Tag Archives: Joseph

Therapy Progress

So therapy is going well. It’s going slowly, but well. I feel for my therapist who has to put up with my drama and listen to how much I hate myself. It feels good to just have someone there to vent my woes to, someone who just happens to able to prescribe me anti-depressants.

It’s going to be a long crawl to wellness however. After each session, I feel more and more awful about myself. I KNOW he’s supposed to help me, and we’re coming up with strategies with how to cope with my awfulness, but most of the negative things I see about myself is reinforced in my head after every session. So how he is helping? He’s listening, giving me advice, telling me that I might be right about my scum-of-the-earth nature, then prescribing me medication. God bless him for that. God bless that it’s covered by my insurance as well.

One thing I gotta say though, the most important skill for psychiatrists, and really for anyone during a conversation, is the ability to let someone speak until they are finished. Too many people are not really listening and are just really waiting for their turn to speak. I can see it in their heads sometimes, probably because I do the same thing, too. Halfway through their point, I’m already rehearsing my response in my head. This is why writing about my problems or making art are such convenient outlets for me. Neither talk back. However, neither give me advice or provide me drugs either.

Anyway, everyone needs to talk to a therapist. Everyone. It’s been a while since I’ve talked to a therapist and yeah, I could think of a couple of times when I did without therapy when I really shouldn’t have.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Goodbye Joseph?

I’ll probably be retiring my website soon (www.josephmreyes.com). I don’t really get so much out of it recently, and quite frankly, it’s more of a temporary repository of my thoughts and art progress than anything else. When I apply to shows, I think people respond more to my CV and the images I send, not really my website. One of the only tangible benefit of having a website is that it exists and the professionalism it suggest. Other than that, there are far better ways to showcase one’s work.

So yeah, I think I’ll just be relying solely on WordPress and Instagram for my web presence sometime soon. Godaddy hasn’t been the best domain host and server either. They are very generous in the beginning, but they add so many costs later on to things that really should be free. If anything, the biggest hassle to giving up my domain would be giving up my email address. Also, it’ll be just a tad more difficult to find me on the Internet. Unless people are looking for me, they won’t know that I exist, which I guess is true for most people in the planet, and I really shouldn’t be an exception.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Mental Help and NFTs

I’ve been on a bit of crisis in the past few days. Luckily, I managed to find a therapist that could help me work through the whole thing. I thought that mental health services wasn’t covered by the Korean national health insurance system, but luckily I found a couple of places that are willing to work with it. Many English-speaking clinics here are targeting private insurance companies so they could charge more, making it difficult people to find help.

저는 지난 며칠 동안 약간의 위기를 겪었어요. 운 좋게도 모든 일을 도움이 될 치료사를 찾았어요. 정신 건강 서비스는 한국 국민 건강 보험이 적용되지 않는다고 생각했는데다행스럽게도 함께 일할 수있는 곳을 몇 군데 찾았어요. 여기에 많은 영어를 사용하는 클리닉은 민간 보험 회사를 대상으로하여 더 많은 비용을 청구하여, 사람들이 도움을 찾기 어렵게 지였어요.

The last time I went to a therapist, a Korean doctor, she prescribed me with so much drugs that I wasn’t able to function normally. It was good to be able to freely vent out my issues, but my doctor didn’t really equip me with coping strategies to help me in the future, just drugs to numb me and help me sleep. As for moving on, I had to come up with my own strategies, which, looking back now, I’m not sure was really healthy.

제가 마지막으로 한국 의사 인 치료사에게 갔을 때 그녀는 제가 정상적으로 기능 할 수 없을 정도로 많은 약을 처방했어요. 내 문제를 자유롭게 풀어 낼 수있어서 좋았지 만, 의사는 미래에 나를 도울 수있는 대처 전략을 실제로 제공하지 않았고, 단지 나를 마비시키고 잠을 잘 수 있도록 도와주는 약물 만 사용했어요. 계속 진행하려면 나만의 전략을 세워야했는데, 지금 되돌아 보면 정말 건강하지 모르겠어요.

I’m hoping this time, it works out better for me. Some prescription drugs would probably help me, too. It’s been getting really, difficult to focus lately. I just need some help.

이번에는 더 잘 결과를 바랍이요. 일부 처방약도 나에게 도움이 될 것이요. 최근에 집중하기가 정말 어려워지고 있어요. 도움이 필요해요.

Let’s talk about NFT and art. Well, I’m not going to explain what it is. There’s already enough material out there explaining what NFTs are. What’s disconcerting to me is how much material CBC.ca has been pushing out about NFTs and painting them out as a democratizing force for artists. Did someone at the news organization buy a bunch of NFTs? Are there artists there selling their NFTs?

NFT와 예술에 대해 이야기합시다. 글쎄, 저는 그것이 무엇인지 설명하지 않을 것이요. Internet에서 NFT가 무엇인지 설명하는 자료가 이미 충분해요. 저를 당황하게하는 것은 CBC.ca가 NFT에 대해 얼마나 많은 자료를 밀어 내고 아티스트를위한 민주화의 힘으로 표현했는지요. 뉴스 기관의 누군가가 NFT를 많이 구입 했어요? NFT를 판매하는 아티스트가 있나요?

With COVID and the lack of opportunities to show works in galleries, I’ve been showing a lot of my works online and in magazines overseas. I’ve been participating in online shows and being more aggressive with my own SNS art account. This doesn’t necessarily pay off in more sales, but I imagine it’s what many people are resorting to now. But the danger of having work out there is that anyone can basically just take your work. I’m not heavy into selling prints, but really, if someone wants a print of someone’s work so bad, chances are, they can just take a high quality image and print it themselves. The control and ownership of an image is what makes NFTs attractive to me. I think if it’s cheaper and less environmentally taxing, artists should be marking their works and making it more difficult for people to steal them. Much like people who produce pornography, artists need to protect their work. Art and artists are devalued enough as it is, and works of art are easily moved, traded, and given away online. Something has to change that. Turning works into NFTs will hopefully give artists more knowledge of where their works are outside of Googling their own names or doing a reverse image search.

