anyone could start a gallery and put whatever they want in it and call it art. If it's very obviously shit then people will say it's shit and ignore it and it'll disappear. There are an infinite number of variations of this scenario with an infinite number of results. Does it mean it's awesome? No. It's just the way it is.
I think in some cases the
I think in some cases the gallery is more than a showroom. Don't some artists (moreso than others) include an idea of "the gallery" in the conception, execution, delivery, and display of the work?
Absolutely
That's sort of the point I'm getting at. That there is no absolute position for an artist to take -- they are always creating art to be supported by a specific viewing context -- which is in turn either supported by monarchs, churches, wealthy corporations, benevolent patrons, etc.
The gallery situation is always a part of the discussion of a particular piece of "Art" then -- because our definition of "art" is defined by those who define the context.
So the beginning contemplation for an artist might be:
"What can I afford to produce that is beautiful, without causing suffering to others, that also fits into the context of viewing that is in line with the cultural systems I am wishing to support."
automatic
Why isn't that contemplation hard wired? Can it be hard wired? What else would the contemplation be? I guess I'm surious about the need to have a contemplation at all when there's so much work to be done - by the time we're done contemplating everything we haven't made diddly squat. ;)
Haha, I know - I'm missing
Haha, I know - I'm missing more painting time today than before I quit facebook!
But I don't think such contemplation's in vain. Like so much else, I think art could use a "Slow" movement.
uh oh
You'll love my upcoming show then ... eep.
dunno what you have in mind,
But a "slow down" wouldn't necessarily preclude a fast(er) execution!
Yes,
and maybe not just "fits into the context" ---
If one accepts the conceptual restraints and reality of a relational context, how best to work inside them? How does one apply skillful means here? How do you make a generous/open communication as opposed to an insider/elitist one? Does that matter?
both ways
Wouldn't the wise thing to do be a hybrid? Open to both (infinite) posibilities? Don't close any doors.
This is why I think being a monk might be the best idea sometimes.
Monk Club
Are you suggesting a hybrid of open vs. elitist possibility? I can't tell what you mean. The insiders and elitists are invited to the open party too ;)
Monk'd
Hm ... like ... you can't make stuff that's just surface and easy, that's irresponsible. You can't make things that are super heady and inaccessible but by a few brainy nerds (or too anything so only accessible by whomever can access whatever it is). This is something I think of more automatically too. Someomes I think about it (who's gonna get this comic reference? who's gonna get this reference to many worlds interpretation? does my belief in ancient alien theory alienate people? I've gotta be careful how I throw Buddhism into my work so people don't think I'm a hippy like Patrick? etc.). Slipper slope again.
Making Flippy Floppy
This is why I love the Talking Heads -- they are at once experimental and outrageous and also extremely accessible, and it's completely genuine.
Some people just walk that line, but I think you have to be genuine, and where you land in culture, how people relate, is dependent on what you are investigating.
If you're a hippie, just be a hippie for a little while, until your girlfriend starts dressing you up in nice clothes and you decide you have to be a politician, then you can wear nice suits and cut your hair and get into that scene.
You can be a secret Buddhist for a little while, but pretty soon being a Buddhist is going to be cliche and lame...and the genuine-ness comes at that point -- when you're okay with being cliche and lame, because that's who you are.
Being Buddhist
Studying Buddhism and having a meditation practice has helped me over the last three years like nothing else in my life. That's why I'm into it. Even when it sucks I feel that it's helping. It's not watching TV and whining - it's doing work, it's actively participating in one's life. As they say in AA, "It works if you work it, so work it cause you're worth it."
Your comment about the Talking Heads is great. I want this for my work too.
We can break down the observation too
An interesting framework for viewing art might be the Four Foundations of Mindfulness. We can notice the work in our sense perceptions on the level of form, then notice our feelings related to those perceptions, then concepts related to the feelings and then the whole system working together.
We could also break down the perception into the different sense fields, a la Sokuzan Bob Brown, and investigate the six sense bases.
In either case I think it's interesting to break down our normal pattern of perception and reactivity and see what we might be projecting onto a work and how that projection is integral to the experience of the art piece.
Matt, regarding #8a from the original post. What are you defining as "one thing"? I've been doing a lot of analytical meditations lately that point me towards deconstructing my tendency to think that there is one "thing" anywhere in my experience.
That's the value I get from Morandi's paintings. On a grosser level of classification his work might seem the same, bottles, oil paint, canvas -- but in his experience of painting, and my experience of seeing, there are infintie variations from painting to painting.
My guess is that at some point, most artists really get into these subtleties, and so it may look like they are doing "one thing" from the outside, but actually they are going deeper...
...or they have a show coming up and need to bang out some pieces. Who knows?
I'm into it!
My inner-geek delights at a system. I'm really wracking my brain/non-brain to understand what Chogyam Trungpa means in T.P. when he variously implies that different kinds of perception can be realized in action when creating a work. ??? What does it mean when you're making as opposed to observing? Can we talk about that on Monday?
From the press release
Through the extreme physicality of making the work and the elimination of a traditional canvas, Betbeze explores the act of painting in an expanded field. In some of the works the center is completely removed as if she has removed the subject, leaving it bare: "my process is the simultaneity of making and unmaking, at once the original object is destroyed and a new one emerges." She continues to build on the language of this trajectory in the spirit of wild material experimentation.
The title Moss Garden references Michel Foucault's lecture “Of Other Spaces” where he spoke of the relationship of rug to garden. Betbeze's series of paintings locate a dark and densely matted place that spreads out like a stain, aggressively seeking a form. The result of her material transgressions is a series of five pieces that are vivid and abject.
sunday bloody sunday
Is the name of the song that's on while I write this.