COVID 데문에 갤러리에서 예술품을 보여줄 기회가 부족해 온라인과 해외 잡지에 많은 예술품을 보여주고 있어요. 저는 온라인 쇼에 참여하고 있으며 제 SNS 아트 계정으로 더 공격적으로 활동하고 있어요. 이것이 반드시 더 많은 매출로 보상되는 것은 아니지만 많은 사람들이 지금 의지하고있는 것 같아요. 하지만 예술이 Internet에 있는 것의 위험은 누구나 기본적으로 당신의 예술을 맡을 수 있다는 거예요. 저는 인화 판매에 무겁지는 않지만 누군가의 예술을 인쇄하려는 사람은 예술의 이미지를 찍어 직접 인쇄 할 수 있어요. 이미지의 제어와 소유권이 NFT를 매력적으로 만드는 요소요. 저렴하고 환경에 부담이 적다면 예술가들이 자신의 예술품을 보여 주기 쉽고 사람들이 훔치는 것을 더 어렵게 만들어야한다고 생각헤요. 포르노를 제작하는 사람들과 마찬가지로 아티스트도 자신의 예술품을 보호해야해요. 예술과 예술가는 그 자체로 충분히 평가 절하되고 예술품은 온라인으로 쉽게 이동, 거래 및 제공되요. 무언가를 바꿔야해요. 예술품을 NFT로 바꾸면 아티스트가 자신의 이름을 검색하거나 역 이미지 검색을 수행 할 때 자신의 예술품이 어디에 있는지 더 많이 알 수 있기를 해요.

Getting into the NFT market however is another thing. Using blockchain technology and turning works into NFTs require gas fees. Last time I checked, gas fees are ridiculously high, and rates are getting worse as the hype over NFTs increases. Say minting an NFT costs $50. If an artist has a portfolio of 50 images, that’s $2500 he’s already lost on art that already exists with no guarantee on returns. And while people say that the world of NFTs is currently the wild west for artists, artists will still need to sell their works based on their names and reputations (not on the quality of their works. More on this.). Smaller and unknown artists will still compete with more well-known and established artists who already have a more comfortable foothold on the NFT market and can afford to turn more of their works into NFTs. It is not spreading democracy in the art world. It’s dividing artists even more and making it more difficult for newer artists to compete.

그러나 NFT 시장에 진입하는 것은 또 다른 일이요. 블록 체인 기술을 사용하고 작품을 NFT로 전환하려면 가스 요금이 필요해요. 지난번에 확인했을 때 가스 요금이 엄청나게 높고 NFT에 대한 과대 광고가 증가함에 따라 요금이 나 빠지고 있어요. NFT를 만드는 데 50 달러가 든다고 가정 해 보겠습면 아티스트가 50 개의 이미지 포트폴리오를 보유하고 있다면 이미 $ 2500이며 반품에 대한 보장없이 이미 존재하는 예술품에서 잃어버린 거예요. 그리고 사람들은 NFT의 세계가 현재 예술가들에게 황량한 서부라고 말하지만, 예술가들은 여전히 자신의 이름과 명성을 기준으로 자신의 작품을 판매해야합니다. 작고 알려지지 않은 예술가들은 NFT 시장에서 이미 더 편안한 발판을 가지고 있고 더 많은 작품을 NFT로 전환 할 여유가있는 더 유명하고 확립 된 예술가들과 경쟁 할 것입니다. 예술계에 민주주의를 전파하는 것이 아니요. 아티스트를 더 많이 나누고 새로운 아티스트가 경쟁하기 어렵게 만들어요.

And yeah, since we’re talking about blockchain technology, I shouldn’t forget to mention that it takes a huge toll on the environment to mint NFTs. Blockchain technology is resource-hungry. I can just imagine thousands of processors working overtime minting virtual objects that may or may not be assets in the long run. People have estimated that minting NFTs takes anywhere between weeks to years of an average person’s electricity consumption. No wonder it’s so expensive! Now multiply that to several NFTs.

그리고, 우리는 블록 체인 기술에 대해 이야기하고 있기 때문에 NFT를 발행하기 위해서는 환경에 막대한 피해를 입히는 것을 잊지 말아헤요. 블록 체인 기술은 자원이 돼지요. 장기적으로 자산이 될 수도 있고 아닐 수도있는 가상 객체를 채굴하면서 초과 근무하는 수천 명의 프로세서를 상상할 수 있어요. 사람들은 NFT를 채굴하는 데 평균적인 사람의 전기 소비에 몇 주에서 몇 년이 걸린다고 추정했어요. 그렇게 비싼 것도 당연헤요! 이제 그것을 여러 NFT에 곱하세요.

My biggest problem with NFTs is that it turns artists into gamblers and treats art not as art but as speculative commodities. Will my work make it big in the NFT market? Who knows? Let me invest some money into it and see. Well, that worked out. Now let’s turn more of my works into NFTs. With a considerable price to pay to get into the NFT market, artists would be more concerned about the attractiveness of their works as an investment, not as artworks. And I wouldn’t blame them. Celebrities could probably turn non-artworks into NFTs and compete quite well against true artists. As of this writing, Jack Dorsey turned his first tweet into an NFT and is selling it for $250,000. And as for valuing and appreciating art. Forget that. They’re all investments now.

NFT의 가장 큰 문제점은 예술가를 도박꾼으로 만들고 예술을 예술이 아니라 투기 적 상품으로 취급한다는 거예요. 내 예술품이 NFT 시장에서 크게 만들 수 있습니까? 누가 알아? 돈을 좀 투자 해 보겠어요. 글쎄요. 이제 더 많은 작업을 NFT로 전환 해 보겠습니다. NFT 시장에 진출하기 위해 상당한 대가를 치르면 예술가들은 예술품이 아닌 투자로서의 예술품품의 매력에 대해 더 걱정할 거예요. 그리고 저는 그들을 비난하지 않을 거예요. 유명인은 아마도 비 예술 예술품을 NFT로 바꾸고 진정한 예술가와 꽤 잘 경쟁 할 수 있어요. 이 글을 쓰는 시점에서 Jack Dorsey는 첫 번째 트윗을 NFT로 바꾸어 $ 250,000에 판매하고 있어요. 그리고 예술을 소중히 여기고 감상하는 것에 관해서. 잊어 버려. 지금은 모두 투자이예요.

“That’s a wonderful picture. It truly is amazing. I love how colors are so surreal without digital manipulation. Is it an NFT? Why not? You could probably see its price quadruple in the NFT market.” And then the conversation turns more into investments and speculation rather than art.

“멋진 사진 이네요. 정말 놀라요. 디지털 조작없이 색상이 얼마나 초현실적인지 정말 좋아요. NFT입니까? 왜 안돼? NFT 시장에서 가격이 4 배가되는 것을 볼 수있을 것이예요.” 그리고 대화는 예술보다는 투자와 투기로 변해요.

I read an account of one artists who said that with NFTs, he earns a 10% cut every time his work is re-sold. That’s great and all, but then again, did he make art or did he just make a commodity that’s traded? What was the point of the piece originally? Did Warhol ever demand or wish for a cut every time someone sells his work? If I sell my work, it’s gone. It’s not mine anymore. I have no connection with it other than it’s birth. To wish for a cut every time something is sold speaks of a weird greed which could be justified by some people, I’m sure, but not artistically.

NFT를 사용하면 예술품이 재판매 될 때마다 10 % 컷을 받는다는 한 아티스트의 이야기를 읽었어요. 훌륭해요. 하지만 다시 그는 예술품을 만들었나요 아니면 그냥 거래되는 상품을 만들었나요? 원래 작품의 요점은 무엇 이었습니까? 워홀은 누군가 자신의 작품을 판매 할 때마다 삭감을 요구하거나 바랬습니까? 내 예술품을 팔면 사라져요. 더 이상 내 것이 아니요. 저는 그것을 만들었는 것 외에는 아무 관련이 없어요. 그것은 어떤 사람이 정당화 할 수있고 무언가가 팔릴 때마다 컷을 원한다는 것은 확실하지만 예술적으로는 아니요.

Recently, investors burnt a Banksy and turned it into an NFT. These people are morons. First off, artwork doesn’t have to be turned into an NFT to have it exist forever. Diego Rivera’s Man at the Crossroads is still studied to this day no thanks to blockchain technology. Also, making or treating art as investments seems to really go against the spirit of what Banksy does. The man travels the globe and makes wonderful art for free. To willfully destroy artwork and turn it into a digital commodity is like ghoulish capitalists turning wonderful artwork into wasteful nerd coins. And no, it’s not elevating art into a different form. The burning of the piece is not art in itself. This is not conceptual art. This is dumb greed.

최근 투자자들은 Banksy의 예술픔을 태워 NFT로 전환했어요. 이 사람들은 바보요. 첫째, 예술 예술품이 영원히 존재하기 위해 NFT로 변환 될 필요는 없어요. Diego Rivera의 Man at the Crossroads는 블록 체인이 없지만 오늘날까지도 연구되고 있어요. 또한 예술을 투자로 만들거나 다루는 것은 Banksy가하는 일의 정신에 반하는 것처럼 보이요. 그는 전 세계를 여행하며 무료로 멋진 예술을 만들어요. 예술 작품을 고의로 파괴하고 디지털 상품으로 바꾸는 것은 멋진 예술 작품을 낭비적인 머저리 동전으로 바꾸는 끔찍한 자본가와 같아요. 그리고 예술을 다른 형태로 끌어 올리는 것이 아니요. 작품을 태우는 것은 그 자체로 예술이 아니요. 이것은 개념 예술이 아니요. 이건 멍청한 탐욕이요.

“Yeah, but Banksy shredded his own art in an auction before!” Yes, he destroyed it to make a statement. The people who burned the Banksy are hoping to start a trend and rake in profits. What’s their statement? “NFTs are now a thing. Come on and invest on NFTs!”

“그래, 하지만 Banksy는 전에 경매에서 자신의 예술을 찢어 버렸어!” 예, 그는 성명서를 만들기 위해 그것을 파괴했어요. Banksy의 예술품을 불태운 사람들은 트렌드를 시작하고 수익을 올리기를 희망하고 있습니다. 그들의 진술은 무엇입니까? “NFT는 좋아요. 어서 NFT에 투자하세요!”

Again, I’m not against certifying digital works and giving them secure signatures. It’ll be nice to have some sort of virtual permanence to digital works. But the way this whole thing is developing reeks of speculation and greed. And when someone says, “anything can be turned into an NFT,” then not only does it lower the bar for art (down to a celebrity’s hangnail), it makes art nothing more than gambler’s token. After all, “you can bet on anything at the stock market.”

다시 말하지만 저는 디지털 예술품을 인증하고 보안 서명을하는 것에 반대하지 아니요. 디지털 예술품에 대해 일종의 가상 영구성을 갖는 것이 좋을 거예요. 그러나 이 모든 것이 추측과 탐욕의 냄새를 풍기는 방식이요. 그리고 누군가 “무엇이든 NFT로 바뀔 수 있습니다”라고 말하면 예술의 기준을 낮출뿐만 아니라 (연예인의 자른 손톱을으로 레벨도) 예술은 도박꾼의 토큰에 지나지 아니요. 결국“주식 시장에서 무엇이든 베팅 할 수 있어요.”

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Book, Too

My second book has been printed and I’ve sent initial copies to my family as well as to Library and Archives Canada. I’ll be sending it out to galleries as well as to people who really, REALLY want it, but right now, selling it online just doesn’t make sense for me. Due to the coronavirus, the Korean postal service, which is normally amazingly cheap and fast, has been crippled. Sending out one book to California, I was presented with two options: $2 regular with no tracking which might take two months to get there, or $24 express which will get there in a week. Before the pandemic, I could send packages to California using the regular option and it would get there in less than a week. Damn you, pandemic!

두 번째 책이 인쇄되어 첫 번째 사본을 가족과 캐나다 도서관 및 기록 보관소에 보냈어요. 갤러리와 정말 책을 원하는 사람들에게도 보낼 거예요. 하지만 지금은 온라인으로 판매하는 것이 제게 말이되지 않아요. 코로나 바이러스로 인해 일반적으로 놀랍도록 저렴하고 빠른 한국 우편 서비스가 마비되었어요. 한 권의 책을 캘리포니아로 보내면서 두 가지 옵션이 주어졌어요. 일반 $ 2, 추적이없고 도착하는 데 두 달이 걸릴 수있어 아니면 특급 $ 24, 일주일 안에 도착할수 있어요. 전염병이 발생하기 전에 일반 옵션을 사용하여 캘리포니아로 패키지를 보낼 수 있었고 일주일 이내에 도착했어요. 젠장, 코로나 바이러스!

Book is done, so I could peacefully die now. Technically, my work is out there. It’s been out there for a while now. I don’t have children, but at least my art will hopefully live on for a bit. I’m not a rich person, and I don’t have much of value at all, but there’s always my art. My images, my ideas. For some reason, I keep thinking about Bob Dylan’s line, “…I gave her my heart, but she wanted my soul…” After my worldly possessions, my heart, and my soul… my art can live on past me.