Is "extreme physicality" hyperbole? I mean ... she's smearing paint onto a wool rug right? Sure they're big and it's a non traditional surface area rich surface ... but extreme physicality? I'm with it though, I can buy that. Maybe the artist is small in stature?
"my process is the simultaneity of making and unmaking, at once the original object is destroyed and a new one emerges."
Does expanded field mean the field outside of painting on canvas or that the paintings are expanded due to the fractal nature of the expanded surface area of the painting (from canvas to wool)? Or does it mean expanding the field of painting? The original object is the rug which is then cut up and colored or colored and then cut up, and ultimately installed on the wall with a little overlap onto the floor. Isn't this desciption the description of anyone making anything? If we take oil paint and put it on a canvas aren't we "making and unmaking"? Making = a painting. Unmaking = oil paint and canvas as individual objects. Any time we're not dealing with the most basic building blocks of existence (strings?) we're making and unmaking. Any time anything is altered we're making and unmaking. Making and unmaking is just change right? It's inevitable. Betbeze is a Buddhist and she doesn't even know it! (Or maybe she does and I don't know it!)
Betbeze's series of paintings locate a dark and densely matted place that spreads out like a stain, aggressively seeking a form.
These paintings clearly have a form. They're more or less organic rectangles (that's a real thing, I heard about them on NPR, probably Terry Gross's show). The aggressive seeking takes place within the form, not outside the formlessness (which isn't real either).
Haha, see, I kind of wish
Haha, see, I kind of wish they would just be like "Check it out y'all, cool rugs for sale!"
Instead of, you know, "Holler at this vague allusion to something Foucault said in a book about garden spaces."
Blah blah blah - there's often this huge disconnect for me between the implied gravity/ "otherness"/ concept of a non-rep work and how readily/carelessly it's all "explained" in a press release. That's just the way it goes, huh?
Press Releases
I don't give press releases much attention at art shows unless I'm really into the work, when I want to engage the stuff I'm looking at and "get it, when I want to know more. If I want to know more FIRST (before I'm excited about the work), then I know I'm in trouble as I can't see what there is to get at first. Grasping at straws. Bah. I left this show thinking the work looks cool but that I don't like the holes in them as much as when there aren't holes; and! there's something here worth thinking about but I don't know what it is yet.
You keep saying non-representational art but do you really mean non-illustrative art? What does non-representational art mean? That it doesn't represent anything? Doesn't it represent all sorts of things (concepts, feelings, etc.).
The Foucault part of it is the biggest bore. I read heaps of book sand they all more or less influence my practice and I can talk to you about how awesome I think one book is or one idea is but I don't need you to get what I'm referencing. I still think that our job as artists is to create objects of contemplation and beauty - not ruin any chance of the viewer for having a pure-ish interaction with a work of art.
"non-representational":
I don't know, exactly - something like "abstract." Work that seems hinged on that "object as process," "object as concept," "object as object" frame of understanding. Distillation-works?
Non-illustrative is not what I mean, either - in a way, these paintings are presented as an illustration of executing concept: I cut out the middle, therefore I cut out the subject. They also have a narrative: I destroyed the rug, and then in doing so I created a work of art, and therefore made something that is destroyed and created at the same time.
On the other hand, it's just a f-ed up rug. If somebody really intends to get into all this about the relationship between creation and destruction, it's interesting to choose f-ed up rug as your mouthpiece. Not many people speak f-ed up rug!
.
I do think the purple one is very beautiful-looking, FYI. Maybe I'll leave my hermit cave and go seem them in person ;)
Armchair Art Critic
Not a bad idea: actually seeing the work in person ;)
Ok, but I'm taking the armchair with me!
It wasn't my intention to critique this particular artist, though I know I can be a bit oppositional :)
I've just been trying to figure out the dogma of abstract art (and my relationship to what I perceive as such) for a long time. I'm spending some Q time with True Perception - we'll see where that gets me.
participation
It's important to leave the studio and participate in the world in which one's art will ultimately be located and fortunately and unfortunately that's the Art World and the gallery system. How can you know how your work relates to the work that's out there if you don't go to the work out there?
Do you think the "dogma of abstract art" is one thing? I don't.
I don't think any dogma is
I don't think any dogma is one thing - dogma is a system of beliefs, right? Sometimes incompatible ones. I really think it's interesting! I'm so curious about this! I hope it doesn't look like I'm taking a critical stance re: abstract art when I talk about it on the internet. Most of my favorite contempo artists prob belong to that camp!! My work is figurative-ish on top, but something else in the middle. Jelly Donut School
I really like participating in the world outside of my studio, but Art World's not my favorite part of it ... am I allowed to say that? In the past it's been kind of energy-/emotion-suck when it comes to getting my own work done. For better or for worse, I don't really think of my work in relation to the other art work that's out there too often.
I do, however, have a perpetually unrealized intention to set aside time for gallery viewing. I don't manage to prioritize it much higher than my perpetually unrealized intention to make a loaf of bread every Sunday, though. I'll try harder! I agree it's important!
dialogue
The Art World isn't a lot of people's favorite part of being an artist. It is, however, the way the system is presently set up and you gotta know your world to play in your world and the Art World is part of the artists' world - as I see it.
Also it's super important to know what one's peers (piers?) are up to. We live in the greatest city in the world for art accessability! If we aren't talking to the artists directly the least we can do is talk to their work with our eyes.
Sure, I agree that dogma is a system of beliefs. It's also Amgob spelled backwards.