책이 끝났으니 이제 평화롭게 죽을 수 있어요. 엄밀히 말하면 내 작업은 저 밖에 있어요. 한동안 밖에 있었어요. 아이가 없어, 그러나 적어도 내 예술은 조금만 살아남을 것입니다. 부자가 아니고 가치가 전혀 없어요 하지만 항상 내 예술이 있어요. 내 이미지, 내 아이디어. 왠지 밥 딜런의 대사를 계속 생각 해요.“… 나는 그녀에게 내 마음을 주었지만 그녀는 내 영혼을 원했다…” 내 인생의 소유물, 내 마음, 내 영혼 밖에, 내 예술은 살 수 있어요.

And no, I have no delusion that I’m famous or someday will be famous. But yeah, at least there will always be some art somewhere that proves I once existed, no matter how unsuccessful an artist I become.

아니, 저는 유명한 거나 언젠가 유명해질 것이라는 망상은 없어요. 하지만 그래, 적어도 저는 아무리 실패한 예술가가 되더라도 저는 한때 존재했음을 증명하는 예술은 항상 어딘가에있을 거예요.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

The Myth of Sisyphus

I started watching this Korean drama entitled, “Sisyphus, the Myth.” I’m only two episodes in and I’m already not liking it. I can’t stand Tony Stark and the Tony Stark fantasy. I can’t stand how Koreans and Marvel fans love and worship the idea of a genius billionaire, when billionaires should be villified for hoarding wealth. The main character is basically a Tony Stark type and the first episode couldn’t help but cheese me out a bit in building him up. The filming and the writing, while very ambitious, also reeked of ambitiousness. It’s very hard to explain, but it reminds me of the first two episodes of Star Trek Picard, with the mixture of action, mystery, and plot holes.

한국 드라마 ‘Sisyphys, the Myth’을 보기 시작 했어요. 2 화 밖에 안 보아는데 벌써 좋아하지 않은것 같아요. Tony Stark와 Tony Stark의 환상을 참을 수 없어요. 억만 장자가 부를 축적해야하는 상황에서 한국인과 Marvel 팬들이 천재 억만 장자에 대한 아이디어를 어떻게 사랑하고 숭배하는지 이해 할 수 없어요. 주인공은 기본적으로 Tony Stark 유형이며 첫 번째 에피소드는 그는 약간이 즘 너무 진부해요. 촬영과 글쓰기는 매우 야심적이면서도 야심이 넘쳤어요. 설명하기는 매우 어렵지만, 액션, 미스터리, 이야기의 불일치 혼합 된 Star Trek Picard의 처음 두 에피소드를 생각 나게했어요.

So instead of the drama “Sisyphus, the Myth,” let me just quickly discuss “The Myth of Sisyphus” instead, a book by Camus, the one which I suspect the writers borrowed the title from. As I understood it, the book looks at absurdist philosophy. Life is essentially absurd. We toil all of our lives and the world constantly brings us unexpected hardships. And the closer we are to achieving our dreams as we age, for the lucky few that is, the closer we are to death. Now, looking at the absurd nature of life, isn’t the most logical solution suicide? After all, if you’re in an absurd relationship or stuck in an absurd job, isn’t the most logical solution to just quit?

그래서 드라마 “Sisyphus, the Myth”대신에, Camus의 책인 “The Myth of Sisyphus”에 대해 간단히 이야기하겠습니다, 그 드라마를 제목이 빌린 것으로 의심됬어요. 내가 이해했듯에 이 책은 터무니없는 철학을 본이요. 인생은 본질적으로 터무니 없어요. 우리는 모든 삶을 일하며 세상은 끊임없이 예상치 못한 어려움을 겪서요. 그리고 우리가 나이가 들어감에 따라 꿈을 이루는 데 가까울수록 죽음에 가까워집니다. 자, 인생의 어리석은 본질을 보면 가장 논리적 인 해결책은 자살 아니애요? 헊시, 어리석은 관계에 있거나 어리석은 직업에 갇혀 있다면 그만두는 가장 논리적 인 해결책이 아닙니까?

Now, I’m guessing the Korean drama will be touching up on the absurdity of life since the show deals with time travel, etc. But yeah, that’s the last time I mention that show.

이제 그 드라마가 time travel등을 다룬 쇼이기 때문에 인생의 부조리에 대한 이야기가 될 것 같아요. 하지만, 이게 그 드라마에 대해 마지막으로 말해요.

But thinking about aging and death. I suppose this is the reason why young people are generally seen as more attractive than people who are more mature. Forget biology and the ability to procreate. Young people are much farther from death than people who are older. The touch of death, as it starts getting in people’s skin, they become less attractive.

그러나 노화와 죽음에 대해 생각하며, 이것이 젊은이들이 일반적으로 더 성숙한 사람들보다 더 매력적으로 여겨지는 이유라고 생각해요. 생물학과 번식 능력을 잊으십시오. 젊은 사람들은 나이가 많은 사람들보다 죽음에서 훨씬 더 멀렸어요. 사람들이 죽음의 손길와 냄세를 피부에 들어가기 시작하면서 덜 매력적이됬어요.

Another thing which I found interesting about the book is the idea that “if the world were not absurd, art would not exist.” This is similar to the old idea of art illuminating truths, that artists see the world in a certain way, and use art to express the truths that they see. These all sound very lofty, which makes me wonder why artists are often undervalued as a calling or profession. Unless you’re making millions out of your art, it’s often just treated as a quirky hobby.

이 책에서 흥미로운 또 다른 점은“세상이 어리석지 않으면 예술은 존재하지 않을 것”이라는 생각이요. 이것은 예술이 진실을 말하는 오래된 아이디어가 비슷해요. 예술가들은 세상을 특정한 방식으로 보고, 그들이 보는 진실을 표현하기 위해 예술을 사용해요. 이것들은 모두 매우 고상하게 들리는데, 왜 예술가들이 자주 부름이나 직업으로 저평가되는지 궁금해요. 예술로 수백만 달러를 벌지 않는 한, 그것은 보통 그냥 흥미로운 취미로 취급되요.

Actually, this kinda reminds me of an episode of Peep Show, where a woman was complaining about all of the bad news on the news, “What about the good news? The news where things actually went well?” Well, if the news was like that, it would just be a long, insufferable list of observations of things functioning as they are. The news needs tragedy, otherwise it won’t be news. That’s why I can’t stand news that aren’t really news, like the announcement of the oldest person in the world. There will always be a new oldest person in the world. As Camus would probably attest, the oldest person in the world is probably the one closest to death.

사실, 이것은 Peep Show의 에피소드를 생각 나게해 한 여성이 뉴스의 모든 나쁜 소식에 대해 불평하고 있어요. “좋은 뉴스은 어떻습니까? 실제로 잘된 뉴스?” 글쎄요, 만약 뉴스가 그랬다면, 그것이 그대로 기능하는 것에 대한 관찰의 길고 참을 수없는 목록 일 것이요. 뉴스에는 비극이 필요해요. 그렇지 않으면 뉴스가 아니요. 그래서 세상에서 가장 나이 많은 사람의 발표처럼 진짜 뉴스가 아닌 뉴스를 싫어요. 항상 세상에서 가장 오래된 사람이있을 것이요. Camus가 생각했듯이 세상에서 가장 나이 많은 사람은 아마도 죽음에 가장 가까운 사람 일 것이요.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , ,

On Artists

You are not your job. You are not your relationships. You are not your art either. As much as some artists like to sell their persona as part of their art, it is all bullshit. Only a few people can pull this off. You’re not Warhol. You’re not Dali. Stop it.

너는 너의 직업이 아니요. 너는 너의 관계들이 아니요.너는 너의 예술도 아니요. 일부 예술가는 자신의 페르소나를 예술의 일부로 판매하는 것을 좋아하지만 모두 헛소리요. 소수의 사람만 이것은 할수 있어요. 너는 살바도르 달리가 아니면 멈춰.

Buying a piece of art is not the same as buying a person. A person might be buying a piece of work, but the work should be able to stand on its own, without the artist. Again, I’m talking about artists who are relatively unknown, but I think it’s a mistake to intermingle the personal aspect of social media too much with art. I notice this particularly on Instagram. I think it’s fine to have an art page and have some of your personal life and even development process in your page, but I notice some artists get way too much into themselves and it stops being about the art and more about selling the artist, to which I say, calm down and think first if you really want to do that to yourself. It’s really doing a disservice to your own art and your growth, and probably contributes to perpetuating the image of artists being self-centered attention hounds.

예술품을 사는 것은 사람을 사는 것과는 다라요. 어떤 사람이 예술을 구매할 수도 있지만, 이 예술이 예술가없이 스스로 설 수 있어야해요. 저는 상대적으로 알려지지 않은 예술가들에 대해 이야기하고 있지만 SNS의 개인적인 측면을 예술과 너무 많이 섞는 것은 실수라고 생각해요. 특히 Instagram에서 이것을 발견해요. 아트 페이지를 가지고 있고 너의 개인적인 삶의 일부와 심지어 너의 페이지에 개발 과정을 갖는 것은 괜찮다고 생각해요. 하지만 몇몇 예술가들은 자신에게 너무 깊이 빠져들고 그것이 예술에 관한 것이 아니라 예술가를 판매하는 것에 대해 생각해요. 진정해요. 자신에게 그렇게하고 싶다면 먼저 생각해요. 그것은 정말 너의 예술과 성장에 해를 끼치고 있고 예술가들이 자기 중심적인 이미지를 영속시키는 데 기여할 거요.

One telltale sign of this phenomenon are pictures showing the scale or artworks. Of course this is all just my opinion, but if you want to show the scale of a piece of art and put yourself in the picture, and you take up more real estate than the piece, then maybe the picture on the Instagram page is not about the art at all.

이 현상의 한 가지 분명한 징후는 규모 또는 예술 작품을 보여주는 시진들이에요.물론 이것은 모두 제 의견이요, 하지만 예술의 규모를 보여주고 자신을 그림에 넣고 싶고 예술보다 더 많은 공간을 차지한다면 Instagram 페이지의 그림은 예술에 관한 것이 전혀 아닐 수도 있어요.

The second red flag for me is when I the viewer is constantly informed of the artist’s life and more effort seems to be put on creating the artist’s persona than the art itself. One infamous “artist” in Korea who is no longer in media used to be on TV selling herself as an artist but seems to be more focused on portraying a quirky persona, a dumb and lazy stereotype given to artists. And if one looks up her works, they’re really nothing to write home about. Thankfully, she’s now no longer showing up on television and is so forgotten that her name escapes me.

저에게 두 번째 위험 신호는 시청자가 예술가의 삶에 대해 지속적으로 알리고 예술 자체보다 예술가의 페르소나를 만드는 데 더 많은 노력을 기울이는 거에요. 더 이상 미디어에 출연하지 않는 한국의 한 악명 높은“아티스트”는 예전에는 자신을 아티스트로 판매하는 TV에 출연했지만 아티스트들에게 주어진 멍청하고 게으른 고정 관념 인 기발한 인물을 묘사하는 데 더 초점을 맞춘 것 같아요. 그리고 그녀의 예술을 보면 너는 실망할거에요. 고맙게도 그녀는 이제 더 이상 TV에 나오지 않고 너무 잊혀져 서 그녀의 이름이 기억이 않 와요.

On a similar note, if viewers kept getting reminded of the artist’s condition, be it depression, physical disabilities, or ailments, then I start getting tired, if not irritated. Van Gogh had a very well-established mental condition, but he developed his own style and grew as a post-Impressionist, selling (and at the time failing to sell) his works solely for their merit and not as a byproduct of his illness. Right now, the works stand on their own. We do not need to know he was mentally ill. The same goes with Munch, Goya, and O’Keefe. And while we’re at it, Picasso, Rodin, Michelangelo, Degas, and many others were assholes. But we do not need to know of their assholery to admire their works. The works stand on their own.

마찬가지로, 예술가이 자신의 상태, 우울증, 신체 장애, 질병 등을 계속 시청자에께 상기 시키면 저는 짜증이 나지 않더라도 피곤해지기 시작해요. Van Gogh는 매우 잘 정립 된 정신 상태를 가지고 있었지만 자신의 post-Impressionist 스타일을 개발여 그들의 예술품을 병의 부산물이 아니라 자신의 장점을 위해서만 판매 (하지만 판매하지 못함)했어요. 지금은 그 예술품들이 독자적으로 서 있어요. 그가 정신적으로 아팠다는 것을 알 필요는 없어요. Munch, Goya, O’Keefe도 마찬가지에요. 그리고 우리가 거기에있는 동안 Picasso, Rodin, Michelangelo, Degas 등 많은 사람들이 즘 나빴어요. 그러나 우리는 그들의 예술품에 감탄하기 위해 그들의 나쁜 성격을 알 필요가 없어요. 예술품들이 자체로 서 있어요.

And since we’re talking about asshole artists, I think there’s a difference between enjoying a dead artist’s genius and giving money to a current, living asshole. I think it’s perfectly fine to enjoy the works of dead artists who might have been assholes in the past. It’s the same way one can admire great ancient structures in Europe while completely ignoring about how Europe plundered so much wealth out of so many countries. It’s another thing however to pay for a movie directed by Bryan Singer, Roman Polanski, or Woody Allen. I do love watching the pirated version of “Rosemary’s Baby” however.

그리고 우리는 나쁜 예술가에 대해 이야기하고 있기 때문에, 죽은 예술가의 천재성을 즐기는 것과 현재 살아있는 나쁜 예술가 에게 돈을주는 것에는 차이가 있다고 생각해요. 과거에 나쁜 였을지도 죽은 예술가들의 예술품을 즐기는 것도 괜찮은 것 같아요. 유럽의 위대한 고대 건축물에 감탄할 수있는 것고유럽이 여러 나라에서 얼마나 많은 부를 약탈했는지 완전히 무시하면서. 같은 방식예요. 그러나 Bryan Singer, Roman Polanski 또는 Woody Allen이 감독 한 영화에 대한 비용을 지불하는 것은 또 다른 일이예요. 하지만 “Rosemary’s Baby” 해적판 보는 걸 좋아해요.

The third red flag is something I mentioned in passing. The works simply don’t stand on their own. Taken without the artist in mind, will anyone take notice of it? Does it look amateurish or plain? Not to be insulting here, but elephants can be tortured to paint canvasses. They are very primitive swaths of color, almost like a random accident. But because they are made by tortured elephants, they become something else. Does an artist’s work look average? Is it elevated by the artist’s “story”? Then maybe it’s not about the artwork at all. Now, I love Dada and the idea of found objects and readymades, but their “stories” are concepts which are itself art. I don’t think the everyday life of an artist and their struggles with whatever ails them compares with Dada.

세 번째 신호는 이미 이야기했어요. 그 예술품들은 그 자체로 서 있지 않아요. 예술가 없으면 누가 알아 차 릴까요? 아마추어 같거나 평범 해 보입니까? 여기에서는 모욕적이지 않지만 코끼리는 캔버스를 그리기 위해 고문을 당할 수 있어요. 그들은 거의 우연한 사고처럼 매우 원시적 인 색채요. 그러나 고문당하는 코끼리에 의해 만들어 졌기 때문에 그들은 다른 무언가가되요. 예술가의 예술품이 평균적으로 보입니까? 예술가의 “이야기”로 개선 되었나요? 그렇다면 예술품에 관한 것이 아닐 수도 있어요. Dada와 found objects과 readymades에 대한 아이디어를 좋아하지만 그들의 “이야기”는 그 자체가 예술인 개념에요. 예술가의 일상 생활과 그들이 어떤 병때 투쟁을 Dada와 비교할 수없어요.

So why do I care? Why do I write these things? Because I want you to grow. I want you to look at your work and really evaluate it. If a stranger saw it somewhere, would it be compelling for them or would it be ignored? For what reason should they be staring? Give your audience a reason to stare. Make it about the art and not about yourself. This is why I tend to distrust actors or singers who decide to become artists. Their work can be mediocre but it is immediately elevated by their celebrity, totally separate from any artistic merit of the artwork itself. The only reason people will look at a dumb shoe “made” by Kanye West is that he said he designed it. Forget that they all look dumb compared to other shoes in the market.

그래서 내가 왜 신경을 써야합니까? 왜 이런 것들을 쓰나요? 나는 너를 성장하기를 바라요. 나는 너를 너의 예술품을보고 정말로 평가하기를 바라요. 낯선 사람이 그것을 어딘가에서 본다면, 그것은 그들에게 매력적일까요 아니면 무시 될까요? 그들은 어떤 이유로 쳐다보아야합니까? 청중에게 쳐다보아야할 이유를 제공하세요. 자신에 대한 것이 아니라 예술에 대해 이야기하세요. 예술가되기로 결정한 배우 나 가수를 불신하는 경향이 있어요. 그들의 예술품은 평범 할 수 있지만 예술품 자체의 예술적 장점과는 완전히 별개로 유명인에 의해 즉시 향상되요. 사람들이 Kanye West가 “만든” 멍청한 신발을 보는 유일한 이유는 그가 디자인했다고 말했기 때문에요. 다른 신발에 비해 모두 멍청 해 보인다는 사실을 잊어요.

I think artists need to decide whether they’re selling themselves or their art. Maybe they can be successful at both. It can happen! But often I see people calling themselves artists but are too busy with the art persona and not the art. So yeah, if you’re an artist, start with showing more art and less of your dumb artist face.

에술가들은는 자신의 에술품을 판매하게 아니면 자신의 페르소나를 판매하게 결정해야헤요. 둘 다 성공할 수도 있어요. 그것은 할수 있어요! 그러나 종종 사람들이 스스로를 예술가라고 부르지 만 예술이 아닌 예술가의 인물에 너무 바쁘다는 것을 보에요. 예, 너는 예술가라면 너의 멍청한 예술가 얼굴을 대신에 더 많은 예술을 보여주고 시작하세요.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Another Book No One Will Buy

Over the weekend, I was finalizing the design for a book I’m compiling. This is the second time I published a book and god bless Canada for letting citizens publish books and have free ISBNs, essentially encouraging everyone to be publishers. If I had known this when I was in high school, I would’ve published my horrible comic books with my buddy Duane. And now that I’m much older, I’m publishing my horrible art.

주말 동안에 저는 편집중인 책의 디자인을 마무리하고있었어요. 캐나다 시민들이 책을 출판하고 무료 ISBN을 가질 수 있어요. 본질적으로 모든 사람이 출판사가되도록 장려합니다. 그래서 한 책을 출판 한 것은 이번이 두 번째이에요.

In the US, ISBNs are $125 for one number. They are cheaper when you buy them in bulk, but that seems to be more aimed towards small publishers than your regular joe who wants to turn his pdf into a physical book. In Canada, all that’s asked for publishers is that they register their books in the national database and, if possible, send a copy to be archived. This was actually my first motivation to publish a book many years ago, to leave a mark other than in galleries or online. People might forget me in a few years, but in an archive somewhere is a collection of my works which I’m probably too ashamed of and doesn’t represent my current works and tastes anymore. Forget children. A collection of my shameful drawings will be my legacy.

미국에서 ISBN은 한 번호 당 $ 125이에요. 대량으로 구입할 때 더 싸지만 PDF를 실제 책으로 바꾸고 싶은 사람들 보다 소규모 출판사를 대상으로하는 것 같아요. 캐나다에서 발행인에게 책을 국가 데이터베이스에 등록하고 할수 있으면, 사본을 보내면되요. 이것은 제 실제로 수년 전에 책을 출판하고 갤러리 나 온라인 이외의 다른 흔적을 남기려는 첫 번째 동기였어요. 몇 년 후에 사람들은 나를 잊을 수 있지만 아카이브 어딘가에는 내가 너무 부끄러워하고 더 이상 내 현재 작업과 취향을 나타내지 않는 내 그림들이 있을거에요. 아이들은 잊어라. 제 부끄러운 그림 모음집 이제 유산이 될 거예요.

Anyway, it is time I updated my awful works and have a new book published. This time, I’m working on a collection of my full-page busy drawings which I started last September. Last year was horrible, and if something could come out of the awfulness of 2020, it might as well be a small collection of my works.

어쨌든, 이제 제 끔찍한 그림들을 업데이트하고 새 책을 출판 할 때이에요. 이번에 작년 9 월에 시작한 전체 페이지의 바쁜 그림 모음을 중이에요. 작년은 끔찍했고 2020 년의 끔찍함에서 무언가 나올 수 있다면 제 그림들의 작은 컬렉션이 될 수도 있어요.

I don’t expect to get rich off of this, so I’m not yet firm on how I’m going to go about selling and marketing it. So far, I just want to finish it.

이것으로 부자가 될 것이라고 기대하지 않는데. 판매하고 마케팅하는 방법에 대해 아직도 확실하지 아니네요. 지금까지 끝내고 싶어요.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Talking Art

I realized yesterday that my best friend, despite being an artist and a gallery owner, is incapable of talking about art. For sure, she can spend hours talking about her works and her self, but she is not the best person to talk to about art, artists, and anything creative. I’m not even sure if she’s interested in art history or anything in the past that could inspire her works. I remember giving her a couple of books about art and artists, sending her links about art, or even trying to talk about potential art concepts, but I can’t remember feeling any interest coming from her in return. If anything, I recall a couple of times being discouraged and just keeping things in the status quo when I tried to brainstorm ideas with her.

어제, 내 가장 친한 친구가 예술가이자 갤러리 주인이지만 그녀는 예술에 대해 이야기 할 능력이 없다는 것을 깨달았어요. 확실히 그녀는 자신의 에술과 자신에 대해 이야기하는 데 몇 시간을 할애 할 수 있지만, 그녀는 예술, 다른 예술가 및 창의적인 것에 대해 이야기하기에 좋은 사람은 아니에요. 그녀가 미술사에 관심이 있는지, 아니면 그녀의 영감을 줄 수있는 미술사에 관심이 있는지 모르겠어요. 그녀에게 예술과 예술가에 관한 책 몇 권을 주었던 기억에, 예술에 대한 링크를 보내거나 잠재적인 예술 개념에 대해 이야기하는것 하지만 그 대가로 그녀에게서 오는 관심을 느꼈던 기억이 없어요. 그녀와 아이디어를 브레인 스토밍하려고 할 때 몇 번 낙담하고 현상 유지를 유지했던 것을 기억해요.

She simply can’t or is just disinterested. We try talking about art, and then eventually we drift back to talking about her works, going through the same rote conversations.

단순히, 그녀는 할 수 없거나 무관심해요. 우리는 예술에 대해 이야기하고, 결국 그녀의 예술에 대해 이야기하며 제 귀에 못이 박히도록 같은 대화를하게되요.

Now, I know that this is not a prerequisite for all artists to follow, but it surely helps in guiding one’s work to know about art and be able to talk about them, and to be inspired by bigger artists. It instructs the artists not only with their style but also in how to see their own works. Is an artist painting the way Jackson Pollock painted in order to see the canvas in different directions and show movement? Or is the artist just doing it for pretty colors? Maybe an artist can start with the latter, but knowing who Pollock is and why he painted the way he did, an artist can move on to the former and beyond.

이것이 모든 에술가 따라야 할 전제 조건이 아니라는 것을 알고 있지만, 자신의 예술이 예술에 대해 알고 이야기하고 더 다른 유명한 예술가로부터 영감을받을 수 있도록지도하는 데 확실히 도움이될수 있어요. 예술가들에게 자신의 스타일뿐만 아니라 자신의 예술을 보는 방법을 가르쳐주어요. 캔버스에 다른 방향으로보고 움직임을 보여주기 위해 Jackson Pollock적 그린 그리는 예술가입니까? 아니면 예쁜 색들을 위해해요? 혹시 아티스트는 후자부터 시작할 수 있지만 Pollock이 누구인지고 그의 그린 방법 이유를 알면 아티스트는 너머로 이동할 수 있어요.

Anyway, I’m going to have to take my art conversations elsewhere.

어쨌든, 저는 다른 곳에서 미술 대화를해야 할 것이에요.

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Tired of Historic Events Yet?

Today, Trump’s MAGA goon squad marched and broke into the US Capitol in protest of President-elect Biden’s electoral votes being ceremoniously counted. This was a coup attempt. This was insurrection and sedition fueled by craven politicians telling MAGA supporters that there is still a way for Trump to win the presidency, that it was somehow stolen from his via complex global, pedophile conspiracies, and that what they are doing is akin to being patriots. The last time forces stormed the Capitol was back in the War of 1812, when the United Kingdom and Canada went to war with the United States. Confederate generals dreamed of someday flying their flag in the US Capitol, and Trump’s MAGA forces this possible. A few years ago, Trump was also in charge of judging whether Gary Busey should be pretend-fired on a pretend job interview. Now, a man with Trump’s wall tattooed on his arm and who traveled with a buffalo headgear to Washington broke several laws making a jackass of himself in the US halls of power. Now, four people are dead.

I love politics. But as much as I love politics, I also love the law and how it works. This was a disgraceful day in US history in what it has done to politics and what it has done to the law. Now, much has already been said about the Republican politicians who allowed this to happen and to the racist police force who let the seditious terrorists run wild in the government building, but I have to say, I have a bigger problem with the weakness of the Democrats.

Joe Biden, in his response to the terrorist attack, tells the nation that the actions of Trump’s supporters “borders on sedition.” Ridiculous. If that mob caught up to one Democratic senator, who knows what would have happened. Even at this point, he talks about “restoring order.” Restoring order? What about arrests? What about prosecution? People made a mockery and attacked the people’s house. The house of the nation who proclaims to be the model of democracy. The nation whose troops all over the world fight wars to defend. Idiot MAGA terrorists ran amok through those hallowed halls and we are still hesitating on calling sedition what it is?

Even as Trump leaves this year, it will be a disappointing four years for Americans who are keen on democracy and justice. As much as Obama was beloved, he cursed America with probably the stupidest seven words he ever uttered, “We don’t look backwards, we look forward.” A recording of Trump committing an impeachable crime by pressuring officials to manufacture phantom votes for him in Georgia surfaced two days ago, and seemingly without even much consideration, we hear US representative Hakeem Jeffries saying those same dumb seven words, “We don’t look backwards, we look forward.” Then how can Trump or any other officials learn? What’s stopping people from committing crimes in the future? It doesn’t even make any logical sense. ALL crimes in order to fit the definition must have “actus reus,” the conduct of the crime. How else can you establish conduct if you don’t look backward? If someone slaps Hakeem Jeffries in the face, will he immediately respond by, “We don’t look backwards, instead, we look forward to the inauguration of a President Joe Biden and will not allow ourselves to be distracted by these slapping in the face issues.”?

See, back in 2020, armed protesters stormed the Michigan statehouse in order to protest wearing masks. They essentially held the statehouse hostage and the police barely touched them. Not much of consequence happened to the agitators as the nation moved on to the next outrageous thing in the news cycle. Fast forward to now and again, armed agitators fueled by conspiracy theories essentially invade the US Capitol. See how they didn’t learn their lesson?

But wait, that was under under Trump. Are the Democrats still to be blamed for that? Yes, because they have short memories and easily move on. Republicans fueled so many congressional hearing on four deaths in Benghazi. How many congressional hearings will come out of this? How many hearings came out of the storming of the Michigan statehouse? Heck, when Bundy ranchers pointed rifles at police officers during Obama’s presidency, Democrats essentially let them get away with it. Gabby Giffords got shot in the head and the Democrats didn’t use it as a rallying cry for some sort of sensible gun legislation. I’d call the Democrats weak tea, but that would be offensive to teas everywhere.

So yeah, even as progressives like Representatives Cori Bush and Ilhan Omar are calling for impeachment, most of the Democrats will likely try to oppose them or at least try to weaken their call to action. As Trump’s ugliness infected Republicans and the rest of body politic, so will Barack Obama’s weak look-forward, not backward continue to lull Democratic politicians to inaction and complacency. Don’t get too excited about Trump leaving, folks. As we learned in 2020, things can always, ALWAYS get worse.

Note my entry last week. Canada lost the World Juniors yesterday, and now there’s a failed coup. 2021 off to a great start.

December 31

I would like to think that next year will be better than 2020, but I have learned not to be too optimistic, lest I be disappointed. Christmas was a quiet affair spent watching Netflix. New Year’s Eve is probably going to be the same. I can feel myself getting old just thinking about it.

Here’s hoping that 2021 is indeed an improvement over this lousy year. 

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Bah Humburgers

I started not liking Christmas back in 2018, what a horrible Christmas that was. Looking back, I’ve had different kinds of Christmases in my long existence: warm family-oriented celebrations with gifts and all sorts of food, depressing Christmases spent all by myself, saucy Christmases similar to those found on Internet videos, but Christmas 2018 truly ruined Christmas for me. It was the worst. I don’t want to dwell too much on the details, but it started a miserable trend to which I’m not sure I could recover from. And now every Christmas, I get reminded of that horrible night. Ever had that happen to you? A holiday you’ve cherished since childhood has been turned into a depressing reminder? Well, that’s me. So yeah, I’m really in no mood for trees, decorations, and presents.

And now it’s 2020, and it seems like the rest of the world is catching up with my feelings towards Christmas. Everyone’s sentiment towards the holidays is just a little bit closer to how I feel about it. It’s a day where you’re supposed to find joy despite everything in your life being miserable and hopeless.

In any case, I hope you’re doing better than I am. I hope your holidays, your year, and your life is better than mine. Smile and be happy. Things can only get better, count your blessings, someone else’s situation is always worse, etc. Etc.


Let me continue my depressing rant with what I imagine is an unpopular take: photorealism is not art, at least most people’s take on photorealism is not art. It annoys me how people are too focused on the initial shock at the skill of rendering an image with an almost photographic precision when the image itself is not saying anything that the original photograph already said. It doesn’t matter whether I see the works on galleries or on Instagram. They are not art. Simply, they are an exercises in meticulous reproduction. Re-drawing a photorealistic image of a beautiful woman by hand doesn’t change nor add meaning to the original photograph. It’s merely a change in medium. If anything, it just tells me that the artist spent an inordinate amount of time staring at a picture of a woman doing something a colored printer can easily do. Photorealism is akin to having great penmanship and re-writing great literary works. It is re-writing, not writing.

Steve Martin said that the joy of looking at Edward Hopper paintings, or many other paintings for that matter, is figuring out the meaning of the work. Why are elements of the work placed in a particular way? What are characters or objects in the piece meant to tell the viewer? This is why some works can endure being seen once or twice, like a long game of chess. And once you figure it out, the work is dead. It is very easy to lose interest in it. This is why most photorealistic pieces don’t work for me. The one thing that most viewers try to figure out is, “How did the artist do this?” and “How long did it take?” And the answer is already in the questions. With enough time, practice, and even techniques like tracing or drawing grids, I believe anyone can duplicate photographs. And once the viewer comes to that answer or has recovered from the initial awe of realizing that, “it’s not a photograph,” then it’s just a quick stroll around images that don’t say anything beyond the original.

This is not to say that I don’t enjoy photorealism. I do. I actually like the works of Torlakson, Blackwell, and others, as well as the hyperrealist movement as a whole. But most photorealist works that try to pass off as art, in my opinion, is not really art. They are bland exercises. Photorealism is often craft disguised as art. And even that comment is doing a disservice to many people who do crafts because some “crafts” could very well be works of art. I cannot say the same for the many of the photorealistic works I see. I’m sure the artists themselves are very talented and are demonstrably quite resilient and patient, but they are better served doing other types of work. The real tragedy in all of this cuts two ways. Talented people are spending too much time making art that is shallow and not really art, and people are actually taking the time to look at and admire “art” are not getting anything out of it other than, “wow, the artist is really talented. He didn’t say anything, but he is really talented.”

Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , ,